Talk:Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19

The authors describe ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19
A more accurate description would be "present an argument in favor of a lab leak origin of COVID-19". — Paleo Neonate  – 08:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In the book the authors argue that both lab leak and natural spillover are plausible, although it seems to me that they ultimately come down weakly in favour of the lab leak view. It's only since publication, with the release of some further emails, that Ridley has come down firmly on the lab leak side. e.g. I was duped by the Covid lab leak deniers. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The book makes the case for both possibilities, says Ebben (CBS Boston). –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, it is WP:FALSEBALANCE, in Wikipedia language. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Natural-habitat destruction - how relevant here?
One review (Honigsbaum, in the Guardian) does blame the pandemic on habitat destruction (due to global heating). And it disparages this book's authors for not doing likewise. Other prominent reviews endorse their call for enforceable international biosafety and biosecurity standards. Which idea seems more due here? –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add more reviews, this is still only a stub afterall. But yes, I think it's due, it seems to agree with the general scientific view, where even WP:PARITY would be acceptable, but this is an even better source.  I have seen much harsher reviews too BTW, but some may not be the best sources for Wikipedia.  One also digresses too much into Ridley's history.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For more details, it's been long predicted that the odds of epidemics and pandemics would increase due to human activity (climate change, habitat destruction and living too close to those habitats, wet markets, etc). It's also still the scientific consensus that the most likely origin of SARS-CoV-2 is natural.  That's also why it would be appropriate to describe this book as an argument, one that couldn't be made convincingly via the scientific process.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pending the publication of that "general scientific view" (?) on this book, the challenged 80-word statement can be removed as an undue addition to a 110-word article, per WP:NOTADVOCACY policy. –Dervorguilla (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Broadly agreee. I'll cut it down. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Science writer
Is it reasonable to describe the author of The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (shortlisted for the 1994 Royal Society Prizes for Science Books), and of Genome (shortlisted for the 2000 Samuel Johnson Prize) and of Nature via Nurture (winner of the National Academies Communication Award) and of Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code (winner of the 2006 Davis Prize for History of Science) as a science writer? I am aware that he has written other things on other topics and has held other jobs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * His own bio here on Wikipedia doesn't. Maybe follow RS like The Guardian: "a Conservative hereditary peer best known for his sceptical writings on climate change" ?. Attempts to puff antiscience into "science" risks an excursion into WP:PROFRINGE territory. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm undecided on "science writer" but I don't like "journalist" and would prefer "author". Coverage of Viral that I see tends to emphasize his role as "author" and I'm not seeing much mention of his journalism career. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * His wiki bio refects the complexity of a multifaceted career, but sentence 2 describes him as "best known for his writings on science, the environment, and economics" with sentence 3 adding "He has written several science books". I still prefer "science writer" but "author" is an interesting alternative. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Author' seems like the most reasonable compromise here. I, too, think 'science writer' is preferable, but its not a hill i want to die on. Bonewah (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since both climate change denial and COVID contrarianism are anti-science attitudes native to conservatism, and Ridley adheres to both, the Guardian's description is fair and due. It would be hiding the truth if we kept silent about his other fringe beliefs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE policy tells us: Try to represent the viewpoint that has the greatest "prominence" in reliable sources. (Note: Its prominence among Wikipedia editors is irrelevant and should not be considered.) And this policy doesn't seem to be negotiable.
 * Ours not to reason why,
 * Ours but to DUE (or try).
 * We just need to find out which of Ridley's occupational titles appears to have the greatest prominence among RS, in the context of this article's subject (Viral). Here's a start:
 * "A much-published science writer" —Michael Hiltzik
 * "A best-selling but controversial science writer" —Roni Caryn Rabin
 * "Science writer Matt Ridley" —Times & Sunday Times, Search results for Matt Ridley
 * And so on. -Dervorguilla (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I also prefer science writer. Per Jonathan A Jones, Ridley is best known for The Red Queen and other science books. Per Dervorguilla's sources, science writer is the more prominent viewpoint in sources. Hob Gadling's depiction of his views on climate change and COVID origins as anti-science attitudes native to conservatism is unsupported. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Of course it's reasonable to call him a science writer. Ridley has done many things, but in the context of succinctly identifying the co-author, simple descriptors are better than shoehorning every label or occupation. Per Kirkus Reviews: "bestselling science writer Ridley..." Per The New York Times: "Ridley... is a gifted science writer". Per Reason: "...science writer Matt Ridley, co-author of the new book Viral...". Per Tunku Varadarajan in the Wall Street Journal: "The British science writer Matt Ridley"... Even blistering critiques use "science writer" foremost, as in: The New Republic: "Her co-author is Matt Ridley, a well-known science writer, Conservative hereditary peer, and coal baron..." Ridley's views on climate change are not directly related to his and Chan's views on the origin of COVID-19. If failing to mention his climate views in this article is "hiding the truth", than so too is failing to mention he is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences and Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Possibly useful references
I removed these three references from the end of the Adam O'Neal quote, as they're not about that quote. I've placed them here in case they can be used elsewhere in the article. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Masquerade
I was hoping I could offer a compromise on what others had already reverted you on, but I was wrong. So I have taken the Michael Hiltzik sentence back to using a quote. Please find consensus on the talk page before making anymore contested changes. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Your first edit did include a rather obvious grammar error ("the authors had masqueraded a conspiracy theory..."). So I fixed it.
 * Your second edit also has an obvious grammar error (" that the authors had 'done is place a conspiracy theory...'"). So I'm fixing this one, too:"Michael Hiltzik wrote in the Los Angeles Times that the authors 'place[d] a conspiracy theory between hardcovers to masquerade as sober scientific inquiry.'"Same info, but grammatical. Also clearer and more concise. (We could alternatively word it this way: 'the authors had "place[d] a conspiracy theory..."') -Dervorguilla (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC) 22:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it was a grammar error, but the current wording is fine. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur; it may well have been a typo (which just looked somewhat like a grammar error).
 * Glad we've reached consensus on this material! -Dervorguilla (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a type or an error, and not a problem anymore. Let's just leave it at that. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Synopsis
Book synopses are cited by the book itself, this is longstanding policy. WP:FRIND would not apply in these circumstances since, while the contents may be controversial, the fact that these words themselves are in the book is not controversial. It's a subtle distinction, but important. Digging through the WikiProject Books archives backs this up, namely the quote, anything more detailed, like a full "Contents" or "Synopsis" section should not be referenced to anything other than the book itself. Considering the material, any other source would inherently be less authoritative (reliable) summarizes the policy quite nicely.

Furthermore, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, ...In general, the most reliable sources are:... Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses could qualify here. Also see WP:NFRINGE for more information. I'll hold off on restoring until I see your reply, but I fail to see the justification. My summary may have been a tad long, but that is easy to fix. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 20:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * For fringe books and documentaries thr fringe crap is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please raise at WP:FT/N if you disagree. Bon courage (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage, that's not an answer, unless you're implying that this page isn't suitable for Wikipedia at all and should be AfDed (which I'm not opposed to). I've raised the issue at WP:FT/N but a quick review of the archived cases, namely Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 69 gives little clarity. I would love if you gave a straightforward answer, I want to improve this article since I just finished the book but if there's a policy I'm seriously misunderstanding, I need to know. Just because I don't personally agree with the text, doesn't mean the article can't be better written. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 21:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at why your proposed synopsis does not align well with best practices:


 * Starting with the preface, authors Alina Chan and Matt Ridley begin describing their own independent research into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic -- Is there reasonable consensus that the things these two authors are doing is proper "research"? Or is this, instead, self aggrandizement?
 * The book begins with an account of the Mojiang copper mine, the earliest known cases, and possible zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2. -- "possible zoonotic origins"? The zoonotic origins of COVID-19 is a basic fact. Does the book deny this fact contra scientific evidence? If so, we need to identify this. If no one has noticed this, it probably does not deserve spouting per WP:NFRINGE.

I will stop here for now. Suffice to say the synopsis was far from neutral or in-line with best practices.

Please workshop here.

jps (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Starting with the preface, authors Alina Chan and Matt Ridley begin describing their own interests in the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and how it led them together to write Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19. The book begins with an account of the Mojiang copper mine, the earliest known cases, and the widely accepted zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2. This is framed around discussions of illegal animal trafficking and Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, and the evidence of zoonotic spillover from bats and pangolins. The authors also cover the history of the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak and compare it to the Covid-19 pandemic.
 * Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19 then shifts to discussing the evidence regarding a lab-leak origin, a claim largely dismissed by scientists. This section is critical of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and WHO for their alleged mishandling of the pandemic. This includes claims of inadequate Biosafety level protections, alleged cover-ups of gain of function research, and a review of China's attempts to censor information regarding the pandemic. Furthermore, the authors propose that SARS-CoV-2's Furin cleavage is possible evidence for gene manipulation, although they concede that this may be a natural mutation. The authors also reject the now debunked Chinese claim that Covid-19 began in frozen food.
 * The book ends with a courtroom-style breakdown of both the lab leak origin hypothesis, and the widely accepted zoonotic origin. Their ultimate conclusion is that of uncertainty, but argues that both the accepted zoonotic origin and their lab leak hypothesis should both be considered further. They continue to criticize China's handling of the pandemic, believing that increased data transparency by the Chinese government is the only way to conclusively know the true origins. Chan and Ridley reject the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 as a bioweapon, but conclude the epilogue by alleging that political motivations are fueling reluctance to consider the lab-leak hypothesis.
 * I've soften the language and qualified many of their claims. Alina Chan is very much a quack, but still an expert in the field of molecular biology, and very outspoken on this topic. Perhaps 'previous writings on the origin of covid 19' might be most accurate, but I've just cut out the term 'research' since it's poorly defined in the book. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 01:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is an improvement, but it goes a bit too much in the weeds, I think, to be really helpful to the reader. Now, granted, I have not read the book, but if I were to digest what you have written and reframe it, I would do something like this:
 * The book is ostensibly an exploration of the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. Discussing related topics such as an outbreak of a coronavirus infection in the Mojiang copper mine, and the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak, the authors focus attention first on matters related to illegal animal trafficking and the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The book describes some of the earliest known cases relating the evidence that COVID-19 is a zoonotic spillover from bats and pangolins.
 * The book spends considerable time on arguments that COVID-19 had a lab-leak origin, a claim largely dismissed by scientists. The authors are critical of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and WHO and allege that these groups mishandled of the pandemic. They complain about biosafety level protections at the Wuhan lab, allege that there was a cover-up of gain of function research, and criticize attempts by the government of China to censor information regarding the pandemic. One claim the authors spend considerable time on is their contention that SARS-CoV-2's Furin cleavage site shows evidence of gene manipulation, although they concede that a natural mutation is possible which is the consensus explanation. The authors also reject the debunked Chinese claim that Covid-19 began in frozen food.
 * The book ends with a courtroom-style breakdown pitting lab-leak origin against a zoonotic spillover event. Contrary to the scientific community, they ultimately come to a conclusion of uncertainty as to which explanation is correct and contend that both ideas should be further considered. They argue that increased data transparency by the Chinese government is required to determine the pandemic's origins. Chan and Ridley reject the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 as a bioweapon, but argue in the epilogue, contrary to the scientific consensus, that political rather than scientific motivations are fueling reluctance to consider the lab-leak hypothesis.
 * The last paragraph and especially the last sentence seem problematic to me. Also, do we have sources which address the obvious contentious points?
 * jps (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The 30 page epilogue is where the book goes off the rails into ostensible conspiracy theory flinging. If I could boil it down to a single sentence: "The mainstream is scared of the truth and we will be vindicated." I guess the epilogue isn't particularly important to the prose; we could honestly cut it with without losing anything of value or just be more succinct in saying:
 * "... but the authors lament the scientific condemnation of their lab-leak hypothesis."
 * The guardian can be used to cite the furin cleavage site and gain of function claims. It also covers the author's claims that WIV worked with other coronaviruses prior to the pandemic, a line that I actually cut out previously. Replacing "about biosafety level protections" with "about prior research with coronaviruses" will bring it more in line with the source and make it much more readable since biosafety levels aren't something the layperson would know. It also covers some of the first paragraph's information as well. I'm less concerned by the frozen food, bioweapon, and censorship/transparency claims since these aren't fringe beliefs. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 19:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The briefer and more to-the-point we can get with the synopsis the better. It's a good idea to attribute the lab leak proposal to them, though, obviously, it's not just their idea. Main point is that we don't want to belabor anything that is fringe other than to say that they are advocating fringe. I like your proposal to use The Guardian review as a source. Would also love to get 's opinion on how to best frame this. jps (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Guardian review is not terrible, but not great either. In general this book makes fringe claims that nobody has bothered to rebut in a consolidated manner. This US version of the 'lab leak' hypothesis as set out by these people is as debunked as the 'frozen food' hypothesis. Bon courage (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We definitely should completely ignore the claims that nobody has bothered to rebut. I would argue that The Guardian piece would allow us to say that the version of the lab leak these two are touting is contrary to present scientific analysis. We can frame their proposal as such, as far as I'm concerned. jps (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose a cut down version of the proposed stuff above (less final para) would be mostly harmless. Bon courage (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Guardian review is not terrible, but not great either. In general this book makes fringe claims that nobody has bothered to rebut in a consolidated manner. This US version of the 'lab leak' hypothesis as set out by these people is as debunked as the 'frozen food' hypothesis. Bon courage (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We definitely should completely ignore the claims that nobody has bothered to rebut. I would argue that The Guardian piece would allow us to say that the version of the lab leak these two are touting is contrary to present scientific analysis. We can frame their proposal as such, as far as I'm concerned. jps (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose a cut down version of the proposed stuff above (less final para) would be mostly harmless. Bon courage (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The book is ostensibly an exploration of the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. Discussing related topics such as an outbreak of a coronavirus infection in the Mojiang copper mine, and the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak, the authors focus attention first on matters related to illegal animal trafficking and the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The book describes some of the earliest known cases relating the evidence that COVID-19 is a zoonotic spillover from bats and pangolins.
 * The book spends considerable time on arguments that COVID-19 was accidentally released from a lab, a claim largely dismissed by scientists. The authors are critical of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and WHO and allege that these groups mishandled of the pandemic. They complain about prior research with coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab, allege that there was a cover-up of gain of function research, and criticize attempts by the government of China to censor information regarding the pandemic. The book ends with a courtroom-style breakdown pitting lab-leak origin against a zoonotic spillover event. Contrary to the scientific community, they ultimately come to a conclusion of uncertainty as to which explanation is correct and contend that both ideas should be further considered. They argue that increased data transparency by the Chinese government is required to determine the pandemic's origins and call for the cessation of all gain of function research.


 * I've just outright cut the last sentence and made a few other changes in light of Bon courage's recommendations. If/when this is implemented into the article itself, it should also be made abundantly clear in the lead that the book has been heavily criticized for its lack of factual evidence. I cut the Furin sentence because it is covered under the gain of function claim and only adds legitimacy to their fringe beliefs. I added a small statement to the last sentence, which is cited here. At the risk of completely neutering the original book, I think that this serves as a much safer conclusion since it doesn't legitimize their points. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 22:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

We're getting there. I question this phrase: call for the cessation of all gain of function research. What do they mean by that? "Gain of function research" is more-or-less an umbrella term and in the context of many analyses corresponds to basically all virology research. Our own article on the subject doesn't do a decent job of explaining that, but it's definitely present in the sources. jps (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The aforementioned source is rather vague on this topic, stating One can agree, though, with the book’s passionate argument for closer regulation of — or even a moratorium on — what is known as “gain-of-function research”, in which viruses are manipulated in the lab to become more dangerous. The book itself is critical of humanized mice trials and the risk they pose to causing pandemics when they escape the lab. Specifically, the book focuses on induction of the Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 on viral capsids, gene editing, and broadly defined research that can cause increases in virulence. This is then mired in the implication that other SARS pandemics might have been the result of lab leaks and that China was working on a broad-spectrum coronavirus vaccine that might've been the source of this leak.
 * "call for the regulation of research into modifing viral genomes". Might be slightly better, albeit still rather vague. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 23:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an instance where the authors are apparently so mixed-up that it's hard to summarize what they are saying in a fashion that actually helps the reader. Any work with viruses in the lab has the potential to make them more dangerous. If they are obsessing over particular ones and thereby engaging in outright conspiracy theories, even by implications, that maybe all dangerous coronaviruses are being engineered by the Chinese government... well... at this point I think WP:FRIND needs to be invoked. Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform for pushing this sort of thing excepting a situation where it's been noticed. Has this craziness been noticed? jps (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm fine with a WP:FRIND deletion. While I personally think there could be a genuinely well written article on the book, I'm skeptical since it probably does not meet WP:NFRINGE. The more I look into the coverage, the less convinced I become that this even meets WP:NOTE. Having read the book, trying to parse out the genuinely good segments (such as their discussion on epidemiology and coverage of the Sverdlovsk anthrax leak) is difficult since it's all used to push largely conspiratorial claims. While the book was written in 2021, meaning that much of their conjecture is slightly more acceptable due to members of the US government tacitly promoting ideas like a lab leak, the 2022 revision that doubles down on their lab-leak claims doesn't inspire confidence. Looking into Ridley and Chan's histories, I kinda feel uncomfortable having bought the book to begin with (But I guess someone had to be the sacrificial lamb).  🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 04:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I dont see how WP:FRIND could been seen to support deletion. Nor do i see how WP:NFRINGE applies.  Pretty much everyone agrees at this point that a lab leak is not out of the question, not the least of which are Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins. I would say that the Lab leak in general and books such as this fall into the WP:FRINGE/ALT category. Bonewah (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have a review by Fauci and/or Collins of this book? If not, what are you basing this judgement on? jps (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Im basing that on the fact that the Lab leak theory is not really fringe at this point, as acknowledged by both Collins and Fauci, at a minimum. Therefore, WP:FRIND does not apply. Again, in my opinion, WP:FRINGE/ALT should be the guiding policy. Bonewah (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apart from saying it's "possible" (like Bigfoot perhaps), the lab leak theory is dead. Scientists have moved on and most scholars are now studying its lore as a racism-inspired social spasm. We cover this quite well in the LL article. If this book had had simply one page saying "a lab leak is not out of the question" it would have been more to the point and apt! Unfortunately, you need the sensational woo for sales. Grift, innit. The upshot is this is well within the WP:FRINGE wheelhouse so WP:FRIND is a consideration. Bon courage (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is not relevant since you aren't presenting any sources which discuss this book and the ideas presented in this book in particular. This book is an exploration of a particular kind of "Lab Leak Theory" that the authors imply is worthy of consideration, and even the laudatory reviews from the rightwing press admit that "fringe" is the standard scientific view of their jeremiad. jps (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (EC)I disagree with that assertion. When two of the people directly involved in say its not a conspiracy theory, then its not a conspiracy theory. This is plainly an alternate theoretical formulation and should be treated as such. Bonewah (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "it"? the plain assertion "a lab leak is not out of the question" is not a conspiracy theory, almost by definition. But all the LL stans go rather beyond that and add a shit-tonne of their own conspiracism and fabulism, because there is zero evidence for LL; again this is all covered in the LL article. Bon courage (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (ec again)@jps Im just saying that wp:FRIND does not apply as this is not a fringe theory. I dont need sources discussing this particular book for that, any more that i would need a review of a specific book about evolution to claim that evolution is not a fringe theory. Bonewah (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The content of this particular book is in large part WP:FRINGE. Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but in any event, the subject of the book is not WP:FRINGE and therefore, wp:FRIND does not apply. The thing im responding to is the notion that this article should be deleted due to some reading wp:FRIND. It shouldnt.  We should find some neutral synopsis of it and move on.  Bonewah (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Logic fail. That's like saying "Cancer" is not fringe so a book about curing cancer with bleach cannot be fringe. I don't think the article should be deleted, but its nonsenses should be called out with RS. Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When two of the people directly involved in say its not a conspiracy theory, then its not a conspiracy theory. Lol. What "two people directly involved" have said that this book is not about a conspiracy theory? The authors? I don't think you are referring to Fauci and Collins because as far as I can tell they've never commented on this book. Please cite sources that refer to this book. jps (talk)
 * any more that i would need a review of a specific book about evolution to claim that evolution is not a fringe theory. Okay. Let's take your weird paper tiger because, it seems, you have no actual reliable sources about this book and evaluate it carefully. Let's imagine someone wrote a book on "evolution" and there was a review in The Guardian which said it was a conspiracy theory bound by a cover. Are we to just roll over and play stupid that it couldn't possibly be "fringe" because the subject is "evolution"? I hope you can see how silly your argument appears. It is possible to promote fringe theories in any number of contexts. This particular book happens to be one of them, and it's not even close to being controversial that fringe advocacy is, at least in part, what the authors are doing. Even the supportive sources we have admit that the book engages with ostensible "fringe theories" (per the Wikipedia definition). jps (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (EC)You would not find credible relevant sources that even entertain the theory that you can cure cancer with bleach so a book about that would be fringe. There are plenty of credible sources that say that a lab leak is possible, therefore it is not fringe.  It is an alternative theoretical formulation.  Bonewah (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Logic fail again. Just because something is theoretically possible does not mean every superadded whack story dreamt up by cranks is immune from being a conspiracy theory. Bon courage (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You've entered into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT WP:PROFRINGE soapboxing at this point. Let it go. jps (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @JPS, you guys rapid firing your responses and then shouting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:PROFRINGE is uncivil. Its not too hard to find RS about this book that are not as hostile as the ones you prefer. here here and here which i havent fully read as you guys want to jump to the part where im made to shut up in the face of the 'consensus' of what, two editors? In any event, the core thing im pushing back against is the notion that this article should be deleted based on some reading of fringe.  I disagree with that.  This article needs a good synopsis written by someone who adheres to NPOV. Bonewah (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Dude, you seem to continue to miss the point that the reviews you are citing support the identification of many of the contentions in this book as WP:FRINGE! I don't know where you got this idea that there was some sort of game that is played where certain ideas are stamped "fringe" and therefore, I dunno, subject to greater scrutiny while other subjects are given a kiss and a blessing with a *can't possibly be fringe* sort of treatment, but that's just not how things have ever been done at this website. You have been around long enough to know that. To argue in the face of the evidence you yourself provide that WP:FRINGE is not relevant to this book is a kind of WP:ADVOCACY that strikes me as at the very least blinkered and at worst WP:PROFRINGE. Whether the article gets deleted or not is not a question we will resolve on this talkpage, so you can drop that line of concern trolling. As to whether certain claims made in the book will make it into articlespace, that is quite another matter. Are we done here? jps (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC) On Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory, there are summaries of prior RfCs regarding the veracity of lab leak, there's a reason our no lab leak essay had to be written. This discussion began trying to figure out how to handle a WP:FRINGE book, and if could it be effectively put into a synopsis. While I think it could still be written effectively, trying to write the synopsis is honestly becoming more of a headache than it's worth since it's hard to distill meaning without ending back at fringe ideas. The book goesn't go full Ivermectin and bleach cure COVID but it is a conspiracy theory tall-tale guised by appeals to "scientific inquiry". Two of these sources are blogs. I can maybe see a WP:BLOG justification for them, Scott Aaronson's blog would have to be heavily qualified. The Inquisitive Biologist is a harder sell since this is a fringe topic. The NYT article (better link) was released prior to the book coming out, which would serve more for background content. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 17:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wish we had more sources than we do, but it seems the more I research this, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that this book just lacks real staying power. And it's actually really hard to contextualize it. Like, for example, the comments on Aaronson's blog end two years ago... well before the blockbuster papers published in Science that put to bed many/most of the niggling concerns that the WP:MAINSTREAM might have been harboring in the back of heads or in hushed tones. At this point, the book reads like a call to arms for a battle which was, if not lost, then completely shifted to a new theater. What remains are a lot of points that are fairly well explained not in reference to the book, but in the normal discourse of the scientific community: through peer-reviewed published work (imagine that!). The long and the short of this is that I don't really know how to handle this. I think it may work best as a very short article outlining its place in the history of online badminton around "let me have my Lab Leak" that was happening through 2021 to early 2022. Meanwhile, sources are scant. jps (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @JPS (EC) Some of the reviews cited are skeptical or outright deny some of the claims in this book. This fact does not mean that the book is fringe or should be treated as such on Wikipedia. Just because something is likely wrong, or contentious or questionable does not make it fringe. That is exactly why fringe has a subsection on Alternative theoretical formulations, to differentiate those things which are not possible from those that are not widely accepted, jibberish from probably bullshit. You are right, i have been here a long time, long enough to see WP:FRINGE go from "dont present bullshit as truth" to "label anything contentious as fringe and then use that as an excuse to ignore every other rule in Wikipedia". Again, as stated before, this article should not be deleted on the basis of WP:FRIND or WP:NFRINGE as it is not really fringe. Wrong?  Sure, maybe, i dont really know.  Not widely supported?  I guess. But thats not the same thing as fringe. Bonewah (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to be upset because Wikipedia has moved in a direction to excise contentious points when they aren't well-documented by those who are independent of the claim. Y'know, because the place to make your case that the WP:MAINSTREAM is wrong is WP:NOT Wikipedia. I promise you, stamping your foot, sticking out your lower lip, and sneering, "It's not FRINGE" is not going to help win your cause. "Not widely supported" = WP:FRINGE. Sorry. jps (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @JPS, Etriusus, Id say the presence of multiple reliable sources discussing the book (even negatively) prove its notable. As to how to handle this book, write, or select from above a neutral synopsis of the book being careful to note when the author's claims are just claims and not widely supported. Bonewah (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we're on the same page vis-a-vis the synopsis. The issue we were having prior to this latest aside was that some of the authors' claims in this book are so unique that they may not have been noticed by anyone. In such cases, it's probably better to leave that stuff out. The "gain of function" critiques and calls-to-action in particular are really reminiscent of hype and hysteria of the time which, with even the short hindsight we have now, looks to be confused at best. But lacking sources which actually deal with this, we're left trying to decide whether to describe an idea that is muddled on its own terms or excise it from articlespace. jps (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Id have to go back and look, but on its face "gain of function" critiques arent particularly controversial or unique to them. Lets not forget that the Obama administration enacted a moratorium on funding that type of research, so concerns there both predate this book and are more widely expressed than by just the authors. As for other unique claims, id have to know what claims you are talking about to weigh in.  At least the notion that Rat13g is the precursor to covid-19 i think is pretty much gone, but i dont know if the updated book even still makes that claim.  As i remember, that theory was a pretty big part of the earlier book so, right or wrong, it should make it into a synopsis. Bonewah (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are using the term "gain of function" critique as if it is completely clear what is meant by that when, in fact, it is not. "That type of research" is not at all well-defined given the definitional problems with identifying what exactly is meant by "gain of function". The authors of this book, for example, seem to be using it as a catch-all. Or maybe not. Again, the term itself is not well-attested to and using this term uncritically is the hallmark of problematic discourse as of late. I would argue that our obligation is to only include things in the synopsis when it was reliably reported to have been an important part of their book. I don't see much discussion of what is a "big part" and what is not a big part of their book in many sources, to be sure. jps (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The book is ostensibly an exploration of the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. Discussing related topics such as an outbreak of a coronavirus infection in the Mojiang copper mine, and the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak, the authors focus attention first on matters related to illegal animal trafficking and the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The book describes some of the earliest known cases relating the evidence that COVID-19 is a zoonotic spillover from bats and pangolins. The book spends considerable time on arguments that COVID-19 was accidentally released from a lab, a claim largely dismissed by scientists. The authors are critical of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and WHO, alleging that these groups mishandled or censored information regarding the pandemic. The book ends with a courtroom-style breakdown pitting lab-leak origin against a zoonotic spillover event. Contrary to the scientific community, they ultimately come to a conclusion of uncertainty as to which explanation is correct and contend that both ideas should be further considered.
 * What if we implement an even more basic, one paragraph summary, citing this to the book itself and the aforementioned Guardian article. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 18:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats a pretty decent synopsis, as far as i can remember the book. Id drop the line "a claim largely dismissed by scientists." as im not sure thats really true, and its unnecessary as we already note these are arguments not facts. Likewise the line "Contrary to the scientific community, " im not sure that is really the consensus view of Wikipedia, and its not necessary. RFC 4 here says the consensus of Wikipedia is "The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin" which is not the same thing. Bonewah (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The book says that the claim was largely dismissed by scientists. That's the raison d'etre for its writing. Likewise for the line about uncertainty. The authors are explicitly arguing that the scientific community should not have certainty when they do. jps (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As its written, both those things are coming across in Wikipedia's voice. In my opinion, anyway. If its really important to communicate that they are arguing against some scientific certainty, they we should explicitly state that as their view, not Wikipedia's. Bonewah (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: your argument is that the authors of this book, one that argues in favor of increased study of the Lab Leak Theory, are themselves not reliable when it comes to describing the marginalization of the Lab Leak Theories they are describing? You want us to say that it is only their opinion that the Lab Leak Theory claim was largely dismissed by scientists? You want us to say that it is only in their opinion that the scientific community does not accept the uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 origins? This is your honest take? jps (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree. The book makes it abundantly clear that their claim is largely dismissed by scientific community (Or at least they acknowledge their take is very controversial). They argue a whole host of questionable reasons including: political capitulation, government lobbying, and scientific hegemony for why lab leak isn't considered. They double down on this in the 2022 revision where they say that they'll be vindicated given time. The whole point of the ending is that there shouldn't be any conclusive view of covid's origins and lab leak needs to be more thoroughly considered, which is a fringe belief. Maybe one day we'll find conclusive evidence that China released it, or maybe bigfoot made it in his garage, but Wikipedia functions on WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TRUTH. We can revisit the synopsis's qualifications if something more substantial occurs to vindicate lab leak. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 20:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (EC)"You want us to say that it is only their opinion that the Lab Leak Theory claim was largely dismissed by scientists?" Yes.  "You want us to say that it is only in their opinion that the scientific community does not accept the uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 origins?" Yes.  As i understand things, the consensus opinion of Wikipedia is that "The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin." (RFC #4). 'likely of zoonotic origin' is not the same as 'largely dismissed by scientists' nor is it the same as claiming 'that the scientific community does not accept the uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 origins'.  In general, we should avoid mass attribution, claiming to know the views of all scientists when we dont, see MOS:AWW.  If it is their opinion that the science community in general dismisses this stuff, then no need for us to go further and validate that belief. Bonewah (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Etriusus "The book makes it abundantly clear that their claim is largely dismissed by scientific community (Or at least they acknowledge their take is very controversial)." Sure, and we should state that they believe this is so. Ridey and Chan are not authoritative as to what all of science thinks, thats just their opinion.  Yes, Wikipedia functions on WP:CONSENSUS, and, as stated, i dont believe the current consensus is that the scientific community does not accept the uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 origins or that those claims are dismissed. Bonewah (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This is wild! I don't think anyone else would agree with this bizarre take. You are hiding behind your own weird and twisted reinterpretation of a Request for Comment on an entirely different page as though that is more important than basic facts. It is absolutely wild that you will not admit that the Lab Leak stuff is not "largely dismissed by scientists" and it is even more wild that you seem to be arguing without so much as slight introspection that "likely of zoonotic origin" is somehow in conflict with that statement (or, even more ridiculously, that it is the only possible thing that can be said in Wikipedia's voice). The phrasing does not even by implication claim to know the views of all scientists. I think we're done here. What you write looks little better than trolling, and it is taking all I can muster to continue to engage in good faith. jps (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You can declare that 'we' are done here, but im not obliged to agree with you. TO the best of my knowledge, the RFCs mentioned apply to the origins of COVID-19 in general, not just on that page. You cant simply ignore it then declare amazement when someone expects you to adhere to it. This is not an article about the origins of covid, its an article about a book. The authors make claims, we report those claims. There is no consensus in Wikipedia to declare what all of science believes about it, save what the community has expressly stated. Contrast, for example, RFC #6, if the authors were claiming that covid 19 was a manufactured bioweapon, we would need to describe that as a conspiracy as that is what the consensus of Wikipedia currently states. The question of how the scientific consensus of the origins of covid was posed and the community elected to only say that it is 'most likely'. I disagree that 'The phrasing does not even by implication claim to know the views of all scientists' as you state. The phrase "Contrary to the scientific community" immediately preceding the author's conclusions can only be read as an authoritative statement in Wikipedia's voice. Bonewah (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus in Wikipedia to declare what all of science believes about it, save what the community has expressly stated. That's not how it works. Reliable sources are what declares what can or cannot be WP:ASSERTed. All of the sources for this article agree that these ideas are marginalized. Find a source which disagrees with those contentions and we'll consider it. jps (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what an RFC is for, to determine what we should or should not say in an article. In my opinion, the proposed text runs counter to those RFCs in the way i have previously stated. Bonewah (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * RfCs are ways to determine the consensus of respondents for specific questions relating to specific articles or matters on Wikipedia. There has been no RfC for this article. We are under no obligation to entertain your bizarre interpretation of some other RfC elsewhere as though it were sacred scripture to be parsed. If you don't like it, take me to some dramahboard or something. jps (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Etriusus you proposed the text in question, is this really so radically different that its totally unacceptable?:

The book is ostensibly an exploration of the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. Discussing related topics such as an outbreak of a coronavirus infection in the Mojiang copper mine, and the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak, the authors focus attention first on matters related to illegal animal trafficking and the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The book describes some of the earliest known cases relating the evidence that COVID-19 is a zoonotic spillover from bats and pangolins. The book spends considerable time on arguments that COVID-19 was accidentally released from a lab, a claim they believe to be largely dismissed by scientists. The authors are critical of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and WHO, alleging that these groups mishandled or censored information regarding the pandemic. The book ends with a courtroom-style breakdown pitting lab-leak origin against a zoonotic spillover event. They ultimately come to a conclusion of uncertainty as to which explanation is correct and contend that both ideas should be further considered. Bonewah (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"a claim they believe to be largely dismissed by scientists" has got to be one of the strangest clauses I've ever read. Has anyone else anywhere in Wikipedia been described as having an opinion about what positions are largely dismissed by scientists in such an argumentative context? It is laughable parody. jps (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * True, a better way to phrase this would be "The book spends considerable time on arguments that COVID-19 was accidentally released from a lab" A concise summary statement of their position. Sadly, contentious topics often lead to bad prose in Wikipedia. Bonewah (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How can we say that they are arguments in Wikipedia's voice? How can we say it was "considerable time"? jps (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For a page count, ~200 pages in a 334 page book are dedicated to building the lab leak theory. Perhaps 'a majority of the text", or something in that vein would work better. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 23:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that. But it also requires a certain degree of interpretation which seems to be something Bonewah doesn't want us to engage in seeing as how even though literally every source we have indicates that the Lab Leak Theory is marginalized in the scientific community, we shouldn't assert it. If that's not a fact, what is? Sorry to be argumentative here, but I think this kind of editorial blackballing is really indicative of some of the worst stuff on Wikipedia (and, no, it's not your fault Etriusus). jps (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The book is ostensibly an exploration of the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. Discussing related topics such as an outbreak of a coronavirus infection in the Mojiang copper mine, and the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak, the authors focus attention first on matters related to illegal animal trafficking and the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The book describes some of the earliest known cases relating the evidence that COVID-19 is a zoonotic spillover from bats and pangolins. The book spends the majority of its text on arguments that COVID-19 was accidentally released from a lab, a claim largely dismissed by scientists. The authors are critical of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and WHO, alleging that these groups mishandled or censored information regarding the pandemic. The book ends with a courtroom-style breakdown pitting lab-leak origin against a zoonotic spillover event. Acknowledging their stance is contrary to the scientific consensus, they ultimately come to a conclusion of uncertainty as to which explanation is correct and contend that both ideas should be further considered.
 * It's fine. I can sorta understand where Bonewah's coming from, especially considering my first rendition of the synopsis. I really appreciate all the effort you've put into help refining this. Is this a synopsis you think we can go with? I've modified the last sentence slightly. Pinging as well for their input. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 00:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Im still not in love with some of the editorialization, but in the spirit of collaborative editing, im willing to live with this version. Thank you for hearing and addressing my concerns. Bonewah (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)