Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 313: Line 313:
:::We do not have to. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
:::We do not have to. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Sounds like the OP is making a [[WP:BIGMISTAKE]]. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 14:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Sounds like the OP is making a [[WP:BIGMISTAKE]]. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 14:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Despite the (thin) sourcing, this isn't due in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarise the main article and I don't see this elucidated anywhere there. The relevant policy isn't just WP:LEAD but also WP:UNDUE. [[Special:Contributions/82.154.97.56|82.154.97.56]] ([[User talk:82.154.97.56|talk]]) 00:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


== What's the source for the claim - "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis" ==
== What's the source for the claim - "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis" ==

Revision as of 00:46, 23 May 2023




Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
  8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

References

RfC: How should we describe DRASTIC?

How should the article introduce DRASTIC?

  • A: a collection of internet activists vociferously supporting the lab leak idea, with the below refs to The New Yorker, The Hindu, and Nature (status quo. I will start a list of refs below shortly.)
  • B: a collection of internet researchers searching documents for information about COVID-19, with the below refs to The New Yorker, Nature, Vanity Fair, and the Washington Post.
  • C: Something else. Please specify.

Adoring nanny (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C.2: "a collection of internet activists advocating for the lab leak theory" c/o Shibbolethink
C.3: "a loose knit online group researching and advocating for the lab leak idea" c/o Tristario
Extremely pertinent details for this RFC opening statement:
  1. List of sources below detailing how our best available sources describe the group
  2. Prior RFCs at Talk:DRASTIC from July 2021 and October 2021 were withdrawn and closed in favor of "internet activists", respectively.
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Between the two, B is more encyclopedic in tone. There are several claims to unpack about DRASTIC
  1. They are an online group
  2. They include scientists and amateurs
  3. They search for covid origins
  4. They investigate leaked documents
  5. They favor lab leak theories
  6. They are sometimes rude or zealous
It will take 2-3 sentences to cover all the facets. Sennalen (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C. "a collection of internet activists". Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Options A or C.2: "a collection of Internet activists advocating for the lab leak theory" with a side of bad RFC. A is supported by more sources and the highest quality sources (The New Yorker is at least on par with WaPo and probably better quality given the depth of reporting, neutrality, and balance of perspectives in the article.) Other than being from a certain pro-DRASTIC perspective, I cannot think of a reason why WaPo would be considered higher quality. My alternative suggestion can maybe allay some concerns about balancing out "aggressive" from the sources, but still including the number of sources and prior RFC on Talk:DRASTIC which indicate "activist" is the best descriptor. This is a bad RFC because it gave no chance for RFCBEFORE, or to have any other input besides OP in the options. This splits the discussion and inappropriately sidelines alternative choices, making it more difficult for options besides their own to achieve consensus. The RFC top post is also non-neutral, in that it leaves out pertinent information (e.g. the RFC at Talk:DRASTIC, which is extremely pertinent. OP should consider withdrawing and reopening after a period where others can help formulate options. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying prior RFC participants and noticeboards, wikiprojects.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying: User:217.35.76.147, Graham Beards, JoelleJay, Pyrite Pro, Francesco espo, Hemiauchenia, Paine Ellsworth, PaleoNeonate, Dervorguilla, Gimiv, LondonIP, Bwmdjeff, JPxG, Bakkster Man, Geogene, JohnFromPinckney, Animalparty, Morbidthoughts, Zoozaz1, Daveosaurus, Hob Gadling, PraiseVivec, Idealigic, Terjen, Sea Ane, Isaidnoway, XOR'easter, Forich, Modify, J mareeswaran, My very best wishes, BristolTreeHouse, Orangemike, Novem Linguae, JonRichfield, HalfdanRagnarsson, Thriley, Ali Ahwazi, Alaexis, ModernDayTrilobite— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Fringe theories noticeboard, NPOV noticeboard, and WikiProject COVID-19 have been notified of this discussion.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bad RfC, first of all, for the reasons that Shibbolethink explained. I also echo the concerns that the phrasing "Internet researchers" just doesn't make sense. A is acceptable; C.2 is more drab but also generally fine. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A or C.2. Given the number RSes listed below that have caveat words (such as amateur sleuths in the WaPo) that apply to at least some members, I think B by itself lacks needed meaning from the sources. I am not a huge fan of "vociferously" but I think including that nuance is good so for now A then C.2. Skynxnex (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A or C.2 for NPOV. If we're going to mention this group we need some context to say who they and need to avoid falsely implying they're a "research body" on a par with the respectable and relevant experts in the field. NPOV isn't negotiable. Bon courage (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C.1 or C.2 as second preference oppose anything else. If anyone wants to overturn the RFC at the DRASTIC article they should start at the talk page of that article, not by trying to fudge the issue here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • C.2>A, per the discussion above. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am stunned. Did you guys discuss this during last two years? I think C by Slatersteven should be good. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it's a bad RfC. Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • C.2 is most succinct, I think. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the collection of sources below - maybe it isn't a representative sample - it appears that none of them specifically use the term "activist". "Activist" has different connotations to the various other terms which are used by the sources listed below, such as "sleuth", "loose-knit group", "amature investigative team", "advocates" etc. So I don't see how the use of the term "activists" would follow WP:NPOV here - if a word like that were to be used "advocates" at least seems like it would be closer to what the general balance of sources seem to say. Is my perception of this wrong? --Tristario (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We should be summarizing in our our words rather than copying words from sources, so the question is: is this a fair summary. I think considering that RS call the group such things 'aggressive', 'advocates' and 'guerrilla lab-leak snoops'[7] then yes, it is a fair summary. Bon courage (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Activist" is a fairly specific term. If not even one source refers to them that way then I'm pretty unconvinced this complies with WP:NPOV. People and groups can be aggressive and advocates - and many are both of those things - without being activists. And also from the sources below there appears to be only one (The new yorker) that uses either "aggressive" or "advocates". Tristario (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's up to you to !vote as you wish then, but we should reflect the things found in RS rather than synthesize a position, and avoid reading into sources things from what they don't say. Bon courage (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it bears mentioning that "investigating" and "sleuthing" aren't the only things that the sources say this group does. The sources also describe aggressive advocacy of the pro-lab leak position, harassment of scientists and journalists who are critical of the lab leak idea, and protesting/letter-writing to attempt to move the position of government and non-governmental agencies. To me, putting all these things together, it sounds an awful lot like WP:SKYBLUE activism, and that is also what a consensus of participants in the RfC over at Talk:DRASTIC thought. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that a group or a person can do all of those things, as many do, without being an "activist". Maybe reliable sources should be labelling them activists, but given that they aren't, I don't think we should be choosing that label either. I don't think "researchers" would be an accurate representation of the sources either Tristario (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • C.2, or, failing that, A. C.2 is a more neutral summary of what the sources that go into depth on the topic say. The sources being used to advance alternative formulations are largely passing mentions, so it's inappropriate to rely so heavily on them when in-depth sources are more clear on these aspects. --Aquillion (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • C2, as the most descriptive, B is laughably neutered. ValarianB (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. The focus of the group is quite clearly research (as described in all the RSs and in the name of the group itself).
An activist is a campaigner. It's obvious from reading the sources that campaigning is not the main focus of the group. With any of the other options, the reader could come away with the impression that the group is a campaign group like, for example, Extinction Rebellion or Black Lives Matter, which is obviously wronng. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC) — PieLover3141592654 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Option A. One of its main members is Billy Bostickson, who self-describes as a member of "Rage University", an organization that claims to have a mission "to advance the tactics, tools and techniques of radical activists, empowering them to use information, direct action, media and communication to help communities and individuals to achieve social, environmental and political change, as well as to protect them from State Repression and Violence". Other members seem to have different motivations, but I would go with Bostickson as one the leaders, influencing the tone of the discussion to go in activist ways. Forich (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't seem to work very well on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A or C.2, based on the sources provided below. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Internet Activists is succinct. Alternatively a Self-styled Network of Independent Researchers Investigating The Origins of COVID-19 sits fine with me. J mareeswaran (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • C.2 is by far the best given our sources, since it highlights their status as non-neutral non-experts. C.1 fails to state they're non-neutral. The others are nonstarters: B is pro-fringe by framing them as disinterested actors and implying they have expertise as "researchers". Option A is a dramaticised exaggeration of one source, turning among the most aggressive up to eleven into "vociferous", which is excessive creative license. DFlhb (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • C Per my concerns above, none of the sources call them "activists". They're described with a variety of different terms and descriptions that have different meanings to "activists", as well as different connotations. So using "activists" wouldn't comply with WP:NPOV and I also don't think it would even pass WP:V. In terms of which description should be used, something along the lines of a loose knit online group researching and advocating for the lab leak idea would comply with WP:NPOV better. To me, frankly, using "activists" seems like a very clear cut WP:NPOV violation - none of the sources say that, and it doesn't even represent the spirit of how sources generally describe the group. --Tristario (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two different options C. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think @Tristario's suggestion would be C.3: a loose knit online group researching and advocating for the lab leak idea. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, yes. Or something along those lines Tristario (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I like C.3. I think it needs to have research in the description because that is primarily what the group seems to do. And this option makes clear that they are not academic researchers. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pseudoscientists seem to do science, but do not actually do it. We do not write that they do it. So why would we write that Drastic does something it actually only seems to do? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "researching" isn't the best phrase, but if you look at what the sources say (which is what we should be doing) they primarily describe the group as engaging in "investigating" "sleuthing" "research" "data analysis" "detectives" "open-source intelligence" "exposing mysteries". We need to accurately describe what exactly this group is, and we need to do it in a way that complies with WP:NPOV. Tristario (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there's doing research and there's "doing research".[8] We're more in the latter situation here. Bon courage (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The word 'researching' just means 'investigating systematically'. It doesn't imply expertise.
    For example, a 10 year could research the Romans for a history project.
    Something along the lines of "investigating", "sleuthing" or "open source intelligence" would also work IMO. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The word 'researching' just means 'investigating systematically'. It doesn't imply expertise
    "systematically" is precisely the word in that definition which implies expertise. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So a 10 year old doing his history homework is an expert on the Romans? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • C.2. As several others have stated above, this is a bad RfC. Nothing substantial has changed since the last one. That said, C.2 is the most succinct, encyclopedic in tone, and consonant with the sources. I'm not a fan of the extraneous adverb in A, while B comes across as almost duplicitous in its blandness, as though the group were equally interested in highlighting information that confirms or disconfirms the lab-leak hypothesis. That is very obviously false. Generalrelative (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • C.2 - Describes the raison d'etre and remains a good summary of the usable sources we have. —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B - activists vociferously advocating amounts to MOS:LABEL and is unworthy of an encyclpedic article. 89.206.112.12 (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • C.3 or C.2. There emphasis in sources that on the whole they are not researchers. 'Internet activists' seems like a more appropriate term. I disagree that this is a bad RfC, but agree that further discussion on labeling should happen on the DRASTIC article. SWinxy (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • C.3 - Is the best summary. SmolBrane (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How RSes describe DRASTIC

Anyone should feel free to add to the list below. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(sorted chronologically and formatted by — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)) [reply]

Academic journal articles:
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
  • Paul, Pallavi (June 2022). "Mediatised Contagion: Some Propositions on Pandemic Media". BioScope: South Asian Screen Studies. 13 (1): 12–18. doi:10.1177/09749276221097471.:
Described as a collective of ‘amateur sleuths’, DRASTIC or Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19 comprises a global network of journalists, science enthusiasts, pathologists, students and even professional video gamers. Spread across different parts of the world, the members of this open source collectively call themselves ‘Twitter detectives’ whose aim is to solve the ‘riddle’ of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 (DRASTIC Research, 2021). This unorthodox assembly of non-experts is responsible for a fresh assessment of the possibility that the virus fuelling our global pandemic could have come from a lab in Wuhan and not from the Wuhan wet market.
News reports by journalists:
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
a loose confederation of data analysts and amateur sleuths who mine open-source Chinese documents for information about covid-19.
The first clue to this is that the primary intellectual partners Chan and Ridley select for their quest to understand the origins of the pandemic are not virologists or epidemiologists but, rather, a group of self-styled internet sleuths known as Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating Covid-19, or DRASTIC.
@TheSeeker268 is a member of DRASTIC, or Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating covid-19, which formed on Twitter and has been among the most aggressive advocates of the lab-leak theory.
...a group of online researchers and correspondents known as the Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19 (DRASTIC). (Comment: per WP:RSP, the reliability of Newsweek post-2013 should be considered on a case-by-case basis.)
a group of online investigators called DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating Covid-19)
(Comment: Some users have described this source as "unreliable" or "non-neutral" given concerns raised about Paul Thacker's history of promoting anti-science FRINGE opinions such as anti-vax misinformation: [9][10][11][12][13][14])
A loose-knit group whose members call themselves DRASTIC—for the Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19—has driven a heated discussion about possible links between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2.
An online open-source-intelligence group which calls itself DRASTIC has been scouring sequencing data to get insight into activities at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
multi-faceted Twitter group...By May, he was part of a group of two dozen Twitter users from various countries who doubted the theory – at the time undisputed – that the coronavirus had emerged from a wet market in Wuhan....From Twitter threads and private conversations in direct message chats, Ribera and his fellow researchers organized themselves into a flexible group they called Drastic, an acronym for decentralized, radical, autonomous search team investigating Covid-19.
One key group was an international assortment of independent researchers—few of whom were established virologists—that self-assembled on the Internet. The group called itself the Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19, or DRASTIC. The name made them sound like a band of online gamers, but the group diligently uncovered a series of damning facts.
Last year, a member of the amateur investigative team, which calls itself DRASTIC (short for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating Covid-19), combed through online records and found a 2013 thesis by a postgraduate student at Kunming Medical University in China that described six workers at a mine in Yunnan province who fell ill with severe pneumonia caused by a "SARS-like" coronavirus.
As governments got busy in trying to contain the rampaging pandemic, a group of people, scattered all over the world, did not give up their search for the truth. Beginning April-May last year, they started collecting vital in- formation that would go on to provide important clues about modern century’s biggest mystery. They came together on Twitter under a group called DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19), where they shared their findings, sup- ported each other, and slowly, amassed so much credible information in a year that it became difficult for the scientific community and the Western media to ignore the probability of the theory.
Short for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19, it is an informal amalgam of experts and lay researchers from across the world who painstakingly pieced together various strands of data and information to understand how the 2019 SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) or the novel coronavirus, emerged and raced through the globe. The website that this group has now launched says that the team comprises more than 20 people from across the world. Among them are a few from India. Many of these amateur sleuths have chosen to remain anonymous...
a group of amateurs decided to sniff the lab leak theory to the ground
A motley group of social media detectives with backgrounds in science have been leading efforts to uncover clues about the origins of the Sars-Cov-2 virus, particularly if it leaked from a lab in Wuhan
An internet group called the Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19, or DRASTIC, brought the Coronavirus lab leak theory to the forefront again, questioning whether the Huanan wet market was, in fact, the origin of the pandemic. The group is a medley of people from all over the world, many of whom choose to remain anonymous.
outsiders such as the DRASTIC team (an acronym for “decentralized radical autonomous search team investigating Covid-19.”) Composed of 24 self-styled “Twitter detectives” who are mostly anonymous with the exception of a few scientists participating under their real names, the DRASTIC group formed on Twitter in 2020 and has set itself the mission of exploring the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
Some were cutting-edge scientists at prestigious research institutes. Others were science enthusiasts. Together, they formed a group called DRASTIC, short for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19. Their stated objective was to solve the riddle of COVID-19’s origin.
(Comment: Some users have described this source as "unreliable" or "non-neutral" given the multiple concerns raised about the quality of Eban's reporting in other contexts, mistranslations, and misunderstandings of Chinese-language documents she relies upon: [15][16])
The people responsible for uncovering this evidence are not journalists or spies or scientists. They are a group of amateur sleuths, with few resources except curiosity and a willingness to spend days combing the internet for clues. Throughout the pandemic, about two dozen or so correspondents, many anonymous, working independently from many different countries, have uncovered obscure documents, pieced together the information, and explained it all in long threads on Twitter—in a kind of open-source, collective brainstorming session that was part forensic science, part citizen journalism, and entirely new. They call themselves DRASTIC, for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19. (Comment: per WP:RSP, the reliability of Newsweek post-2013 should be considered on a case-by-case basis.)
A small group of academics and internet sleuths has been working for months, using the networks to find each other and publish evidence of the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s activities, especially in relation to the mine...
guerrilla Twitter group...This unorthodox approach has seen them branded by scientists and researchers as maniacs, thugs and conspiracy theorists...loosely defined group known as Drastic, a "Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19."...On Twitter... members of Drastic have targeted virologists and epidemiologists who refuse to engage with the lab leak theory, and they've even falsely accused some of working for the Chinese Communist Party. (Comment: per WP:RSP, the reliability of CNET post-2020 should be considered on a case-by-case basis.)
It seems the search for the origins of COVID had mobilized a bunch of internet sleuths, including Dr. Segreto, who spent hours, days even, rummaging through newspaper archives and arcane databases. They referred to themselves as DRASTIC, the Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19, “decentralized and autonomous and a little radical.”
Editorials by non-experts:
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
In early 2020, it took a few scientists and internet sleuths to correlate the sequence identity of RaTG13 with that of a short bat coronavirus fragment, Ra4991. (Note: Author is a pseudonymous member of DRASTIC)

Discussion

Here are descriptions, per various sources, of DRASTIC finding documents with information about the origin of COVID-19. Therefore, although the sources differ in their brief descriptors (above under "Sources"), they are united in describing various incidents of the actual discovery of documents with information related to the origin of COVID-19. My apologies for the length; I'll collapse to aid reading.

descriptions of DRASTIC finding documents

WaPo: For example, less than 18 months after the facility’s official opening, lab managers issued short-notice bids and patent applications to fix apparent problems with doors seals, the air filtration system and monitoring devices that were supposed to alert scientists to possible leaks. The records were obtained as part of an ongoing oversight investigation by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and independent analysts with DRASTIC

Vanity Fair: But perhaps the most startling find was made by an anonymous DRASTIC researcher, known on Twitter as @TheSeeker268. The Seeker, as it turns out, is a young former science teacher from Eastern India. He had begun plugging keywords into the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, a website that houses papers from 2,000 Chinese journals, and running the results through Google Translate.

One day last May, he fished up a thesis from 2013 written by a master’s student in Kunming, China. The thesis opened an extraordinary window into a bat-filled mine shaft in Yunnan province and raised sharp questions about what Shi Zhengli had failed to mention in the course of making her denials.

The Hindu: The evidence that DRASTIC has painstakingly pieced together points to the possible collection of the virus sample from a mineshaft associated with an incident where miners died of a pneumonia like infection, back in 2012. This involved translating several scientific papers from China translated roughly on Google, and using DNA sequences to compare viruses. The New Yorker: On September 21st, drastic published a startling new revelation. In 2018, Daszak, at EcoHealth Alliance, in partnership with Shi, Baric, and Wang, had submitted a $14.2-million grant proposal to the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (darpa).

Adoring nanny (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added BMJ to the list above. Did not find a mention in the Nature link. Sennalen (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Nature link, added a bunch of other sources from the previous RFCs and other searches on those talk archives. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NYT article on China's political alteration of COVID research

I've posted about this before, but we haven't reached consensus. A recent NYT article[17] is explicit:

That the Chinese government muzzled scientists, hindered international investigations and censored online discussion of the pandemic is well documented. But Beijing’s stranglehold on information goes far deeper than even many pandemic researchers are aware of. Its censorship campaign has targeted international journals and scientific databases, shaking the foundations of shared scientific knowledge, a New York Times investigation found.

Under pressure from their government, Chinese scientists have withheld data, withdrawn genetic sequences from public databases and altered crucial details in journal submissions. Western journal editors enabled those efforts by agreeing to those edits or withdrawing papers for murky reasons, a review by The Times of over a dozen retracted papers found.

The phrase "altered crucial details in journal submissions" is particularly troubling. We should not treat journal articles with authorship by people who live in China as reliable sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have had discussions about this, and they had either no consensus or a consensus against (basically every editor besides a handful who often advocate for the lab leak). e.g. [18][19][20][21] This is clearly a case-by-case basis situation.
What has changed? The opinion of the NYT? Not particularly reliable for science content. I have no idea what they mean by altered crucial details in journal submissions and no examples have been provided. Do they just mean rewriting parts of articles before publication during the review process? That is extremely normal, and a good thing. Do they mean this? (correcting submission dates a few months after publication, with a formal correction)? That's also a very normal part of the process, and has no bearing on the reliability of the overall publication. Those dates are not/were not important to our article. All of this is probably reliable to discuss the Chinese government's efforts to censor discussion about the lab leak, but we already discuss that in the article, in the lead and the body. With great citations for it.
We also already use extremely few (if any) of the papers written by Chinese nationals without attribution. I think there are maybe 1 or 2 instances where the content is either already supported by non-Chinese publications, or the content is attributed (e.g. Shi on her own lab's research).
This argument also ignores the role of peer review and editorial judgment. (both the journals' and our own). We very carefully do not take the Chinese government or its scientists at face value in this and other articles, just as we do not do so for the US government, or the French or any other government. Where is this widespread use of Chinese publications that are somehow "tainted"? And how is that "taint" directly in conflict with their reliability for the content cited? That is what you need to show, not simply that a paper is from someone born in China. The RfC closure last year from Szmenderowiecki was very clear on this: in order to make a proper close on the question as asked, hundreds of voices about all topics liable to censorship would have to be solicited with showing of how the censorship impacts the reliability of the academic works. This has not happened here, and I hardly imagine it happening anywhere...a much narrower question must be designed to resolve the underlying content dispute
I would also remind the OP of this comment from Xoltered in the the RfC in January of last year: "CutePeach is also forumshopping by posting this same thing on multiple pages, I believe in an attempt to find editors who have not fully looked into the discussion to read the loaded question and say no." — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the excerpt "Western journal editors enabled those efforts by agreeing to those edits or withdrawing papers for murky reasons", the NYT is saying that editorial judgment is also corrupted. Also, per 'Journals that want to sell subscriptions in China or publish Chinese research often bend to the government’s demands. “Scientific publishers have really gone out of their way to placate the censorship requests.”' The NYT is clearly saying that scientific journals cannot be trusted in this area. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to use a nonscientific source to accuse scientific sources of telling lies? Exactly what makes them experts of per review? Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't take an expert in virology to recognize conflicts of interest. The question of covid origins has become inherently politicized, so the ulterior motives of every source should be taken into consideration. Considering does not mean censoring, however. Sennalen (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shibbolethink Wrt to my closure from last year, it was inconclusive because the question was overbroad and the discussion only concerned COVID. If that discussion's question had been whether we can trust Chinese scientists on the COVID-19 topic given this, this and this concern, and these and these allegations of scientific fraud or extremely dubious behaviour, and if the term "Chinese scientists" had been well-defined, then probably there would have been some other closure and I wouldn't have been the closer. The RfC on this topic might be totally legitimate and feature a lot of material to decide the closure on, but I want all users to make appropriate research to that end. The more relevant scientific articles/credible books/good articles, the better. Less bickering, more sources. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any specific allegations against particular authors or around particular papers they should be raised at WP:RSN. I don't think ignoring the scientific work of a whole group other a newspaper report is warranted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times is still the paper of record. It isn't merely a "newspaper report". They do investigative reporting; as Sennalen said, the NYT has seen fit to broach the possibility of conflict of interest/ moral hazard between scientific integrity versus journal editorial, business interests, and government censorship. I realize peer review has been found vulnerable but is the best we have. This is a rather unusual situation though. We should have some alternative viewpoint language, along with credible sources cited, regarding the lab leak hypothesis. We can still call it WP:FRINGE. In my opinion, to omit inclusion of anything at all in the article gives an appearance of extreme bias or even neglect (i.e. no one was interested enough to bother updating the article). What would constitute adequate sourcing in order to permit a sentence or even a single phrase in the lead, along with at least one full sentence in the body of the article with sources, regarding the recently increased plausibility of a lab leak origin? I would be satisfied with that. We have U.S. senators, U.S. congressmen, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, the FBI, and the U.S. Department of Energy discussing the possibility of a lab leak origin. I will check on the latest commentary by Richard Ebright. He has expressed other, different concerns (e.g. about matters pertaining to the U.S. National Institute of Health and COVID19 which need not be mentioned here). He is certainly credible and doesn't speculate carelessly. Some virologists have said that it will be difficult to ever ascertain exactly what the origin of SARS-COV-2 is, without full disclosure by China and WIV, which isn't likely.--FeralOink (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of all the caveats, at the end of the day, this article should follow the normal WP:NPOV formula: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Sennalen (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... while being sure to omit fringe stuff unless it can be placed in the context of a mainstream view, of course! Bon courage (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lab leak can easily be placed in context of the mainstream view that it is plausible and supported by a great deal of circumstantial evidence. Sennalen (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
supported by a great deal of circumstantial evidence
I don't believe this language is supported by our BESTSOURCES. Maybe "supported by some circumstantial evidence" — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have any of the best sources actually used the term 'circumstantial evidence'? That's a law term and might not be a useful way of expressing for the reader. Aside from maybe some genetic evidence which i don't understand all could be said to be 'circumstantial'. But that's part of the pseudoscience right, demanding indefeasible evidence that a lab leak didn't happen? There are some good sources discussing this: remaining viable scenarios indistinguishable for natural origin, demands for evidence beyond what we would normally see, etc. So "supported by some circumstantial evidence", what is that some evidence, and evidence of what exactly, and does it really "support" anything? fiveby(zero) 15:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, I don't know of any very high quality sources which use that language not in a quote or paraphrase. Actually the highest quality sources we have say there is "no evidence" for the lab leak. Circumstantial evidence is just a term that a lot of people use in these conversations, but I'm not aware of any sources which use it.
Unreliable sources certainly do, but not reliable ones (e.g. Congressional republicans: [22][23][24][25]
These use the phrase, but I think they are often paraphrasing the senate report, and they're mostly news "analysis" (less reliable) saying it in passing, not an in-depth exploration of what it means: [26][27][28][29][30] or quoting well-known lab leak proponents like Ebright: [31] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for grabbing those. Personally i wouldn't quibble with someone saying either "evidence" or "no evidence", just an epistemological argument. But justifying a belief based on a "preponderance of circumstantial evidence" is almost an outright admission of viewing only a subset of the evidence, so best to keep "circumstantial" in quotes if it has to be in the article. fiveby(zero) 15:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't all paraphrasing the Senate report. For example:
  • "some scientists say circumstantial evidence points to the virus having escaped from a lab, possibly the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which had deep expertise in researching coronaviruses" (NYT).
  • "Lack of answers about the origins of Covid-19 and an accumulation of circumstantial evidence have led some scientists, the Biden administration and the World Health Organization to argue that the lab leak theory needs more study. If only China was cooperating." (CNN)
But, yes, fine IMO to say something along the lines of some scientists say there is no evidence for lab leak, others say there is circumstantial evidence for a lab leak. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on just one blessed moment. Just a few days ago we were being told on this very Talk page[32] that "preponderance of circumstantial evidence" was so obviously not support for LL, and so obviously deserving of just a good chuckle, that there was no need to qualify it. But now editors are wanting Wikipedia to frame this whack-a-jack stuff seriously. WTF? if we're going to mention this stuff at all we need relevant framing sources to explain it's BS. Bon courage (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed if this is mentioned it must be framed in the current scientific consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is about disregarding an entire nations worth of scientific work, no matter who is reporting what any discussion of doing so should be done at WP:RSN through a publicised RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it, which nation? Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the OP We should not treat journal articles with authorship by people who live in China as reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think both their source and the OP are stating that scientists and journals outside of China were helping to cover up the lab leak. Which to me is far more of a problem. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a problem, but those are the OPs exact words. Also if others have taken action to cover anything up these are still very broad allegations. They may be worth mentioning in the article, but using them challenge the reliability of swathes of work isn't something to be decided on an articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I was referring to COVID-related articles, as was the NYT. No concern about pure mathematics for example. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Whatever?" That is rude and dismissive. But then, you consider "Ebright's stuff" to be a joke. "Stans"? Okay, you know best. Better than all the PhD virologists and molecular biologists and biochemists who work for the U.S. government and FBI and at the 10 US Dept of Energy BSL4s. And you also know better than Ebright and the New York Times. Understood! I clearly have no place here. Bon courage!--FeralOink (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:RS, Ebright is "a total conspiracy theorist".[33] So yeah, Wikipedia ain't going there. This Project is required to reflect accepted knowledge about topics as published in great sources. Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Ebright is an actively publishing molecular biologist, advising members of congress, and sought for quotes by NYT, WashPo, Salon, Science Magazine, and others. David Gorski's opinions in his political group blog aren't useful here. Sennalen (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no. Because WP:SBM is a great source for fringe science as established by community consensus. I don't think there's any disagreement about any 'significance' of the views. But not in the way LL supporters think maybe. Bon courage (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you find a fringe science topic, knock yourself out. Sennalen (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should establish a consensus that this isn't a fringe (or fringe-adjacent) topic before saying that. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All?, I am unsure if there is unanimity in the US government about the lab leak idea. Can you please provide a source that says there is? Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They isn't unanimity, and if there is such a source, it is incorrect. Let's try to stay on topic in this section. Contrary to a suggestion above, discussion of sourcing on an article's talk page is both normal and appropriate. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No agreement for We should not treat journal articles with authorship by people who live in China as reliable sources. is going to stick if it's at a talk page level. For anything so wide ranging you need to go to RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party, but agree that this question is too broad to be decided here and should be decided at RSN. JustinReilly (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actually possible to prove a xenophobic intent?

I understand there are probably racist adherents to this theory, but stating that "The idea has been informed by (and has, in turn, fueled) racist and xenophobic sentiments" sounds I bit off. I've read a few sources, and maybe someone smarter can prove otherwise, but I haven't seen anyone prove that the idea was racist, they just say it is. Like I said, you can prove me wrong if that's the actual case, but the way that sentence is written, the tone of it, is off, and sounds way too objective than the evidence for this idea would allow for.


I'm all for including that there are people who call this theory racist, or however it needs to be phrased, I'm trying to be as brief as I can, but can you truthfully say that it WAS racist, like this page states? LukFromTheWiki (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:ASSERT it (unless you can provide reliable sources saying there are zero racist elements to these ideas). Bon courage (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how that works, the burden of proof should be on the one who says it's 100% racist. That's a burden of proof fallacy.
Is there proof that this idea was informed by racism? Can that be proved? LukFromTheWiki (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do not deal in proof, we deal in wp:v if RS say it we assume they have seen the proof, we do not have to show they have. Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if a reliable source said that God exists, and they were an expert in that regard, the Wikipedia would state that God does indeed exist, and would just assume the source has seen the proof? LukFromTheWiki (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple RS say it, and no RS contests it yes. We go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that we don't actually have multiple RS who say that, going through the linked sources our language is stronger than that of the sources and also appears to do something which is actually criticized by the section of the source we're quoting to "The mistake many in the media made was to cast the lab-leak theory as inherently conspiratorial and racist, and misunderstand the relation between those properties and the immutable underlying facts." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, article says "informed by" not "inherently". No source says otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it, the lede has sources that call it racist and Sinophobic (and also hate speech), as well as Xenopohic (multiple sources for that one). Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it doesn't, they all have more nuanced takes than that. We're close but we aren't currently reflecting what the sources say, IMO all we have to do is add "often" to make it "The idea has often been informed by (and has, in turn, fueled) racist and xenophobic sentiments." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this can satisfy @LukFromTheWiki: as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's good enough imo as well. A reasonable edit to satisfy a more complete consensus here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My argument here is that it's not possible to prove these sources are correct in their statement. It's unreasonable to have to prove something to the extent you require, when the idea that this threats is racist is hardly proved that that extent; that there 100% is racist intentions to this theory. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have to. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the OP is making a WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the (thin) sourcing, this isn't due in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarise the main article and I don't see this elucidated anywhere there. The relevant policy isn't just WP:LEAD but also WP:UNDUE. 82.154.97.56 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source for the claim - "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis"

I couldn't find any document that supports this claim. I might have missed it. Could someone please provide the source? Thank you. 2601:602:8200:4A10:2D3E:3045:4133:8F56 (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the very first two references. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have searched for the term "scientists" in those articles but could not find that claim. Could you please point me to the relevant section of those sources that support this claim? 2601:602:8200:4A10:2D3E:3045:4133:8F56 (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The scientists are the authors of those studies. Both conclude the emergence likely resulted from natural zoonosis. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But how does that establish that "most scientists" believe their conclusions? 2601:602:8200:4A10:2D3E:3045:4133:8F56 (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we're not here to educate you on how peer acceptance of papers published in scientific journals works. ValarianB (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They have a valid point, per wp:v we can't say most unless we have a source that says so. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a valid summary of the content per WP:MEDSCI and WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two papers a majority does not make. It needs rewriting. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot not to like about the phrase, but i think it is actually watering down what could be said. If it were put in terms of evidence instead of belief we could probably state outright rather than attributing to "most scientists". If the text went directly to the scope of the article "lab related" vs "wildlife trade" instead of the fuzzy obscuring "natural zoonosis" it would probably be clearer for the reader. Anyway we shouldn't count papers to determine some kind of scientific consensus, but look to the best. fiveby(zero) 15:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then do so, lets reflect what our article says. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Say "the theory is highly controversial; the scientific consensus is that the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis, similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history.". Remove the cites (as they are not needed, this is the lede). Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is no merit at all to this watering-down and catering to conspiracy theorists. ValarianB (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about catering to anyone, it's about potraying information correctly. There is no scientific consensus on the origins of Covid and the article's claim is untrue. The right thing would be to fix it. 2601:602:8200:4A10:D0C:2207:53A3:55BB (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change "scientific consensus" to "assumption" and it's perfect. Sennalen (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no scientific consensus apart from "we don't know what happened yet". As the WHO says, "all theories remain on the table". PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the total number of scientists anywhere is approximately 4. Sennalen (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God, give it a break. There's plenty of sources that say "most scientists". [34] [35] They're secondary sources that reference studies like the ones we use in the article. I expect better from you, Slatersteven. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there are lots of sources that say this.
However, they almost all say something like "whilst most scientists believe the virus most likely spilled over naturally from animals, others believe it's more likely the virus leaked from a lab". I think we should use language along these lines, rather than excluding the second part for no good reason. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do say the second part, in various places throughout the article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yes sorry, it is indeed stated that way later in the lead. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The objection was the sources we were using did not say it (they did not), so I suggested rewording it. That would include putting in sources that say it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: Okay, that's what OP was asking for. Sennalen (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support adding these sources to the content, especially if it resolves this whole section's underlying disagreement. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no scientific consensus on when exactly the virus first infected humans, hence, there is no consensus among the scientific community that they agree with the conclusions of Pekar et al since these authors make particularly strong claims about when Sars2 entered humans.
Jesse Bloom, Sudhir Kumar, Sergei Pond are credible scientists who have published peer review articles that disagree with those conclusions. Hence, the claim that there is a scientific consensus is not correct.
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/38/12/5211/6353034?login=false
https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/38/10/2719/6553661 2601:602:8200:4A10:3DE6:F1C5:C284:307E (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the peer review process means any published article has majority recognition or support, you yourself have very little understanding of the process. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is asserting that here, as far as I can tell. Instead, we are following what WP:MEDSCI tells us. Multiple independent peer-reviewed secondary review papers published in high impact prominent journals from recognized experts in the field, shows there is widespread agreement. The particular "majority" wording is from a variety of other sources described in this section. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2601:602:8200:4A10:3DE6:F1C5:C284:307E (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDSCI also points to WHO for determining scientific consensus and WHO have been very clear that all possibilities are on the table. This clearly shows that a respectable body like WHO doesn't believe there is a consensus so the article is in disagreement with WP:MEDSCI
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/03/03/all-covid-origin-theories-including-lab-leak-on-the-table-who-director-says/?sh=119739a66f70 2601:602:8200:4A10:3DE6:F1C5:C284:307E (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the most authoritative statement from the WHO so far is that the lab leak is "extremely unlikely" and that zoonosis is the most likely origin scenario. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. That's not the official position of the WHO. That was the conclusion of a study convened jointly by China and WHO. WHO's position immediately after the report was to thank the team for their work but as far as WHO was concerned all scenarios remain on the table which means that there is no scientific consensus that Sars2 has a natural origin.
https://www.who.int/news/item/30-03-2021-who-calls-for-further-studies-data-on-origin-of-sars-cov-2-virus-reiterates-that-all-hypotheses-remain-open 2601:602:8200:4A10:3DE6:F1C5:C284:307E (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all scenarios remain on the table which means that there is no scientific consensus that Sars2 has a natural origin.
The second part of this sentence is not an immediate conclusion from the first part.
"All scenarios are possible" is not mutually exclusive with "There is a scientific consensus that zoonosis is the most likely origin"
(the underlined part is extremely important to understanding this point.)
If you disagree on that fundamental point, then I honestly truly have no idea what to tell you. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing the wordings of the report to be the official stance of the WHO. It's not. WHO has never said that the scientific consensus is natural origin.
There's no scientific consensus even on when the virus first infected humans, hence, there is no consensus among the scientific community that they agree with the conclusions of Pekar et al since these authors make particularly strong claims about when Sars2 entered humans.
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/38/12/5211/6353034?login=false
https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/38/10/2719/6553661
These are peer reviewed articles by highly cited authors that differ in conclusion to the article you are claiming is the scientific consensus. This is simply not true. Hence, I request those in charge to please change the wording. 2601:602:8200:4A10:D0C:2207:53A3:55BB (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the specific point of whether it's ok to say "most scientists believe the virus spilled over through zoonosis", I think it's fine. Wikipedia:RS/AC says you need an RS to directly state this, which we have. Whether or not they're justified in saying this is irrelevant for the purposes of this article, unless another RS disputes it.
  • However, the IP editor is correct that there is no consensus on the origin of the virus. A consensus means 'broad agreement' which quite obviously does not exist. There is, in fact, widespread disagreement. A majority-minority split is not automatically a consensus. The only consensus, as per the WHO, is that "we don't know". More generally, our article should reflect this. At the moment it does not, it treats the hypothesis as a fringe conspiracy theory.
PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article's claim that most scientists believe that has no source to back it and hence should be removed. 2601:602:8200:4A10:3DE6:F1C5:C284:307E (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I remember, that wording came from a discussion between me and Shibbolethink. This was a couple of years ago, and the source was something pretty strong, possibly a news article in Nature. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think that's right, from Amy Maxmen. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter whose opinion it was. To establish "most" and state it matter of factly you would have to have a survey proving as much. Otherwise, the language you're looking for would be something to the effect of "according to some person named Amy Maxmen, most scientists..."--2600:1700:B020:1490:5D2:3A79:23F9:E614 (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ASSERT. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have zero sources which say a majority of scientists do not believe the zoonosis is the most likely explanation, and quite a few which say that a majority believe it is. Why would we attribute this?
When even people like Jesse Bloom haven't disputed that they're an outlier? When no RSes are saying anything to the contrary? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it violates WP:NPOV - "Avoid stating opinions as facts." 2601:602:8200:4A10:D0C:2207:53A3:55BB (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources stating otherwise. I hope these would convince the editors that there is no scientific consensus on the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
"There is no consensus on the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2"
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2215826119
"The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. Commissioners held diverse views about the relative probabilities of the two explanations, and both possibilities require further scientific investigation."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01585-9/fulltext 2601:602:8200:4A10:D0C:2207:53A3:55BB (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This thread reminds me of the controversy about spinach being a high source of iron when in fact it is high in beta carotene. The mix up happened precisely in a misquote.[1] Therefore, I think "most" ideally should be a quantifiable number in reliable sources, for example, polls. Otherwise, how do they reach the conclusion that most think that way? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By looking at the published literature. If 99 papers say X and 98 papers say Y the scientific consensus is X. In this case it is not even slightly that close (more like 100 to 1). Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That could also reflect simply the editorial decisions to exclude other studies. Besides, that may count as original research. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the editorial decisions to exclude other studies are part of what causes this to be an accurate reflection of scientific consensus per WP:RS/AC. Editorial boards and editorial judgment are part of why these sources are considered the best available WP:RSes. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSes: "Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."
Doesn't the current version violate this since the claim is not backed by any source? 2601:602:8200:4A10:48B9:9523:61E9:57C5 (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As has been described multiple times above, there indeed are many multiple sources which support the statement:
  • most scientists suspect a zoonotic spillover in which the virus transferred from bats, or through an intermediate animal, to humans — the same way the SARS and MERS coronaviruses originated. FactCheck.org
  • The zoonotic hypothesis hinges on the idea that the virus spilled over from animals to humans, either directly through a bat, or through some other intermediary animal. Most scientists say that this is the likely origin, given that 75% of all emerging diseases have jumped from animals into humans. CNN
  • Individuals may learn about the origins of COVID-19 through exposure to stories that communicate either what most scientists believe (i.e., zoonotic transmission) or through exposure to conspiratorial claims (e.g., the virus was created in a research laboratory in China). "Framing the Origins of COVID-19" published in Science Communication and published as part of the SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection.
  • The default answer for most scientists has been that the virus, SARS-CoV-2, probably made the jump to humans from bats, if it was a direct spillover — or, more likely, through one or more intermediate mammals. NBC
  • The most controversial hypothesis for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is also the one that most scientists agree is the least likely: that the virus somehow leaked out of a laboratory in Wuhan where researchers study bat coronaviruses. National Geographic
  • The leading theory now backed by most scientists is that the virus arose in wild bats and found its way into animals (perhaps via a pangolin or a civet cat) sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan. Prospect Magazine
  • Most scientists studying the origins of COVID-19 have concluded that the SARS-CoV-2 virus probably evolved naturally and infected humans via incidental contact with a wild or domesticated animal. GenEng News
  • Questions have been raised about whether the virus could have leaked from a laboratory studying related viruses in Wuhan – a scenario most scientists...feel is less likely than a natural spillover. SCMP
  • There continues to be no evidence at all for the conspiracy theory that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was developed as some kind of bioweapon, and most scientists believe that the majority of available evidence indicates the virus jumped from animal to human. New York magazine
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are opinions and I can easily provide opinions that differ from this point of view. If you are sharing opinions WP:NPOV clearly states - "Avoid stating opinions as facts."
Here are alternate opinions from WP:RS which contradict that.
"Prof van der Merwe believes that scientists had used articles in The Lancet and Nature Medicine to create a “false impression” that a natural spillover origin was scientific consensus." The Telegraph
"There is no consensus on the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
"The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. Commissioners held diverse views about the relative probabilities of the two explanations, and both possibilities require further scientific investigation." The Lancet
"There is no scientific consensus on how the virus originated, but researchers believe it could have originated naturally or from an accident in a lab." Politifact
"While Worobey et al. (and their companion paper by Pekar et al. [41]) may dispute these findings, no scientific consensus can yet be presumed." Commentary in ASM mBio
"To be clear, while some circumstantial evidence supports the lab leak theory, there is still no scientific consensus on whether COVID-19 emerged from a research facility, a wet market, or somewhere else." Reason
If you are stating opinions, please say so in the article as it is violating both WP:NOPV ("Avoid stating opinions as facts.") and WP:RS ("Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.") 2601:602:8200:4A10:48B9:9523:61E9:57C5 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are assessments made by WP:RSes. Not opinions. None of the sources you have provided disagree with the sources I provided, as I stated above. A lack of an absolute scientific consensus and the majority of scientists believing x is the most likely are not mutually exclusive.
At this point, I don't think this conversation is very productive, so I'm gonna stop replying. Have a nice day. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

An open question if I may

Pardon me for possibly butting in, and my further apologies if I am stepping over the line, but why exactly is there such an extremely dedicated relentless willingness here to take the word of the Chinese Communist Party at face value, and sweepingly accuse all people who find the situation suspicious for somehow being racist conspiracy theorists, or worse, when it is well known that the CCP wiped all evidence from the Wuhan laboratory completely clean before any inspections were allowed, it has turned China into an Orwellian surveillance-state tyranny that, among many other things, completely controls the allowed contents of absolutely all scientific reports that are published within the country, and the New York Times has revealed that it has very efficiently managed to heavily influence what was released about Covid-19 in many scientific publications outside of the Chinese borders?

In addition, the CCP allegedly has several hundred Nazi-level gulags where it places millions of members of religious minorities, as well as political dissidents and their families, and either completely enslaves and brainwashes them, tortures and rapes them, or murders them to confiscate their body organs, or all of the above in combination.

And yet The New York Times and western intelligence agencies and governments are somehow treated as completely unreliable in comparison, and any scientists with contrarian discoveries are automatically discredited and distrusted. It doesn't make any sense to me, as this subject is not a partisan political issue anymore as far as I am aware. Is this about preventing the CCP's army of hackers from systematically destroying Wikipedia? I suppose that would be understandable, but in that case wouldn't it be better to just be open about that the CCP is simply far too powerful to challenge in any way via some kind of controversy disclaimer at the top of the page? David A (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't' we do not use (as far as I know) one Chinese government source. Please correct me if I am wrong, and link to it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you genuinely think Wikipedia (and specifically this page) is somehow too buddy buddy with China, you're living in another reality. The "just asking questions" nature of your assertion of NAZI GULAGS where RAPE and ORGAN HARVESTING happens 24/7 isn't helping your case. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The CCP line is "Anywhere But Here", and no one is taking their word at face value. fiveby(zero) 17:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virus with 80% similarity to SARS-2 not relevant

Mention is made of a virus with 80% genetic identity with SARS-2. Id like to delete this as it seems irrelevant. 80% reflects only a very distant relation. Humans, for example share 99% of our genome with chimps and bonobos and 80% with cows. I would leave the rest of the viruses in there as they are more closely related.

“Analysis of related viruses indicates that samples taken from Rhinolophus sinicusshow a resemblance of 80% to SARS‑CoV‑2. Analysis also indicates that a virus collected from Rhinolophus affinis in a cave near the town of Tongguan in Yunnan province, designated RaTG13, has a 96% resemblance to SARS‑CoV‑2. The RaTG13 virus genome was the closest known sequence to SARS-CoV-2 until the discovery of BANAL-52 in horseshoe bats in Laos, but it is not its direct ancestor. Other closely-related sequences were also identified in samples from local bat populations in Yunnan province. One such virus, RpYN06, shares 97% identity with SARS-CoV-2 in one large part of its genome, but 94% identity overall. Such "chunks" of very highly identical nucleic acids are often implicated as evidence of a common ancestor.” JustinReilly (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. That 80% sentence is likely undue. I haven't seen it mentioned much of anywhere else. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1156466173"