Talk:Alina Chan

Draftification and mainification

GermanKity draftified this page on 18th June. Although I think this article then was factual and had enough WP:BASIC-quality sources to survive an AfD then, I think this is right, because Chan achieved prominence on what is a WP:BATTLEGROUND topic through her interaction with Peter Daszak. The more well-rounded and complete this bio is when it enters mainspace, the easier it will be to maintain it. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Further sources

Chan's first mention in a wide-audience publication was, I think Newsweek in April 2020 with The Controversial Experiments and Wuhan Lab Suspected of Starting the Coronavirus Pandemic. Some care should be taken with the contents. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Matthew Yglesias has a few choice words about Chan in The media's lab leak fiasco, which as a Substack would not normally be an RS, but it has been widely picked up, e.g., in the NYT. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That Yglesias substack is a great read and very informative, but I didn't see any significant criticism of Alina Chan in it Jameson Nightowl (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

RandomCanadian's pruning of the article

I'd hoped we could get the article into a good shape before it reentered mainspace. The article did see gradual improvements over several months; unfortunately in a series of non-neutral, poorly sourced edits by SacrificialPawn on the 25th August (this diff has the edits I'm talking about, but also includes one unproblematic edit by 力), together with a note that the article was ready for main space, this was all undone and the article entered mainspace in pretty bad condition. I entirely sympathise with RC's deep cuts to the artice in [1], although there is content there I think worth saving. Since this is a battleground topic, I want to lay out things first rather than trust the WP:BRD cycle. If you like, I plan to follow a Discuss-CautiousEdit-HopefullyAvoidRevert cycle.

The single most interesting point in the content from before SP's edits that didn't survive RC's prune is the two unpublished preprints by Chan & al. Chan claimed on Twitter that her article attacking the pangolin transmission thesis led to two retractions in high-impact journals: I found one of these retractions (PLOS Pathogens) but not the other (Nature). Normally we do not cover preprints on WP, but before SP's edits, I thought the treatment of the two preprints was fairly good: they are interesting as a thing that has generated noteworthy coverage, including in good quality RSes. The pangolin transmission thesis isn't quite dead today, but it is certainly far less prominent than when Chan & al wrote their article.

Edits to follows once I've digested all the changes since SP's edits. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't based our coverage of science on pre-prints, the subject's own claims, or how the topic is covered in the press (what I asssume the "noteworthy coverage" is). Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Reservoir_and_origin (paragraph beginning "Although the role of pangolins [...]") already has plenty of material on this exact stuff, sourced to far better stuff than pre-prints or the media's interpretation thereof. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with RandomCanadian's removals. Those sources were not appropriate for statements of fact or opinion, as they do not demonstrate that the content is DUE, nor do they help portray that information in an NPOV.

If those events were covered in RSes, Chalst (and I believe you that they are) then we should be citing the RSes, not the preprints. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Do any of our RS refer to her as "promoting" the lab leak hypothesis? I have tagged that as CN. 79.70.179.144 (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The Broad Institute's Alina Chan believes coronavirus could have escaped from a Chinese lab." [2]
• "“I was like, ‘They are very mistaken,’” says Chan. “They haven’t thought of all these other plausible ways for a lab leak to occur.” Her view is now widely held. That’s due partly to her Twitter account. Throughout 2020, Chan relentlessly stoked scientific argument and doubts, sometimes adding a unicorn GIF to highlight research she found implausible." [3]
• "Question: You published this paper back in May 2020 where you said maybe we should consider the idea that this coronavirus came from a lab. At the time, what was the main theory about where COVID had come from? Answer: It had been announced by the Chinese government and in January that most likely this virus had come from illegally sold wildlife in a wet market. But over time, that story seemed to disintegrate. And by May, about two or three weeks after my paper came out, the Chinese CDC director actually announced that the market was a victim. He said it was most likely a cluster." [4]

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Scientific debate

Ymblanter, there was no personal attack as you said in this edit summary. To the contrary, Science Magazine described it as a very civil debate. Chan's question to Wang about the FCS wasn't described as a personal attack by Salon or New Yorker, which also covered the debate. LondonIP (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say it isn't a scientific debate because it was mostly a debate about politics and conspiracies and history, not science. Very few moments (if any) in that conversation debated particular points of scientific knowledge. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

So you are arguing that this debate organised by Science Magazine in which they hosted a number of scientists, to debate the science behind Covid origins, isn't a scientific debate. Please see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. LondonIP (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't you think that's a bit of a redundant characterization? Science is an inherently political enterprise, like most if not all human endeavors. We separate the politics of science from the process of science all the time. A scientific debate would likely occur about published findings, debating the interpretation of those findings. Instead of debating the many things we can never know, proposing unprovable hypotheses about a past event which will likely never 100% convince some debate participants. Anyone making a "god of the gaps" argument is not having a scientific debate. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think its redundant, especially not for the reason Ymblanter gave. A scientific debate is just a debate between scientists on the science behind any given thing. There are no extra rigours required of scientists participating in a scientific debate to propose only proven hypotheses. Again I ask you to read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. LondonIP (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

So any time scientists debate about a topic relevant to science, it's a scientific debate? Would you say the same about abortion debates between catholic and atheist scientists? What about debates about gun death statistics between conservative economists and liberal epidemiologists? Not every debate between people who engage in science is a scientific debate. Scientists are flawed human beings with human ideals. I believe that's a central tenant of the accidental lab leak hypothesis. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Has Science Magazine ever invited Catholics to debate abortion or conservatives to debate gun deaths? This debate was celebrated as the first scientific and civil debate on the lab leak theory by RS, and the debate on Wikipedia has also moved on from calling it a conspiracy theory. You are just making the case for WP:tendentious editing even stronger. LondonIP (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The only tendentious thing I see here is one person hammering the same message (ironically, about tendentious editing) over and over again. The discussion should focus on content. And the content should be based on sources. What sources are there describing this debate? Ideally, these should be independent of the host of the debate (because that would be a WP:PRIMARY source). The only ones I find from a quick search is this, which does not give a qualificative to the debate; and this which describes it as a "roundtable featuring scientists from both sides of the debate". That supports the idea it might have been a debate amongst scientists; but not a scientific debate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I spent some time researching if Science Magazine had ever hosted any other debates before realizing it was a waste of time! The substantive question here is minor. I would prefer to hew closely to the sources, as debate over what constitutes "scientific debate" based on our own experiences and views is unlikely to reach any satisfying, timely conclusion. Science itself uses the phrase "scientific debate", but the other two sources in the current version do not. Are there others? Technology Review called it a "webinar". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists called it a "panel discussion". Firefangledfeathers 05:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is a waste of time. I'd like to hear what Ymblanter has to say, considering they are now WP:INVOLVED and can provide us with policy guidance. It was them that removed the "scientific" on the assumption that a personal attack was made, which I can only assume was made following the removal of some content by RandomCanadian (which I have no issue with). LondonIP (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have probably misread the sources, I can not now find an indication that there were personal attacks during the debate. On the other hand, I agree that it is redundant to call it "scientific".--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Chan's Pre-print as pseudoscience

Shibbolethink, you reverted more than the text you are concerned about, and you didn't describe how LondonIPs edit ran afoul of WP:FRINGE, which is required of you for a second revert. WP:FRINGE should not be cited to delete content citing secondary sources, unless it is in the voice of Wikipedia, which this edit was not. Abuse of WP:FRINGE in this manner is a concern many editors have noted in a Village Pump discussion here, a discussion you have participated in, denying any abuse of the policy. Citing WP:FRINGE to delete pre-prints has already been discussed in this topic area before [5], and called a "red-herring". LondonIP's edit specifically mentioned "non-engineered virus", which many say is the most plausible of the many different lab leak scenarios, and there are more than just two RS covering Chan’s pre-print. Gimiv (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you are properly interpreting BRD. Advocates for new changes should respond to reversion by building consensus at talk instead of continuing to edit them in. Your 'red herring' reference could also use some analysis. Colin, the author of the comment, was indicating that the paper in question was problematic not just because it was a pre-print, but also because it would be primary even if published—an issue that would exist here as well. Firefangledfeathers 05:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you are interpreting BRD or analyzing Colin’s comment correctly. Shibbolethink twice reverted LondonIP, first for a Wikivoice issue, and the second time for a FRINGE issue, both of which are false. Like with the Bloom preprint in Colin's comment, Chan’s bioRxiv paper was not cited, so it's not a question of primary vs secondary sourcing. That's the red herring, and this looks like an attempt to get entrap LondonIP with sanctions for undoing a revert. We should not need a discussion to describe what Chan et al say in their preprint as covered by independent sources like MIT Technology Review, Slate (magazine), Boston (magazine). Here are some more sources that cover this "explosive" paper [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Francesco espo (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Francesco espo, thanks for the additional sourcing. As I said, I am still reviewing the new content and sources. Is there any reason not to follow WP:ONUS here? Would Shibbolethink have been able to revert the second time if LondonIP were following BRD? Firefangledfeathers 13:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

To quote myself: We shouldn't based our coverage of science on pre-prints, the subject's own claims, or how the topic is covered in the press (what I asssume the "noteworthy coverage" is). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC). All of the concerns of that post still apply, to the letter, here. Newspapers coverage is simply not an accurate indicator of scientific matters (although, I do see it as an accurate indicator, here, that this is a topic which is mostly discussed in the USA. We should not give it undue prominence simply because it has gained a lot of attention in one country - WP:BIAS also applies, on top of all the other issues). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Please be aware this article is a biography of a scientist, not a general article with "coverage of the science", though I agree we could have a quote from another scientist with a different POV (WP:BALANCE). Both the current version and my version cite newspapers, so according to your argument we might need remove the section entirely, in which case we would have to delete the whole article. This preprint is what shot Chan to fame, and is prominently mentioned in all cited profile pieces. LondonIP (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

As to the substance of the recent additions themselves, they only seem to make the existing text more verbose and to include lots more quotes from the pre-print. It's not because an article is short that we need to expand it unduly; and quoting from a pre-print (which was never accepted by any reputable journal) is a bad idea in any case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Press about a preprint is still press about a preprint. (Also, CNET, really? They do cellphone reviews.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

So out of ten sources, you pick just CNET, and you seem to be unaware they cover more than just cellphones these days. The writer has a PhD in Pharmaceutical and Medical Science. LondonIP (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I believe that over-use of direct quotations is a big part of the issue here. That is part of why I called it a WP:FRINGE issue. We are overrepresenting the ideas of the pre-print and presenting them without any interpretation through the lens of the mainstream view, as is required for fringe theories. The edits did not improve the article, they simply made Chan's views seem more accepted, which they are not. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:, WP:ONUS presupposes there is a dispute, and it seems we the dispute here entails WP:FRINGE, WP:WIKIVOICE, MOS:WTW, so it looks like this may become another 15,000 word discussion. I am waiting for Shibbolethink and RandomCanadian to explain the FRINGE or WIKIVOICE here, as that was what they cited in their reverts. When I look at actual pseudoscience proponents, like Samuel Hahnemann and Andrew Wakefield, I don't think "verbose" and "quotes" was a good reason to revert. This is especially as this kind of revert is just the latest in what is a series of many in this topic area. LondonIP (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I wouldn't characterize Chan's work as pseudoscience. If anyone does feel that way, they haven't expressed so yet. Gimiv chose the section title.

Content is disputed when it's reverted, so this one's been going for a while. I'm glad to see us avoiding an edit war. I'll say briefly that I shared Shibbolethink's original wiki-voice concerns. It seems we've moved on to a different phrasing, so I'd rather not hash out a moot debate.

One part of your edit I don't dispute was "The preprint was not formally accepted by a scientific journal but received a significant reception in the popular press." I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of others. Firefangledfeathers 20:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: this revert by Shibbolethink cites WP:FRINGE and WP:WIKIVOICE, and was backed up twice by RandomCanadian (who also accused FE of "tag-teaming"), and neither of them have explained how my edit "ran afoul" of these policies. The withdrawal back to MOS:WTW, with complaints about "direct quotations" (actually they’re from the MTR piece) and "full-quotes" (actually they're partial quotes), does not justify three reverts of a good-faith edit (WP:REVERT calls this "disruptive", and there is also WP:ONLYREVERT). In this post above, Shibbolethink evokes WP:FRINGE again, when it may only be a WP:NPOV/BALANCE issue, and does not justify three reverts either. Since you agree with Wikivoice problem, please can you tell me what exactly concerned you? Was it about Chan "becoming known" for something (the preprint), or that she "claimed" something (pre-adaption), or that this something "suggested" something else (lab leak)? Or is it something else I may have missed? LondonIP (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"and neither of them have explained" you've been given rather detailed explanations. If you don't like them, that's your problem. I'd like for you to explain how it isn't much harder to justify the re-insertion of material which is clearly disputed for valid reasons, even if you disagree with those reasons. If something is written poorly enough, to the point that it goes to an unencyclopedic level of detail, and gives a slanted view on the topic; then yes, those are valid reasons to revert. You should seek to address those issues, instead of complaining that you got legitimately reverted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

You have not explained how LondonIP's edit "ran afoul" of FRINGE or WIKIVOICE. Firefangledfeathers below explains the Wikivoice concern, but notes also that LondonIP fixed it in their second edit, which you reverted twice. What you explain below are only MOS:WTW concerns, which LondonIP countered and also referred to as Motte-and-bailey fallacy. I have no objection to the partial quotes LondonIP added, which are sourced from the Mit Technology Review, a secondary source. Francesco espo (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

You not liking the explanation does not mean that it doesn't exist. My main argument is not that this is using non-neutral words, but that it is needlessly verbose, in addition to, indeed, "running afoul" (since you insist on me using those exact words) of FRINGE, due to not contextualising the fact this is a minority view; and due to being based on poor sources (a newspaper article on a never-accepted pre-print...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

No, you explained only your newly invented MOS:WTW concerns, not the original WP:FRINGE concern, which you reemphasize above. Your "main" argument about non-neutral words and lack of contextualization runs afoul of WP:POVDELETION, which you are well aware of. Calling ten sources "poor" is also not a good argument. Gimiv (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding stuff in an article when it is clearly disputed, and then doubling down when you are well aware of the reasons why it is disputed (as opposed to when no reason is given, where one revert might be justifiable in some instances if it spares a long talk page discussion) runs afoul of WP:BATTLEGROUND and of WP:CONSENSUS. Complaining to others that they removed it, without addressing the concerns, and putting words in their mouth (I never linked or mentioned any issue of WP:WTW, as opposed to FRINGE and it being needlessly verbose) is only an unhelpful deflection. If you don't like my explanation, you're free to take a look at existing policy and guidelines and come up with a better one, or with a sensible compromise. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

You have yet to explain how Chan et al promulgates a fringe theory. You and Shibbolethink disputed my edit with reverts citing WP:FRINGE, so you should explain how it is a fringe theory, instead of deflecting with MOS:WTW type stuff. Since you dispute my edit based on FRINGE, the WP:ONUS is on you to explain how it is a fringe theory. LondonIP (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Her ideas are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community. This is the only requirement for an idea to be "fringe." Notably any proposal of hers that the virus appears to have been "engineered" or "pre-adapted." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Please provide sources that put the mainstream scientific view of the view expressed in her prepreint, which is specifically about a non-engineered virus. Please don't confuse pre-adaption claim with engineered virus claim, as Chan only conceded a leak of an engineered virus as a possibility much later. Please also don't confuse the need for WP:BALANCE for WP:FRINGE/ALT views with actual WP:FRINGE views. LondonIP (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that "engineered" and "pre-adapted" are the same thing. These are two separate things Alina Chan has endorsed at one time or another. And both are FRINGE.

In this manuscript, for example, Chan espouses the idea that the Furin cleavage site could have been introduced using genetic engineering [13].

Neither of these ideas is an alternative scientific formulation, they are fringe views espoused by extremely few voices. No mainstream scientific establishment has endorsed either view.

The mainstream view is that the virus is not "pre-adapted for humans" and that the furin cleavage site is likely not engineered, as shown in scientific review articles. [14] [15] [16]

Likewise, Chan also has espoused a view that the virus could have originated from a sample collected in the mojiang mine [17]. This is likewise considered a FRINGE view with no supporting evidence by the mainstream establishment. [18] [19] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If sources say ideas from Chan's bioRxiv paper are fringe, then you should add that claim to the article, citing those sources. Chan et al's preprint on bioRxiv merely suggested a lab origin as one of three possible scenarios, without asserting which scenario is more likely. Chan's peer reviewed perspective paper in Molecular Biology and Evolution that you link to says that the introduction of the FCS into SARS2's spike protein is consistent with both natural and lab origins, and does not "espouse" anything that can considered pseudoscience (MBE generally doesn't publish pseudoscience). Since China is covering up the origins of the virus, no scientific paper, even a review paper, can decide what is the rug or what is the fringe of this science. The Holmes et al paper you link to can be cited for WP:BALANCE, but it doesn't make Chan et al's position pseudoscience, so WP:FRINGE remains irrelevant. The WP:FRINGE policy clearly distinguishes between Pseudoscience, Questionable science, and Alternative theoretical formulations. LondonIP (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

suggesting a lab origin as one possible way to explain the emergent virus's apparent adaption to humans without leaving an environmental trail. Italics on the portion that appears to support Chan's theory in wikivoice, as a real thing that Chan has a theory to explain. Would you like to keep discussing this and ONUS? You addressed my wikivoice concerns in your very next version, and I am supporting at least one part of it. Firefangledfeathers 01:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: thanks for explaining what the Wikivoice concern was, and noting that I tried to address it in my second edit. However, please be aware that Chan et al's observation about SARS-COV-2's evolution isn't really controversial, as the "remarkable" stability of the virus is noted in Page 3 of the Terms of Reference for the WHO-convened study, calling it "well-adapted" from early detection in Wuhan [20]. Wikipedia's WP:FRINGE parlance refers to an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views, and I don't think something as obvious about the virus as this can be describes in that way, and those opposing Chan et al haven't challenged that (see Eisen's comment in the MTR piece). Besides for Chan et al, other papers such as Makino et al; Baric et al, Dudas and Rambaut; and Forni et al describe the rapid evolution of novel viruses in new hosts, so this phenomenon is well known to science. Furthermore, as I described in my edit, Chan et al offered lab origins as only one of three theories to explain their observation, providing quotations so that the reader can understand what it was that she wrote. Since I noted also that it was in relation to a "non-engineered virus", the WP:ONUS is really on Shibbolethink and RandomCanadian to build consensus here that a any kind of lab accident is WP:FRINGE. Otherwise it is just another misapplication of the WP:FRINGE guideline in this contentious topic area. LondonIP (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope, we never said "any kind of lab accident is WP:FRINGE." We said the specific ideas you're pushing here in her article are FRINGE. Perhaps most importantly, it matters more if the ideas you're attempting to introduce are WP:DUE in the form you'd like to introduce them. I contend they are not, as they are not represented in that degree by secondary sources. Your edits would over-represent them out of proportion with their lack of mainstream acceptance. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Again, though, I do think the popularity of the pre-print in non-science media is due, and I'm trying to push toward some compromise. 98% of this conversation is backward-looking mudslinging and referred pain from other pages. Firefangledfeathers 13:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: please remain WP:CIVIL. If I wasn't WP:AGF, I would take your accusation of me "pushing ideas" as a personal attack. You cited WP:FRINGE in your revert of my edit here, and when asked by other editors to explain your concern, you replied only seven days later. I don't know what Firefangledfeathers agrees with you about here, but I read this comment of theirs as agreeing with me, so I'm now quite confused. If we need a hold an RfC on the question of whether the leak of a non-engineered virus concerns WP:FRINGE or WP:PREPRINT, then we should proceed with that. If we need an RfC on whether the use of partial quotes from a preprint citing secondary source is WP:DUE, then lets proceed with that. LondonIP (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you in part. I would like to see the following restored to the article: "The preprint was not formally accepted by a scientific journal but received a significant reception in the popular press." The popularity of the preprint is a major contributor to Chan's notability and I think it's demonstrably due based on the sourcing.

If we're going to keep rehashing the past, I would like to clarify that Shibbolethink explained his point about FRINGE on December 1. You may not have been satisfied with his explanation, but there's no need to pretend it doesn't exist. I also would like to avoid giving undue prominence to Chan's fringe views. Firefangledfeathers 20:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I actually have no objection to that sentence on its own as a WP:COMPROMISE, now that I've had time to reconsider all of this. I think it is accurate and encyclopedic. I continue to hold objections to the rest of the edits under consideration here, which I believe over-represent FRINGE views beyond their DUE-ness. I would be okay with re-inserting only that sentence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: was it this Dec 1 comment from Shibbolethink that explained how Chan's views are fringe? I saw such an explanation only in their Dec 6 comment, which LondonIP now replied to. If you are also going to call Chan's views fringe, I would ask you to explain which of her views are fringe. Her 2020 preprint on bioRxiv suggested only the lab origin of a non engineered virus and her 2021 peer reviewed perspective paper on MBE said only that the introduction of the FCS into SARS2's spike protein could have happened in either nature or a lab. She didn't advocate for any theory in those papers, and her co-author on both papers publicly says she prefers natural origins theory [21]. Do you guys even know the difference between WP:FRINGE and WP:BALANCE and how they are applied differently? I think a clarification through WP:ARCA would be better than a WP:COMPROMISE. This is the second dispute on this preprint and it will happen again. Francesco espo (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes that comment is the one I was referring to, but no, I didn't say that Shibbolethink had explained how Chan's views are fringe. He explained what about the edit implicated fringe, namely . It wasn't until after his comment that anyone pushed back on pre-adaption being a fringe idea.

Your comment hints that you might feel this is more of a BALANCE issue than a FRINGE issue. Either way, the solution is to present any fringe/minority/disputed view in context. Do you favor adding back in some description of Chan's 2020 preprint along with published sources pushing back on her views?

I can't stop you from ARCA, but consider that two is a pretty low number of disputes to approach the arbitrators with. Firefangledfeathers 04:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Francesco espo: Maybe an ARCA clarification here would prove to be useful elsewhere too. See the analogous discussion at Talk:Matt Ridley#Ridley's statements on COVID-19. Those disputes may likewise reflect misunderstandings about sourcing or BALANCE.

Example: an editor, supported by their own (unsourced) analysis, explains (with a tone of authority) that the subject "is not particularly qualified to comment on matters of virus evolution or zoonosis" — because his Oxford PhD is in zoology rather than "a relevant field (e.g. viruses, biosafety, etc.)". –Dervorguilla (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If your edit is disputed (by being reverted, which is an obvious enough sign that people have fundamental disagreements over it), then yes, ONUS applies. The problem of your version is that you uncritically add quotes from a pre-print (without putting them in context with mainstream science), and that your addition does not add any significant new information (is it really adding anything essential on the topic?) which would justify such expansion based on a primary source.

You changed the following three sentences, Chan became known during the COVID-19 pandemic for co-authoring preprints and op-eds claiming the virus was "pre-adapted" to humans and suggesting COVID-19 could have escaped from a laboratory.[5][6] Chan wrote opinion pieces on the subject with science journalist Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal and in The Daily Telegraph.[7][8] Chan later signed open letters together with other scientists published in the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, calling for full and unrestricted international forensic investigations into all possible origins of the virus.[9][10]; into four paragraphs (some of them single-sentence, but nevermind). Yet those paragraphs still essentially say the same thing, except now you've plastered the first one full of quotes from the pre-print. An encyclopedia is a summary, not a quote-collection. If we can convey the most important information to the reader in 20 words instead of 200, and maintain a more academic and detached tone by not having to quote the subject at length, then the version with 20 is far superior. That less is more is not a particularly controversial position to take, I don't see why you're already being pessimistic about this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

For the benefit of lateomers to the discussion, I understand that the diff in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alina_Chan&diff=1057853302&oldid=1057837069 — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether it's science or pseudoscience, pre-prints have no place on Wikipedia. Anyone familiar with the process of peer review and publication can easily make that determination, making this discussion moot. 174.193.136.71 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I support inclusion in the context of journalistic dueness, rather than a scientific one. Reliable sources that are DUE regarding a preprint that doesn't meet scholarly standards is a perfectly acceptable basis for inclusion. The only primary source cited is the sciencemag letter. Secondary sources are demonstrating DUEness. SmolBrane (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Chan's work (including the pre-print) is already mentioned (Chan became known during the COVID-19 pandemic for co-authoring preprints and op-eds claiming the virus was "pre-adapted" to humans and suggesting COVID-19 could have escaped from a laboratory.). The only problem here is that people want to make it more verbose, and quote at length without providing required context... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Since there is an agreement here that Chan works is not pseudoscience, I think the WP:ONUS is on anyone who wish to build concensus here that a regular lab accident (involving non-engineered virus) is FRINGE? Sgnpkd (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anybody has seriously considered the strawman presented in this section title (nor does the article appear to have described the preprint as such, now or at the time this thread was opened). Something not being pseudoscience does not mean it is not FRINGE. There are plenty of sources from reputable scientists which definitively show that a lab accident is quite unlikely - there is a long-standing on-wiki consensus on this, and if you really feel like you need a reminder, WP:NOLABLEAK exists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Not a strawman at all. You, Shibbolethink and Firefangledfeathers described Chan's views as fringe. According to the spectrum of views described in Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Identifying fringe theories, if something isn't pseudoscience, then it is either questionable science, or a alternative theoretical formulation. There are plenty of sources from reputable scientists saying a lab accident is a distinct possibility, so the WP:ONUS is on you to explain how it is fringe, in the policy sense. LondonIP (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

No, what you are doing is a tendentious attempt to reverse the burden of proof. If you claim that Chan's view is not that of a small minority (whether it is pseudoscience, just questionable, or an alternative formulation, does not change much in terms of FALSEBALANCE and UNDUE if it is held by a small minority, hence FRINGE), then it is up to you (i.e. not on me or others to prove the negative, that there are none) to find the high-quality sources (WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:MEDRS, etc) which support this. Sources which you have so far been thoroughly unable to present, and instead keep substituting low-quality ones (see WP:PARITY - a newspapers article might be ok for politics and recent events, but it is not remotely equivalent to a scientific paper when discussing a scientific topic) and your own personal opinions on the matter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@LondonIP In this comment, you have very aptly described how consensus is against your position. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

does not change much in terms of FALSEBALANCE and UNDUE exactly and framing it as "pseudoscience or not" was an irrelevant argument in this case. Rightly described as a strawman and attempt to circumvent WP:FRINGE and WP:GEVAL. —PaleoNeonate – 00:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian, Shibbolethink, and PaleoNeonate: I am not sure what you guys are talking about. I did not ever oppose adding an opposing viewpoint for WP:BALANCE and I even tried to add one myself (successfully added now). It's very normal for scientists to disagree with each other and I encourage you to read WP:FRINGE properly and understand how it applies differently to WP:NPOV/GEVAL/BALANCE. If you merely wanted an opposing viewpoint, you could have just added one, instead of reverting me citing WP:FRINGE. LondonIP (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The viewpoint wasn't why I reverted, and I am happy the Eisen viewpoint is there. This has nothing to do with the current dispute. The issue was entirely with how the pre-print was presented. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit broke the sentence about Chan's preprint from the Eisen critique. The judgement that Chan's hypothesis being largely negative is redundant with the quote from the New York Times that follows it. Please fix.103.255.6.93 (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faiqaqazi844 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Describing her disputes with EcoHealth's and China's viewpoints

Two policies (WIKIVOICE and IMPARTIAL) tell us that Wikipedia aims to describe disputes. And Chan has famously disputed (most specifically) EcoHealth's views and the PRC's views.

 Question: Do at least some of their disputed views differ from what Wikipedia considers mainstream expert understanding?

Because we can go ahead and describe (and specifically attribute) those views. (And we won't have to keep arguing about FRINGE violations!) –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: your link goes to search results for 'Alina Chan'. Firefangledfeathers 13:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes; I'm trying to establish harmony with our policy against giving undue weight to MINORASPECTs of our subject. An article should strive to treat each aspect of its subject with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

These disputes show up naturally in a broad general search for material on 'Alina Chan' at DuckDuckGo.

• Regalado, MIT Technology Review

Chan sent me a copy of her slide deck from the State Department briefing, with a listing of “Top 10 Points.” ... Six relate to allegedly suspicious behavior on the part of Chinese scientists, including the failure to mention the miners who died in 2012 and the furin site on the virus genome.

• Rabin, NYTimes

Many senior virologists ... said ... that her statements would alienate China, hampering any future investigations. A Chinese news outlet accused her of “filthy behavior and a lack of basic academic ethics”...

• Jacobsen, Boston magazine

She wrote, “I think Daszak was misinformed.” ... Daszak says that indeed he had been misinformed and was unaware that that virus found in the mine shaft had been sequenced before 2020.

Her disputes with China's and EcoHealth's viewpoints are presented and discussed in fairly reliable sources listed on the first page of search results. –Dervorguilla (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I hesitate to endorse the 'front page of DuckDuckGo' test for WEIGHT, but I think it's fine for the article to describe Chan's criticism of EHA and China. I agree that these are not minor aspects of her biography. There will be coat-rack and neutrality traps. Firefangledfeathers 21:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this insight! Maybe we can avoid one of those "traps". Consensus policy warns participants against citing essays (like the long 2000-word COATRACK essay) to exclude material that conforms with policy (like NEUTRALITY), sources, and common sense. –Dervorguilla (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I’ll specify that I am likely to cite coatrack only to exclude material that does not conform with policy. Firefangledfeathers 23:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

as a clarification, people mostly cite essays as an abbreviation of an argument. Because typing out the entire argument is more tedious. I seldom, if ever, see someone cite WP:COATRACK as an ace-in-the-hole. They cite it as a way to say "This looks like it's becoming a coatrack, and that's against WP:DUE/WP:NPOV/WP:MOS etc." Those things are WP:PAGs. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The coat-rack trap is entirely about how long it becomes. It should remain within WP:WEIGHT limits. I agree with Firefangledfeathers that a DuckDuckGo search is not a valid way to assess WP:DUE. We need to use an overall landscape of Reliable sources, and such search engines do not always prefer such sources, because unreliable sources can often be much more click-heavy and attractive to others. They create more controversy, but they are less balanced, more POV, etc.

And when discussing matters of science, it will have to avoid WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE issues. I agree these are important and notable aspects of her life.

I agree we should mention these events/criticisms Chan has made. But I do not think more than a paragraph is necessary or WP:DUE. Not in this short article. It cannot become an article about how EHA and China are bad. It must remain an article about Alina Chan, that mentions how Chan is a critic of these places/orgs.

We should be careful to not just re-host Chan's arguments and give them more fuel. We must contextualize her opinions in what other people think, in what EHA has said, in what the US govt has said, in what the Chinese govt has said. In what other scientists have said, where applicable, briefly. Wikipedia cannot be an attack site, it must be a historical record as much as possible.

In that way, simply extensively quoting Chan would likely become an issue not because quoting her is bad, but because it will quickly become UNDUE. We must summarize as much as possible her positions, rather than restating or quoting her arguments. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: As I understand your reply, you contend that we should not give Chan's viewpoints about China "more fuel"; we should contextualize them in "what the Chinese govt has said." I maintain that our article's top-listed references (also DuckDuckGo's) all seem to question some of that government's theories.

Daszak himself says that he had been misinformed and was unaware that that virus found in the mine shaft had been sequenced before 2020. He apparently accepts Chan's viewpoint on this specific question.

Most of the Wikipedia community seem willing to properly apply our FALSEBALANCE principle. The Chinese government's plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.

We can, accordingly, "re-host" any of Chan's currently accepted viewpoints without concerning ourselves about what Party Secretary Xi might think. –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I am only suggesting that we say what Chan believes, and then what the Chinese government's position is, what the american government's position is, or what the scientific community's position is (depending on the dispute). As WP:PAGs contend-- when in doubt, describe the dispute, do not editorialize. That is all I'm suggesting. Any other reading is assuming bad faith.

Chan's position on these controversial issues is rarely in line with the scientific consensus (or WP:MAINSTREAM opinion). Chan's view on these issues is not, as of yet, "accepted academic scholarship." When/if it is, we should describe it in that way without describing the minority opinion, as this is not an article about the minority view.

I welcome any/all evidence that Chan's position is the majority view or scientific consensus. Because I think the NIH and the National Academies of Science might have something to say about that. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

"Bat Research Group Failed to Submit Virus Studies Promptly, NIH Says." –Dervorguilla (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

we should contextualize them in "what the Chinese govt has said." No, with the analysis and summary of RS, as opposed to echoing a list of arguments (even if they were pro/con, to avoid WP:GEVAL and the problems when disregarding WP:YESPOV). —PaleoNeonate – 00:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

with the analysis and summary of RS Yes I would support this approach. Many RSes describe the Chinese govt position. Which means it is WP:DUE as an attributed statement. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we treat the Chinese government's position like accepted scholarship?

We're (finally) addressing the fundamental issue concerning our subject's dispute with China's position.

Shibbolethink has helpfully phrased it this way:

"I am only suggesting that we say what Chan believes, and then what the Chinese government's position is..."

Facts:

• On September 13, the Chinese government and its agents lost a five-year multichannel (cyber+kinetic) war against the greater Wikipedia community. Harrison, "Why Wikipedia Banned Several Chinese Admins"; Dennis, "Regarding a series of serious office actions"
• The Chinese government said its editors had refused to allow some extremists and cultists supported by anti-China forces in the US and the West to pollute [Chinese] Wikipedia on various topics related to China. Geng, "Is Wikipedia Starting a 'Purge' of Chinese People?"
• Our extremists and cultists prevailed.

Implications:

Our non-negotiable GEVAL policy now rules again over all Wikipedias worldwide—even over this 'polluted' article. The Chinese government's plausible but currently unaccepted theories need not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship—or through otherwise re-hosting those theories wherever we "re-host Chan's arguments". –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think Chan’s arguments /are/ accepted scholarship? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Scholarly method: The body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. Since her recent paper on the FCS was accepted in MBE, it is accepted scholarship. It should be noted that it was in response to Holmes et al, which was published before ECH's DARPA proposal was leaked. LondonIP (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"Accepted" in this context means more than just "published." There is also post-publication peer review and overall scholarly criticism to consider. "Accepted" scholarship means more: what is the mainstream academic position? If we based our ideas solely on what was published, then for many years, the Andrew Wakefield antivax paper would be "accepted scholarship" and this paper about how COVID is caused by altered magnetic fields would be legitimate to cite on wikipedia until it's retracted.

We are in a situation where published articles contradict each other. So we go with what the prevailing view is in the published literature. Not the latest. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Selective quoting (as done above) is a practice more colourfully known as "cherry-picking", and is generally frowned upon. Shibboleth said I am only suggesting that we say what Chan believes, and then what the Chinese government's position is, what the american government's position is, or what the scientific community's position is (depending on the dispute).. This debate can't really yield a productive result if people go for cheap tricks and attack strawmen instead of the actual issues. No evidence [beyond a paper written by Chan herself, of course] has been presented that Chan's views are anything but a (tiny) minority. Her views (and other relevant ones) can be mentioned in this article (since it is, one hopes, discussing them), as allowed by policy and common sense, so long care is taken to put them into appropriate context with the mainstream and not to go to excessive length quoting them. Now, please get back on track before this minor derailment turns into a major time-wasting pile-on? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why Chan et al are being treated as fringe viewholders when their efforts were directly related to the rightful reassessment of the lab leak as an impossibility to a possibility. Furthermore, I don't even think their views are being fairly characterized. They're by and large skeptics (with convictions), as those who favor a natural spillover would/should be, because the required intermediate host is still unknown. As someone familiar with the academic/research apparatus that would have led to the "consensus" view that the natural spillover is the most likely, I'm skeptical of the opinions of these "experts" whose ability to make a living often depends on good Chinese relations. I don't just mean grant money...Chinese students pay a boatload to study in the West, whether at the graduate or undergraduate level, but you don't need to rely on my anecdotal experience. There is reliable sourcing with observations by qualified scientists and academics noting the "biting hand that feeds you" issue that may prevent many academics from speaking out against China. Perhaps this could be in the article. 2600:1012:B05B:1B69:6CF4:FE24:D57:D9DE (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

There is reliable sourcing with observations by qualified scientists and academics noting the "biting hand that feeds you" issue that may prevent many academics from speaking out against China. Perhaps this could be in the article.

I believe it is already present and well-sourced in the Chinese government response to COVID-19 article. Such information would be off-topic or WP:UNDUE in this biographical article about Alina Chan. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that like the pseudoscience trope above, this looks a lot like a strawman: Chan vs China. —PaleoNeonate – 00:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: "tweetorials" and supposed shifting opinion

See: [22]
Why should we remove these quality citations and replace it with unattributed POV opinion that is contradicted by our WP:BESTSOURCES? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Added reference to "Investigate the origins of COVID-19" article with first author Bloom and then results from Biden's Intelligence agency's investigation stating re zoonotic or lab-involved that no conclusion is possible at this time. Terribletwos123 (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the Shibbole. That section seems to be WP:SYNTH. I've removed it as such. ––FormalDude ^talk 01:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Much of the focus of Chan’s work as expressed mainly through twitter but also other media has been to argue that a lab-connected origin is worthy of consideration, which was early on dismissed as impossible by many, but is now considered plausible. This was the point of my contribution. Your change eliminates this context and eliminates a significant part of Chan’s contribution to the origins discussion. Quality citations were also included in my changes. The article now reads badly, as there's no context or purpose to her writing her "tweetorials." Terribletwos123 (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: which sentence in particular concerns you per WP:SYNTH? All of what Terribletwos123 wrote is in RS, such a the Boston Magazine, MIT Tech Review and Times articles. I disagree only with citing the Science Magazine letter as its WP:PRIMARY. LondonIP (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Sooner or later Wikipedia will either find a way to document phenomena where are best sources are things like Twitter or fail in its mission, but the place to experiment with this kind of opening up is not a topic that attracts battleground editing. Please workspace any experiments along these lines on the talk pages and seek consensus before adding these kinds of link to the main article. I'm not a fan of discretionary sanctions in general, but I'd rather see them applied than see the double whammy of radically innovative policies deployed at high speed in the service of advancing a highly controversial point of view. — Charles Stewart (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chalst: there is no battelground editing here. We are just patiently waiting on FormalDude to explain what was WP:SYNTH about Terribletwos123's contribution, and you are also welcome to give your opinion. LondonIP (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what Chalst is getting at.

@LondonIP: This is my response: Most, if not all, of what I removed was not stated explicitly in the sources. It was a broad summary of the situation, despite no sources being summaries of the situation. The sources verify certain aspects, but not the broad POV version that was written in the article. It needs to be rewritten based on WP:VERIFIABILITY with no original research, if it is going to be put in the article. ––FormalDude ^talk 00:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. I tagged the article with CN and told Terribletwos123 to cite their sources. Since they are a new editor, I would advise them of the applicable policies instead of deleting their contribution. The Science piece was WP:PRIMARY and not suitable as a citation for that statement. LondonIP (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I was not accusing any of the editors who have taken place in this thread of BATTLEGROUND editing; rather the wider topic of "Chinese institutional coverup of guilt in deadly biohazard incident" is a potential BATTLEGROUND magnet and I don't want this to be the page we relax our attitude to RSes over. Even though I see that Tweetorials might be the kind of thing we have to accept as RSes before too long. — Charles Stewart (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Chalst: I see what you're saying now. As a precisionist, I'd say it completely depends on the specific instance. Tweets are always going to be a WP:PRIMARY source, which means it will depend on who the author of the 'tweetorial' is (per WP:SELFPUBLISH). If they are an established subject matter expert, then the source might be reliable. But in almost all other instances, it would not be reliable. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Those who hypothesize conspiracies to explain natural phenomena are called conspiracy theorists.

Chan's fellow conspiracists are already reverting the edit adding "conspiracy theorist" to her description, but the fact remains that those who hypothesize conspiracies of governments and global health authorities to cover up the origin of a virus--and who do so in the absence of evidence recognized as compelling by the consensus of qualified experts--are conspiracy theorists.

She's not a virologist or immunologist and she hasn't published original research in peer-reviewed journals. She's a post-doc who wrote a general audience book promoting a conspiratorial explanation of SARS-CoV-2's origins. If she had compelling evidence of a laboratory origin for the virus, she would easily sail through peer review at Science, Nature, or the New England Journal.

She hasn't. Because she's a conspiracy theorist. Inoculatedcities (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Please provide sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That she is widely regarded as a conspiracy theorist?

Okay: https://newrepublic.com/article/164688/viral-lab-leak-theory-covid-19 Inoculatedcities (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm skimming, but it would help if you could point out what part of the article supports "regarded by many her field as a conspiracy theorist". Would you also consider placing it somewhere beside the first sentence? The New Republic is generally regarded as an opinionated/biased source, and I'm not seeing that the opinion is due for such prominent placement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I've now had time to read it. The relevant bits:

1. The piece calls the lab leak theory a "conspiracy theory" in Beyerstein's (its author) voice: "this very flimsiness makes the lab leak conspiracy theory so hard to eradicate".
2. Beyerstein notes Chan's claim to neutrality on the theory, but says "despite their performance of neutrality, the authors’ allegiances clearly lie with some version of a lab leak".
3. Beyerstein writes that Chan gives consideration to scenarios that "would require improbably large and durable conspiracies"
4. Though she notes that the book doesn't make an argument for any particular theory, Beyerstein associates exactly that non-argument with a trend in conspiracy theories: that they "rely on people poking holes in the official narrative without committing to a single plausible alternative"
5. There's more on point 3: Beyerstein notes that Chan rejects the idea that she is promoting a conspiracy, but lays out four of Viral's points that would "matter only if they convince us there’s a major cover-up afoot".
6. The piece only mentions "conspiracy theorist" once, saying "Viral also shows why the very weakness of the lab leak case is also its greatest strength: The great part about suspicions—from a conspiracy theorist’s perspective—is that they don’t have to gel into any coherent theory."

Importantly, nothing in the piece supports "regarded by many [in] her field as a conspiracy theorist". Beyerstein herself never clearly calls Chan the same, though the intention of the piece is clearly to make exactly that suggestion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Bon courage made a good point at FTN: we should definitely summarize Beyerstein's review. I didn't support the wording that was cited to the piece, but do support using it in general. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted this recent addition after seeing the thread at BLPN. Clearly discussion is necessary before this can be added to the article in anything resembling the form in Inoculatedcities's changes. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Here from BLP, the sourcing for the change seems poor but the current she became known for questioning the prevailing consensus regarding the origins of the virus and publicly advocating a laboratory escape hypothesis is very bad. Something along the lines of she became known for questioning the scientific consensus that the virus was not from a laboratory leak. Just because we shouldn't label BLPs without sourcing doesn't mean we should give credence to minority views. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Scrape together some sources that support the wording, and I'll support the change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a suggestion if you believe it's not the case, I would suggest taking it to the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. I have no interest in arguing the same details acriss every article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of Alina Chan in that article so the question of what Alina Chan became known for does not even arise. If you wish to make a change to this article to what she became known for, you will need sources to support such a change especially since this is an article on a living person. It does not matter what individual editors believe, what matters is what the sources say. If you personally believe Alina Chan is known for X but sources say she is known for Y then Y is what we will mention in this and all article which mention her, no matter that you personally believe she is known for X. (Edited to add: This happens a lot if you regularly edit Wikipedia. There are a lot of cases where I personally think an editor is mostly known for X or otherwise X is true about a person or about what a person says or does now or in the past. But sources are simply not there so we either have to say Y or sometimes simply nothing if the sources don't really address this point. It's part of parcel of editing here that sometimes no matter how sure you are over something, if you cannot find sources for it then our articles cannot say it.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC) 02:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, a letter she co-write is mentioned in this paragraphtext:

In a letter published in Science, a number of scientists, including Ralph S. Baric, argued that the accidental laboratory leak hypothesis had not been sufficiently investigated and remained possible, calling for greater clarity and additional data.[205] Their letter was criticized by some virologists and public health experts, who said that a "hostile" and "divisive" focus on the WIV was unsupported by evidence, was impeding inquiries into legitimate concerns about China's pandemic response and transparency by combining them with speculative and meritless argument,[18] and would cause Chinese scientists and authorities to share less rather than more data.[32]

but while you could say this is effectively criticism of Chan (of sorts) since it criticised a letter she co-wrote, it does not say anything about what Chan is known for and the specific criticism of the letter seems sourced and reasonable. It may or may not be reasonable to also mention that letter and that criticism in this article assuming it isn't already. However it does not come close to support the change you wish to make.

Edit to add: Note that AFAIK there is no question that the scientific consensus remains that a SARS-CoV-2 did not come from a laboratory leak. That is not the issue here. The issue here is what Chan is known for rather than what the scientific consensus on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 is.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC) 02:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The original wording is much better. At this stage, there is no scientific consensus on the origins of the virus other than "we don't know", hence why the WHO says that all scenarios remain on the table. The sources support the claim that there is a majority view amongst scientists, but not that there is consensus (general agreement). We've had the discussion recently on the lab leak forums so if you want to debate this point I'd suggest contributing there rather than repeating the entire thread here. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

At this stage, there is no scientific consensus on the origins of the virus other than "we don't know",
This appears to be your personal opinion, not a belief held by the wikipedia community. Our sources describe a consensus among the relevant experts in favor of the zoonotic explanation as the most likely. The disagreement of a select few (Bloom, et al) does not detract from that consensus. That's an established agreement among editors in the archives at both of these talk pages, and at FTN. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 07:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Nonsense. What sources? The WHO, former and current heads of national CDCs and all eight intelligence agencies asked to look into this by the Biden administration all say we don't know the origin and need to investigate further. Are you seriously arguing that the scientific consensus is they're all wrong?
• I don't agree with your assessment that there is established agreement on the talk pages that there is scientific consensus on the origin of COVID. There were plenty of editors in agreement with me on the lab leak talk page. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  What sources? The WHO, former and current heads of national CDCs and all eight intelligence agencies asked to look into this by the Biden administration all say we don't know the origin and need to investigate further.
  You are reiterating only what preferences your position and not the balanced reporting of what those sources actually say. The WHO, and a majority of US intelligence agencies, and the UK intelligence community all believe the zoonotic theory is more likely. Even if that assessment is not definitive. As do these peer reviewed expert-authored articles published in highly trustworthy journals: [23][24][25][26] and highly trustworthy non-academic sources authored by experts: [27][28]

  As I've described to you before, the lower likelihood possibility that it could have, maybe, come from a lab, despite the lack of evidence in favor (again, as our sources say), is not mutually exclusive with there being a consensus that the zoonotic origin is more likely. This is absolutism. Scientific questions are never 100% yes or no, there are always shades of gray, and peer-reviewed, expert-authored evidence continues to trend in favor of a zoonotic origin. No one is saying we should put in wikivoice that "The origin is zoonosis". That's a straw man. I would urge anyone in this conversation to try and steel man arguments.

  This isn't worth debating. If you disagree, the best course of action is to take this up at WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN or whatever. It also is trending towards FORUM territory on this talk page. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  I am merely arguing against the specific change "she became known for questioning the scientific consensus that the virus was not from a laboratory leak". This wording implies that the scientific consensus is that 'we know for sure what happened and the lab leak scenario can be completely ruled out', which is not the case. I don't think you are disputing this? Whether or not there is scientific consensus that the natural origin is more likely is a legitimate question but not a debate for here. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent New York Times Article

This is very relevant, as it is the first many people will have heard of Chan. I have added a link. Tuntable (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It's relevant, and we mention it in the body of the article. It may be the first time some people are hearing about her, but that doesn't necessarily make it lead-worthy. It's not even the first time she's been featured in The Times! I'm open to changing my mind, but we'd really need to see more reliable, secondary coverage of her op-ed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracists defending Chan by editing her page

The constant reversion of edits that include links to publications critical of Chan's claims is deeply disturbing. Wikipedia should not be a place for activists or ideologues to protect conspiracy theorists from criticism, but alas. Here we are. Inoculatedcities (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why I have this page on my watchlist, but your comment here has me intrigued. Can you be more specific as to which diff(s) you're referring to and the issue with them? It appears to me that this page hasn't been heavily edited in a while. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Same reaction from me! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)