Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

RfC: How should we refer to the report on SARS-COV-2 origins?

RfC withdrawn because it's a WP:SNOWBALL in favor of option B (WHO-convened report/study) as first use per-section, with a slightly more abbreviated "WHO report/study" thereafter. I'm withdrawing because these articles are so contentious and discussions tend to devolve, and I think it's good to recognize a very clear consensus when it exists. If anyone thinks I called this one the wrong way, or wants me to re-open, absolutely I will, just let me know. But otherwise I'm withdrawing and leaving this open so as not to ruffle any feathers unnecessarily. Deal? Deal.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Throughout this article, we often refer to a report published by the WHO about the origins of SARS-COV-2 [1].

The basic question of this RfC is: How should we refer to this report?

This is a more complicated question than it might seem at first glance, and I encourage all editors to read the evidence presented below these options before weighing in.

Here are the options as I see them:

• A: Refer to it as the "Joint WHO-China study" in the lead and then explain the process of how the study/report came to be, who was involved in what capacity, etc.
• B: Refer to it as the "WHO-convened study" in the lead and then explain the process of how the study/report came to be, who was involved in what capacity, etc.
• C: A mix between A and B where we refer to the study/report throughout the article switching off between the two names, with the first usage being "Joint WHO-China study."
• D: Variant of C where we switch off, but the first usage is "WHO-convened study."
• E: We scrap this dispute altogether and use novel language such as "WHO-convened study conducted jointly with China" or "joint study convened by the WHO and conducted with China."

RfC prepared 18:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC) by Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} (updated 19:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC))

Evidence

Here are the relevant questions and data:

• What name do news agencies use?

News agencies

Use some form of "Joint WHO-China study": CNBC, The Economist, Voice of America, Vice News Use some form of "WHO study" or refer to WHO as the sole author of the report: BBC, Bloomberg, Fox News, The Guardian,Newsweek, Politico, Times of India, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post Use a mix of the two: ABC News, Ars Technica, Associated Press, MIT Technology Review, NBC News, NPR, Denver Gazette, New York Times, Reuters Sources

• What name do peer-reviewed journal articles (and book chapters) use?

Peer-reviewed literature

Use some form of "Joint WHO-China study": Bloom et al in Science, Gündüz et al in European Journal of Therapeutics, Hidalgo et al (Book Chapter), Lee et al in Public Health, Thoradeniya et al in Globalization and Health, Use some form of "WHO study" or refer to WHO as the sole author of the report: Decroly et al in Virologie, Frutos et al in Infection, genetics and evolution, Koopmans M in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Wacharapluesadee et al in Nature Communications, Wu et al in Nature Medicine, Xiao et al in Scientific Reports Use a mix of the two: Zaracostas in The Lancet Sources

• What about other trustworthy sources (e.g. press releases)?

Other non-news non-academic sources
Use some form of "WHO study" or refer to WHO as the sole author of the report: Official press release from the governments of the USA, Australia, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Korea, Slovenia, and the UK Sources

• What about the primary source?

Primary source material

What is the official document called? (as in the report PDF) "WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part" Subtitle: "Joint Report" What is the study that formed the background of the report called? "Joint WHO-China Study" Who commissioned the report? The World Health Assembly (decision-making body of the WHO) in May 2020 (Resolution WHA73.1) Who is the author in the report's own words? The WHO team. The acknowledgments section is written as: "WHO wishes to thank...." The team acknowledges the China-appointed participants, but not themselves. Who prepared/edited the document? David W. FitzSimons, Sun Jiani, and Lisa Scheuermann. Google searches reveal that all three work at the WHO. How was the report put together? In the "Methods of work" section, the report says "The final report describes the methods and results as presented by the Chinese team’s researchers. The findings are based on the information exchanged among the joint team, the extensive work undertaken in China in response to requests from the international team, including re-analysis or additional analysis of collected information, review of national and local governmental reports, discussions on control and prevention measures with national and local experts and response teams, and observations made and insights gained during site visits." Who is the report officially released by? Posted as an official position statement, on behalf of the WHO as an entity, and presented to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom. Note: Thank you to Forich for gathering a lot of this primary detail from the report itself. I would not have found those quotes without your work here.

Note: I gathered this evidence to start, but I'm happy to add any WP:RSes that anyone else finds to this section. Just let me know.

Evidence Gathered 18:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC) by Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} (updated 23:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC))

Adding that Fox and Newsweek have also referred to it as either a WHO report or WHO-led report, which I think helps point out that this is a term used across the political spectrum.[2][3] Bakkster Man (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Done! I hadn't seen the Fox News one! I didn't add the Newsweek originally because the Perennial RS list has it as a non-RS post-2013. But it also says "case by case basis" and I think for the purposes of this survey, it makes sense to include. So I did just add it, if that wasn't clear! If anyone objects let me know.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, I wouldn't propose it as a source for article content, but as context of how the report is referred to across the political spectrum. it feels like precisely the kind of exception to make on a talk page for building consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment - I see several places where we do not explicitly refer to the study as a "joint study" or "WHO-convened" (Scientists involved in the WHO report), so option A (or the article) should be updated to recognize this. My preference isn't quite represented above, which would be to use one of the two official names the first time it's referenced (in the article or per-section), and then refer to it throughout the remainder as "the WHO study" or similar (perhaps with parenthetical explanation of the shortened name chosen). Also note, we should involve Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as at least one reference to the report comes from text transcluded from that page. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, I see how that option isn't precisely represented. I guess I would summarize your position as A or B at first in the lead or per-section, and then B throughout the rest of the body/section. Is that a fair summary? I'll simplify the options to make that more clear--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Close, but I'd say A or B on first use (possibly per-section), "WHO report" for all remaining. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the Fringe theories noticeboard. 19:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the NPOV noticeboard. 19:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. 19:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Any of these appear to be justifiable with sourcing. Geogene (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  We have had several revert-revert stalemates and WP:BRDs about this exact thing. So we probably need to come up with a consensus on which is best. If we don't, it just means more wasted editor time and headache. The point of this RfC (like most RfCs) is to resolve ambiguity about a question in which there is considerable disagreement, by gathering wider input. If we can establish a consensus about this, then at least we can point editors here when they try and introduce their preferred wording.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• B - Personally I find the name itself to be the least important part of portraying the findings of this study. I get why some users may want to, in some way, acknowledge the COI of China being involved with the study. But the report itself was prepared, edited, and written by WHO affiliates and employees. We can help explain that COI, however small I personally believe it to be, by giving a short description of how the report came into existence, as we currently do in the 4th paragraph of the lead. The study was conducted jointly, but the report was written exclusively by the WHO. I think the WP:RSes also support B, as the most well-regarded peer-reviewed literature sources refer to it this way, as well as many reputable news agencies, though not all of them. It's clear this doesn't break down along political lines, and that this is just a confusion resulting from the study being conducted jointly. But we should refer to the report and its findings as authored by the WHO, because that's who wrote it. My 2 cents anyway.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• B (and shortened thereafter) per the excellent and thorough WP:GOODRESEARCH done by Shibbolethink. There's little more to say, except maybe add a few more outlets/sources (I've looked for ones outside of the US, for variety): The Guardian clearly describes the report as being the "WHO report" or being the work of the "WHO team"; The BBC is very similar, clearly describing the report as issued by the WHO, simply a "WHO investigation" or report - there's one instance of mixed-usage, although the piece describes work done by the "WHO team". CBC has "joint WHO-China study", but it's a reprint of an AP piece so not particularly interesting as far as we are concerned. As for some scientific sources not already mentioned, Frutos et al. has "the official WHO investigation team". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• B is at least accurate and not misleading. Option A seems to suggest that the Chinese government coauthored or formally endorsed the report (although the word joint could be interpreted differently by different readers). NightHeron (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• A, C, or E - I think leaving out "China" at first mention would be close to bordering on deceptive (but not quite, just nearing there); I don't necessarily think it would be helpful to say "WHO-China" over and over and over again, though, as that would venture into the territory of hitting the reader over the head. BUT, alternating between the two could also be problematic: it could make one think there are two different reports being discussed. So perhaps after first mention just call it "the report" or "the Report" (I know capitalisation nazis are not likely to allow the latter; I think all the fuss over what can and can't be capitalised is silly, myself). Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  If we explain the context of China's involvement in the lead immediately after the first use of the term, what's deceptive about B?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose switching between "WHO-convened" and "WHO–China" as proposed in "C" and "D", because that will make it sound like there are two separate studies/reports. User:Bakkster Man's comment has made me wonder whether the real question is how to describe the study (which obviously involved the Chinese government) or the publication (whose authors do not seem to include the Chinese government). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• B on first use (possibly per-section), "WHO report" for all remaining. Forich (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• B but D is okay too, depending on context. The study and its report are notable enough for their own page, which should also include responses from the WHO DG, WHO member states and independent scientists. CutePeach (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Early Chinese Virus sequencing deleted

This preprint has just been published: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051v1

It claims the Chinese deleted some of the original sequencing. Let's see what happens with the peer review but it's been shared widely by some prominent virologists.

If the original virus sequences from Wuhan were indeed deleted scientific consensus might change rather dramatically.

Also this preprint includes some interesting bibliography of cases predating the Wuhan Market outbreak. Not sure if those sources (including reputable sources such as the Lancet) are being included in origin related articles.

-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Something to watch for in the future, if and only if this passes through peer review and gets published. Regarding the pre-December cases, even this paper only cites news sources. While we don't cite them on this article, we do at COVID-19 pandemic. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"China deleted early coronavirus data that could help explain pandemic origins, researcher finds. Scientists say the findings are 'prima facie' evidence of China wanting to 'obfuscate' the potential source of the Covid-19 pandemic." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/china-deleted-early-coronavirus-data-could-help-explain-pandemic/ SaltySaltyTears (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The author of this article seem to be jumping to conclusions about this being evidence for a cover-up. While the sequence was apparently removed, the same sequence has been published as both a pre-print and in a peer-reviewed journal. The journal publication likely occurred after the request for removal. See below:

https://covid-19.conacyt.mx/jspui/handle/1000/4763

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smll.202002169

Dhawk790 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah... a juicy cover-up this does not make. Hanlon's razor applies.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, a relevant reminder that pre-prints are just "according to a new PDF". Bakkster Man (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: Who doesn't love xkcd? I'm going to add the link to WP:PREPRINTS, because humour can help in getting the message across. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• In fact, there's nothing in the uncovered data which somehow contradicts the zoonosis theory, see this thread for context: https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1408080693091991558 Ain92 (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: and @Shibbolethink: your comments somewhat deprecate one of the most highly respected scientists in the world right now. Jesse D. Bloom’s lab is widely followed for its work researching SARS-CoV-2’s evolution and potential immune escapes from vaccines [4] [5]. Also, since there was, is, and never will be any consensus that WP:MEDRS applies to covering all aspects of COVID-19 origins, I don’t see the problem with including Bloom’s opinions in any page or section where they are WP:DUE, citing good WP:RSs, and using WP:INTEXT attribution. As such, I am in agreement with Gtoffoletto and Ain92’s comments here and I think Drbogdan’s edit - citing the New York Times was a good contribution, so I ask you to consider restoring it. Pinging DGG, Ozzie10aaaa and WhatamIdoing for a WP:THIRD opinion.

@Dhawk790:, please send your potentially revelational findings to Jon Cohen of Science Magazine [6], Ewen Callaway of Nature Magazine [7], Alison Young of USA TODAY [8], Jennifer Rigby of the Daily Telegraph [9], Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post [10], Carl Zimmer of the New York Times [11], Amy Dockser Marcus of the Wall Street Journal [12], Simone McCarthy of the South China Morning Post [13], Grace Dean of Business Insider [14] and Manuel Ansede of El País [15]. If it can be verified that all the sequences deleted from the NIH and CNGB databases that Bloom managed to recover from those cloud drives - as reported in these reliable sources - match the sequences that you say were republished in journals, then it should be included in follow-up reports from our reliable sources, complete with retractions, clarifications and apologies. However, if you read any of the reliable sources I referenced above, you will quickly realise that your claim is false and should be struck. The data associated with the two papers you linked was removed and the authors haven’t responded to any requests for comment. CutePeach (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I only went to the first article (the Science one) and it looks like this being accurately reported: "But critics of the preprint, posted yesterday on bioRxiv, say Bloom’s detective work is much ado about nothing, because the Chinese scientists later published the viral information in a different form, and the recovered sequences add little to what’s known about SARS-CoV-2’s origins." We need to have more patience about a lot of this stuff. There are plenty of other possibilities about why the sequence might have been deleted other than some sort of cover-up. Dhawk790 (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

+1 to the call for patience. This article will be much easier to write 10 years from now. This year's goal shouldn't be trying to chase after every will-o'-the-wisp the moment it appears in the news. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: your comments somewhat deprecate one of the most highly respected scientists in the world right now. Jesse D. Bloom’s lab is widely followed for its work researching SARS-CoV-2’s evolution and potential immune escapes from vaccines. Not only is this an appeal to authority fallacy, the policy recommending against using pre-prints applies entirely apart from the author's credibility (or lack thereof) and makes no suggestion to that extent. I do find it ironic that his article is red-linked (suggesting he's not all that notable).

Also, since there was, is, and never will be any consensus that WP:MEDRS applies to covering all aspects of COVID-19 origins... Strawman fallacy, the argument against inclusion isn't based on MEDRS. It's based on WP:PREPRINTS "Preprints... are not reliable sources" (along with parent WP:SCHOLARSHIP) and WP:NEWSORG "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics". I'm sure you're not arguing this "highly respected scientist" is expressing a non-academic opinion via pre-print, are you?

I don’t see the problem with including Bloom’s opinions in any page or section where they are WP:DUE, citing good WP:RSs, and using WP:INTEXT attribution. His opinion is not notable, nor due. Definitely not the original wording (we'd need to make very clear that the claim is unsubstantiated, at which point why bother bringing it up just to debunk it?). Once it's peer reviewed that may change. Patience.

citing the New York Times was a good contribution, so I ask you to consider restoring it. Considered, but I'd make the same revert again per the above WP:PAGs. Easy call, IMO. If it's a solid claim, it's worth waiting for peer review. If it turns out it's in error, we'll be glad we didn't republish a single author's claims prior to the claims being reviewed by others. It's said "falsehood will fly from Maine to Georgia, while truth is pulling her boots on", we don't need to hasten its spread. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, I agree pre-prints should not be sources. And even once peer-reviewed and published, that paper is primary research, which WP:MEDRS generally rejects. The pre-print server reminds everyone it should not "be reported in the press as conclusive". We cannot report biomedical claims in that paper as though they were agreed fact. But the "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19" is largely an ongoing news story. And this claim has sparked significant news coverage, not least discussing the mix of opinions by scientists. I can't read The New York Times article (though I think Carl Zimmer is a respected science reporter), but can read the Washington Post and Science mag. Both of those discuss the scientific reaction to the claim. I see that CNN quote Bloom and two other scientists who are dismissive. In an wiki article on "investigations", then we need to, per WP:WEIGHT, describe these investigations. Scientist proposes something; other scientists pick holes in it or agree with it. This article isn't "The origin of Covid-19".

I strongly advise all sides to cool their language considerably, or else both will find blocks coming their way. This is a wiki, so the text that appears today can be changed or removed next week. So don't try to write it as though we were publishing a book that has to be absolutely correct. There's clearly a desire for this information to be up-to-date. We aren't writing an article about the causes of lung cancer, which we can say with some authority and knowledge that it won't change next month. So relax a bit. Find a way to cover this "missing data" story using the most reliable sources we have. Present it as part of the scientific investigation. When sources, as they do, claim this neither benefits or harms any side in the debate, then let's make that clear, rather than offering a statement that misleads the reader. If it turns out that in a month or two, nobody is the slightest bit interested in this missing data, and it is, as some suggest, not particularly significant or present elsewhere, then our coverage can be removed. The WP:WEIGHT given to these ongoing investigations is going to keep shifting. -- Colin°^Talk 14:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: There's two sides to this, as you point out: how we present it neutrally in the article, and the general notability of the claim. On the former, the edit I reverted lacked any suggestion of inconclusiveness or dispute. On 22 June 2021, 13 (or a total of 241) missing SARS-CoV-2 virus genetic sequences, apparently deleted from earlier virus databases for reasons not clearly understood, were reported to have now been uncovered in archival internet databases.

I reverted, rather than improving, because I simply don't believe this meets the notability threshold we've used for this article in the past. Same reason we don't mention Li-Meng Yan's discredited preprints, or early studies that appeared to identify antibodies in Europe in September 2019 (results which, to my knowledge, were never replicated despite an attempt by the WHO). And I don't think our preference to at least wait for peer review is out of line. I'd argue we should be preferring peer-reviewed secondary sources, so a peer-reviewed primary source is still arguably 'cutting edge' and the limits of what WP:PAGs permit.

If you still believe I've made an unacceptable (read: actionable under DS) comment above, please be more specific so I can redact and apologize. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach just wanted to add in here that I actually have a huge respect for Dr. Bloom and his work. As it happens, he served as the outside examiner for the thesis defense of a friend of mine a few weeks ago. I've also followed his work with interest, especially the "mutagenic catastrophe" and "stochastic selection" stuff. He's a great scientist. That doesn't mean he's right about everything, though. And criticizing his preprint for making a mountain out of a mole hill is not "deprecat[ing]" him personally. Science thrives on criticism. I think Dr. Bloom is right about a lot of stuff, I also think he may be giving too much credence to DRASTIC team's work on this. But I will edit however the WP:RSes cover the events (in this case, scientific sources, as the news media often get this stuff wrong), and in due proportion to that coverage, regardless of what I personally think.

Colin, I would propose to you that we wait to see what the scientific sources say on this information. Given that it was put forth in a preprint. We don't want to start including stuff like this [16], just because news media are covering it [17]. (You'll note that article has been hugely updated, because it received a lot of criticism upon initial coverage (see here: [18]). That's what makes me say that we shouldn't cover this preprint before it gets published and other more scientific WP:RSes cover it. It's controversial and could create BLP issues, if a citation like this is used in any way to imply or say directly that Shi Zhingli or other WIV people have lied about their database. I think we all need to tread lightly, given that those BLP issues mean that the maxim in WP:V to report verifiable information, not "truthful" information is especially true here.

I think if there's still a great deal of disagreement and many editors think we should include this preprint in some way, then somebody (preferably the users who want to include it) should start an RfC. It's controversial, it deserves wider input. Please, don't make this more adversarial than it needs to be. Let's just work together to make these articles good.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you please not use escalating language, such as suggesting I have to find a criticism deserving of DS. The original text had problems I agree. I'm not particularly interested in a revert but more on whether you are willing to engage on this talk page to find a solution. Your original comments here focused on the pre-print source and if that was all there was to this, then that would be where this ends. But CutePeach found considerable news coverage of the scientific controversy. I mean, Nature Magazine wrote a decent length article on it.

I think you've got the wrong viewpoint when you think we need "peer reviewed secondary sources" to cover events. The "investigations into the origin of COVID-19" are a bunch of events. For sure, some of this article will need to make biomedical claims with whatever degree of confidence or speculation that sources permit. It may even mention biomedical claims that are discredited or rejected. A reason we require academic sources that have all these layers of checks (peer review, secondary sources, reputable publishers) is because this gives us confidence in biomedical facts. But the events here are not in dispute. A scientist really has reported such-and-such about data, and their publication is at a pre-print stage. This really has caused other scientists to voice their opinions publicly. This really has been widely reported in the press. The scientists really do agree on some things that have been claimed and really do disagree on other things. This is why I said folk need to stop reviewing sources here as though this article was "The origin of Covid-19" which would be mostly biomedical claims. This article is about the investigations, along with information about what is agreed and disagreed currently.

Some of these investigation steps will turn out to be dead ends, or even discredited perhaps. Some will bear fruit. Some will be irrelevant when examined in months to come. All we can do each day, is weigh what reliable sources are reporting about these investigations. And as far as I can see, reliable sources think this aspect has some weight today.

Remember this is a wiki. If we get the weight of this wrong, what's the consequence? If we can come up with a few sentences that cover what Nature and Science mag think worth reporting on, then it isn't like we'll be saying ridiculously untrue things about the origin. The very worst is we'll be accused of mentioning something unimportant. And that's easily fixable.

CutePeach, your argument that Bloom is a respected scientist and therefore we should give weight to his opinions isn't how it works here. We give weight based on that afforded by reliable sources. If we look at the quality journalism on this, Bloom's opinions are not be reported on as though they are correct and uncondested, and every one of them gives a voice to criticism. Stop looking at these things as evidence you are right. If you try really hard to be neutral, that will be a step towards agreements forming.

Shibbolethink, can you please not mention the RFC word. This isn't about "should include this preprint in some way". The preprint isn't a source and has no weight. Wrt "just because news media are covering it" ... well, I disagree, as I explained already. Agree fully that it needs to stop being adversarial, but it needs you guys do to that. -- Colin°^Talk 15:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: My apologies if the mention of DS came across as escalation. I simply intended that to be the broadest category of behavior for which I "will find blocks coming their way". I feel I was assertive, but not inappropriate. So I hope this clarifies, this is an earnest attempt to express that I absolutely would like to apologize and retract any statement if it has crossed a line. The articles are difficult enough to maintain, without my making it more difficult if I've done so inadvertantly.

I feel my edit history stands as strong evidence that I'm quite willing to work to improve article text when I feel a suggestion has validity, even if original wording was problematic. I'd suggest CutePeach would say similar, as they pinged me for input on a similar question at Talk:Peter Daszak#WP:RS linking Daszak with Wuhan lab and suggested addition. The difference here is that while I agreed the other article had a DUE addition with solid sources about an update to a WP:SCHOLARSHIP source, I feel this is an UNDUE addition of WP:PREPRINTS content which a rewording would not solve. While I try to perform neutral rewrites when possible, I can't think of one here that wouldn't end up making nearly everyone unhappy and thus don't think it would improve the article (and, by extension, the encyclopedia).

I strongly disagree with the interpretation of this article being a bunch of events which we can/should cover primarily through the general press. Along with the repeated mention of WP:BIOMED. I absolutely agree this is NOT a biomedical claim, however this is unambiguously an academic claim to which WP:SCHOLARSHIP applies. As I implied in my response to CutePeach, that the claim was made in a preprint marks it as scholarly. If it was merely the authors non-scholarly opinion, he would not have published it on biorXiv (see: Robert R. Redfield's comments in interviews, saying "I'm allowed to have opinions now" for an example of what a notable non-scholarly opinion looks like, something I previously added to this article's text as notable). To suggest it's merely opinion would implicate the author of an ethical violation by misusing a preprint server, to suggest it is academic means we can't apply WP:RS as if it were merely a notable event. For academic claims we need a better reason for inclusion (Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics - WP:NEWSORG), which I haven't seen presented yet. If you disagree, please present a rationale for why we should make an exception.

Remember this is a wiki. If we get the weight of this wrong, what's the consequence? If we can come up with a few sentences that cover what Nature and Science mag think worth reporting on, then it isn't like we'll be saying ridiculously untrue things about the origin. Two comments here.

1. I agree, minimal consequence. This is why we're acting on WP:BRD, rather than suggesting consequences for anyone. Being WP:BOLD doesn't mean we are WP:RECKLESS.
2. I welcome your suggestion of a few sentences which you feel would be appropriate. My earlier comments replied to a request to restore the original edit (based on what I believe to be a flawed policy argument), not to rewrite and improve NPOV/DUE.

All the best. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The approach editors here have taken so far isn't working. Can we agree on that? An attempt to define everything to do with the origin of a disease as being under the remit of MEDRS failed. Both you and CutePeach said there needs to be more nuance to our consideration. Trying to determine WP:WEIGHT by one's own arguments isn't how it works. One says he's an eminent scientist. The other says it is just a PDF on some server. One points to the multitude of reliable journalism on the scientific squabble. The other points to a pre-print server that can be dismissed. Both of you are right but missing the point and arguing past each other. Policy says we can make this "somebody else's problem": what weight is given to it in reliable sources? And I think that approach of only discussing what reliable sources say is vital too for any editors with strong opinions on facts or strong political opinions about certain countries.

If this weekend you were to give a talk about investigations into the origins of Covid-19, you'd be sure you'd need to at least mention this "deletion" story or else someone will ask you about it. Similarly readers hearing about it elsewhere will come to Wikipedia to see what it says. Nature abhors a vacuum. Some of those readers will try to add the "missing" material using what they think are "reliable" sources. And it is random how reliable those will be and what agenda they will promote. They'd presumably then get their good faith edit deleted by someone. And they the will get accused of "censoring" Wikipedia. And we just keep arguing round and round.

So, I'm suggesting that editors propose some short text+sources that they think the other guys will accept. Rather than dismiss it with lectures containing lots of WP:CAPITAL_LETTERS, try to find something agreeable. Something your average reader of Nature or Science magazine would regard as fair and informative. Don't worry about it being relevant in a month or six month's time. You are editing an article on an ongoing series of current and recent events, so things are expected to change, and what was important this week may not be important next week. That is a different mindset to editing an article on something established.

By including some text on this scientific squabble, for now, you get a chance to shape what is said, and you get to resolve one point of conflict among editors. By refusing outright, you get to do neither. The last paragraph of this article makes a similar point. -- Colin°^Talk 19:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I get your arguments here, and agree broadly. As an aside, I hadn't seen that Science news article on this before, that passes the test for me that this is notable in the scientific community as well. If someone had already posted that here, my apologies.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Same here, I agree in principle. This is how I try to make most of my edits on the topic: rewrite if possible. But this is an outlier. I continue to disagree (and strongly) that it's notable enough to include, for the same reason I feel other pre-prints have not been notable enough to include. That said, here's my best stab at it, which seeing in text makes me feel even more confident that it's a tempest in a teapot which just doesn't belong here (though I'll obviously support a consensus which said it should be include it, I advise against it).

In June 2021, biologist Jesse Bloom published a preprint paper identifying 50 SARS-CoV-2 sequences which had been withdrawn from the US National Institutes of Health Sequence Read Archive. The NIH confirmed the data had been removed in June 2020 per standard practice at the request of the investigators who owned the rights to the sequences, under the rationale that the sequences had been submitted to another database. Bloom claims his findings did not provide any insight into the nature of the spillover of SARS-CoV-2, but might provide additional evidence that the virus was circulating prior to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market outbreak. Virologist David Robertson said that circulation prior to December 2020 was already well known by scientists, and that the paper doesn't support a conclusion of "a cover-up rather than a more mundane deletion of data."

I'm not sure we can get this much shorter without losing necessary nuance. Adding the David Robertson opinion as a counterpoint feels reasonable to me given the discussion above if we're including Bloom's opinion. And at this length I continue to have some WP:DUE concerns (Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery., even though my NPOV concerns are alleviated. Though the thing I found weirdest in writing this is that Dr Bloom told multiple media outlets that this doesn't tell us anything about the virus' origin, suggesting he himself might not recommend the study be used in our article on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19.

Anyway, best effort text written, I still don't think it's suitable for the article. However, if consensus is against me, I'd suggest a new category for Independent Investigations between The Lancet COVID-19 Commission task force and International calls for investigations would be due (presuming nothing major changes in the state of the story). Bakkster Man (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, thanks for doing that. I'm impressed. Thanks especially for doing it despite your misgivings. What I'm suggesting, is that we could include that text today, even though some feel it is likely to prove to be an irrelevance, with the acceptance by all sides that it should be reviewed at some point in future (a month?). And if reliable sources are no longer mentioning this, then it is dropped. One website I read from time to time suggest this weekend that the deletion was "evidence of a cover up". By including the above text now, and for a short time perhaps, Wikipedia educates readers with NPOV. It is a win-win because those who think the deletion is important get something about it on Wikipedia. And those who disagree it is a cover-up get to point out how mundane it really is. A wiki allows easy come and easy go, particularly so for an article covering ongoing current affairs. Would you consider adding it? -- Colin°^Talk 20:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: I can appreciate that view, but I'd prefer at least one other person support that so we have at least mild consensus. I'm not a fan of doing something I think is counter to policy, just to keep some off-wiki conspiracy theorists satisfied. But as I said before, I'll take whatever consensus says we should do. Feel free to copy-paste to a new talk section for consensus if you think it's a good path forward. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Preprints of scientific papers can be reliable sources: the free posted preprints of peer-reviewed accepted articles are essentially indistinguishable from the final versions except in typography. They only reason they're not official is a compromise forced on those promoting open access to avoid destroying the scientific journal publishing industry -- see our Open access for the details. Not only do we accept them, we actually prefer them--we include the links to the open access versions whenever they are available. Preprints that have never been formally accepted are a standard method of publication in many fields of science. But their authority depends upon the reputation of the scientist and institution publishing them. We normally use them, but say what they are. That doesn't mean we publish rumors. But there's a while range of reliability and usability that has to be considered. It also needs to be considered that peer-review and formal publication are not definitive evidence of quality--there have been many hoaxes and errors in the formal literation that I'm sure we're all aware of--and I'm sure everyone here who read peer-reviewed science looks to see not just where it was published, but who did the work and the analysis. . (And there have been official approval by the most reliable bodies of even therapies with no proven benefit, as in the 2021 approval of Aducanumab for Alzheimer's. Our general article on the disease needs tor reflect it; it's at present taking the arguments of the promotors at face value) ) Nothing in science is ever final. No publications is absolutely definitive. Hypotheses in the experimental sciences are never fully "proven"--they are always subject to change and correction from further research. (Indeed, one standard pseudo-argument of cranks who wish to denigrate true science is the fallacy that "it's only an hypothesis". One standard argument of that majority of the population who at least tries alternative remedies, even those of spectacularly unlikely nature, is that nothing in medicine is certain, as if anything could be). I can compare the attempt above to avoid taking account of the scientific research as it develops to those anti-vaxers who won't get the covid vaccine because it has only "preliminary approval". (I doubt they know that the "preliminary" data for at least some of the vaccines is very much better than the accepted data for the current used vaccines for influenza-- and better than most other vaccines in medicine; unfortunately, I doubt it would change their mind if they did know. ) True science uses the best data available, recognizing that it may be inadequate. All research is preliminary research, though the degree of confidence in it can vary.

There is a general misunderstanding here: we are not trying to establish the origin of Covid. It is of course extremely important that it be understood as definitively as possible, but that's original research, which is done elsewhere. WP just reports on the progress of science, as it happens. For important topics, WP has always covered not just on the final state, but the stages of the development of the knowledge.

And I suppose I should point out that the MEDRS requirements are designed to prevent the promotion of pseudo-medicine among the ignorant, by rejecting claims for unproven therapies under the principle that we wish to do no harm. That does not apply in this matter. Nothing about the prevention or therapy of this disease is affected by known how it originated. (The need for good research on this is much broader--it contributes to our ability to prevent similar diseases in the future. And the need for open discussion of this has a positive benefit, regardless of the conclusion--it has made everyone in the world more aware of the existence of laboratory accidents with dangerous biological agents, and also of the danger produced by not adopting measures that would control transmission from other animal species--and this is true regardless of which hypothesis is proven correct). DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

No, a preprint is not the same as an accepted, awaiting publication. You're discussing "accepted, awaiting publication" - in which they are "essentially indistinguishable from the final versions except in typography". An accepted, awaiting publication paper has been through peer review, no scientific or other major changes are necessary, and you're correct that the only difference between that and the actual published online/print paper will be typography/stylistic changes. However, a pre-print has, by definition, not been through peer review yet - it is awaiting confirmation of the scientific and other logic in the paper. Sure, the paper may be stating what you consider to be true - but until the paper is actually accepted, it does not qualify as a reliable source - it's no better than an "op ed" at that point. By your definition, I could write up whatever I want in a "paper", submit it to a journal, then publish it as a preprint on a free repository (which is my right, as I maintain copyright to my journal articles even when submitting them for publication until such time as they are accepted). That "paper" I wrote, no matter what I say in it, would then be considered reliable by you simply because it's been submitted to a publication - even though it hasn't been peer reviewed yet and may fail peer review. This paper has a multitude of outcomes that are still equally likely - accepted, accepted with changes/clarifications (i.e. major changes to the science/logic in the paper), rejected, or rejected with prejudice (the difference being that rejection with prejudice means generally that the author cannot submit a similar paper again because of egregious errors/malfeasance). Any of these is possible as the peer review process at almost all journals is rigorous and will make corrections no matter how "minor" if it helps ensure accuracy and sound logic, or they may find so many errors that a few corrections can't solve it and reject it outright, and perhaps it will be resubmitted in the future with major changes. This is the reason preprints are not considered reliable - they're not yet "published in a reliable source" until they actually pass peer review. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Not only do we accept them, we actually prefer them--we include the links to the open access versions whenever they are available. This is a major misinterpretation of WP:PREPRINTS (which is policy). Please reread it. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a long-standing consensus that preprints are not acceptable for anything COVID-related. Especially not when it involves a sensitive subject like this one. We're not a breaking news website, and we follow, not lead, the academic sources. So there's no harm done in waiting for proper reviews to come out about this, instead of making an unwarranted case that preprints are suddenly acceptable (no, they're not - anybody can put up anything in a preprint - compare with the infamous Yan papers). Common sense and WP:GOODRESEARCH favour using better sources if we have access to them, and that's definitively the case here, so there's no reason to use any kind of preprint. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@DGG, Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19#Application notes effectively banned the use of preprints for pandemic-related content. Although it's technically been superseded by the recent Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, I don't think there is an expectation that the status of preprints has changed as a result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I hadn't realized that was required under GS (though I'd certainly agree it's ideal). It might be good to get clarification on whether this restriction remains under DS. Bakkster Man (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, I think DGG has confused the draft that we often see on PubMed Central, which is essentially the final copy after editorial and peer review but still awaits a final proof read and layout tweaking for publication. The preprint here is a relatively new phenomenon and entirely unreviewed. I fully expect Ben Goldacre's late cat Henrietta has written and published a preprint on some database somewhere. Speculation about what MEDRS is "designed" to do, and therefore apparently limited in scope, is quite wrongheaded, unhelpful and not useful to resolve the problem. DGG, you were right when you said we aren't trying to say what the origin of covid definitely is (nobody knows) but if someone makes a biomedical claim about that origin, then MEDRS applies. What this article is about, is the investigations. And those investigations, the controversy, the progress and the misteps, are fair game. We need to find a balance between being a "breaking news website" as RandomCanadian fears we might, and being so far behind the curve as to be utterly irrelevant. Both sides need to try to move towards a middle ground. -- Colin°^Talk 20:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: I think it's more likely they mistook WP:PREPRINTS advice that they're acceptable as open-access after approval, and missed the explicit description as "not reliable". Bakkster Man (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That "Application notes" section was largely illegitimate. The discussion that authorised it indicates editors weren't even sure what they were voting for; the one editor who asked the question was pretty much ignored. A 'consensus' where the proposer of a novel idea fails to clarify what they're even proposing, especially in a proposal that has never been enforced since its formation, can hardly be considered an active or valid consensus. But even if one considers it legitimate, in the abortion case when ArbCom took over the DS without the rest of the community's GS remedies, it had implicitly vacated the others, such as the 1RR (this was clarified in a 2020 ARCA I filed). Finally, an RS that decides to use a preprint as its base, and Wikipedia citing that RS, is not the same as citing to a preprint. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• I added my above workshopped text to the article. After thinking over it for the weekend, I'm comfortable with the level of sourcing. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Good addition. This is the case when the claim has nothing to do with medicine. Hence WP:MEDRS does not apply. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

What's the wikilink for 'suggesting people are leveraging a WP:PAG they've never mentioned applies to the discussion at hand'? Bakkster Man (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea. But looking at citations in this segment, in particular article in Nature [19], I do see something interesting. It says The earliest viral sequences from Wuhan are from individuals linked to the city’s Huanan Seafood Market in December 2019, which was initially thought to be where the coronavirus first jumped from animals to people. But the seafood-market sequences are more distantly related to SARS-CoV-2’s closest relatives in bats — the most likely ultimate origin of the virus — than are later sequences, including one collected in the United States.. "SARS-CoV-2’s closest relatives in bats" I assume is RaTG13. That would be interesting indeed (i.e. the virus circulated in US represented an earlier version of the virus compare to one found in Wuhan market?), but looking at their article, I am not certain they proved this based on the sequence analysis. One must wait what reviewers say. As a side note, the COVID-19 of course did not originate from RaTG13 ("ultimate origin of the virus"). They had a common ancestor, unless it was completely cooked in a lab. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Why two discussions?

Can someone please cojoin the two discussions on this topic? It's too difficult for me to do as I’m on mobile and I am about to doze off after a long day at work. Please note that more discussions and indentations makes it harder for mobile editors. CutePeach (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Military connections of Wuhan lab scientists?

The NBC Evening News had a segment on Wuhan lab scientists' military connections on 6/29. See video here where they detail their evidence and state this is central to President Biden's current investigation. [20] This is mainstream media on the current investigation, so perhaps the topic merits coverage in the article? Pkeets (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI, this is the same thing, same thread of accusation, as the "intelligence fact sheet" which was not actually an intelligence document, not a threat assessment. It was a political document, authored by politicians and other non-experts like David Asher, as far as I can ascertain. That's why we must treat it extremely carefully as it includes unproven unsubstantiated accusations of malfeasance for BLPs like Shi Zhengli. I understand what you're saying, but we do already cover this in the article. See Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Biden_administration.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: Please be mindful of WP:OR. The US State Department fact sheet was a very carefully vetted documented, and according to Ned Price, it remains the position of the current administration [21] [22] [23]. There is virtually no dispute about this. CutePeach (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages. Re: the document, here are some relevant quotes from that WaPo article you just linked showing how much dispute there is:

"Therefore, the official said, [the fact sheet details] do not represent a fair and balanced representation of what the U.S. government knew about the coronavirus origins at the time. By focusing only on the lab, the fact sheet highlighted only the data points that supported the conclusion Pompeo wanted..."

"“From the start, the fact sheet was a State Department messaging document, rather than some sort of complete accounting or intelligence-driven analytic product,” the official said. “There was certainly not consensus [inside the U.S. government] on the still unproven theory that this emerged from the lab.”"

"the Biden State Department determined that some of the facts in the Jan. 15 statement are supported by either U.S. government information or public sources, a senior State Department official told me. But that doesn’t mean the Biden team is endorsing Trump’s or Pottinger’s assertion that the lab was probably involved."

It is not the official position statement of the US government, that's why Biden called for further investigation. To create such a statement down the road.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: granted WP:OR does not apply to talk pages, but we are discussing Pkeets’s proposed inclusion of NBC's report on an alleged link between the WIV and the PLA’s alleged Chinese biological weapons program. Ned Price’s on the record statements make these allegations official US government position, and that’s about as clear as the US government will ever be wrt bioweapons. The off the record statements from the anonymous source in WaPo can be quoted for WP:BALANCE where they are WP:DUE, but we should be mindful of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Please read the article in its entirety, as well as more recent articles, such as the one from Vanityfair [24] and the response from Christopher Ashley Ford [25]. CutePeach (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: Where in that transcript you provided does Ned Price say that the fact sheet is, in its entirety, an official position statement of the US Government?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: just the fact that Price pointed to the sheet - instead of reversing its position as the Biden admin has on other issues [26] - makes it the current US government position. Making charges wrt bioweapons is not something governments do lightly, as they have to be filed as complaints as per Article VI of the BWC, and I don’t think the US government would want to do that. It's entirely possible that the Chinese biological weapons program is purely defensive in nature, so this is a sensitive and delicate matter and should be treated as such. As much as I enjoy our conversations, I suggest we focus on how to include the NBC report in this page. CutePeach (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach:Okay, well. I understand what you're saying, that certainly would make it more difficult to find an RS showing that a bioweapons program exists. So far, I personally have seen no actual WP:RS evidence that such a link exists. It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely a government is to say something explicitly, the requirement for WP:RSes is still the same.

I think for such an extremely controversial set of assertions (the US government's official position is that the Chinese government has a biowarfare program, and was operating it at the WIV), you'll probably need a lot more than the fact that a spokesperson pointed at a document to get to consensus on this.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I do not think "WP:RS evidence" is a requisite policy for inclusion. If we see reports in WP:RS that the WIV conspired with Tikbalang to create COVID-19, then it would be WP:DUE for inclusion in this page - with WP:INTEXT attribution of course. If you want us to qualify the bioweapons allegation as first being made under the Trump administration, then that’s fine with me - but to say it has been taken back under the Biden administration is WP:OR. Btw, the fact sheet was not authored by Asher, but by several highly experienced State Department officials from across a number of divisions. It would have been impossible for Pompeo to get them to publish the sheet in his last few days if it was political in nature. Of all federal executive departments, the US State Department is the most resistant to political pressure, and Trump would often deride it as the "Deep State Department". CutePeach (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: From your above linked sources: Price said the January 15 fact sheet was "very clear that it was inconclusive -- it didn't give credence to one theory over another." That's my concern, trying to turn an uncertain fact sheet into an "official gov't position" feels very 'gotcha' to me. Which, in turn, makes it hard to determine if there's actually an NPOV way to include it without its very inclusion ending up pushing a certain POV. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: sorry, me and Shibbolethink got a bit carried away discussing the nuances of official US government position. We don’t have to cover these nuances in our mention of the NBC report. We now also have this CBS report on those military ties [27]. CutePeach (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The CBS News article says that some US officials claim the lab has military ties, and it offers no evidence for this claim. This claim absolutely cannot be made in Wikivoice in any article, and is UNDUE in this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• If you guys check this source, it say Wuhan Institute of Biological Products has been apparently involved in the Chinese biological weapons program. This is a producer of COVID-19 vaccine. As about lab you are talking about, it is also mentioned in the source, and I would be surprised it was not involved if they have an active biological weapons program (apparently they do). My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes I read that integrated study a few years ago and I just created Chinese biological weapons program using your contributions from China and weapons of mass destruction. I hope that’s okay with the copyright policy. CutePeach (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products is not the same as the WIV, it just happens to be right next door. Sgnpkd (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course, it is not the same. That's the point. That is why I was always surprised why US intelligence (or whoever) were talking so much about this Wuhan lab. That could be just as easily any other lab (or labs) in Wuhan or elsewhere. I am sure there are many other labs in China capable of handling such virus. My very best wishes (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion about reliability of a podcast

Please comment on the reliability of the podcast "This Week in Virology" to source information about this page. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"This_Week_in_Virology"_(TWIV)_Podcast. Forich (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Citing Shi Zheng-Li for the origin of COVID-19.

Due to her considerable conflict of interest, we should not cite a paper with Shi Zheng-Li's name on it for the origin of COVID-19. In addition to the conflict itself, we have the problem that the paper[28] does not disclose it. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

So because she is on the paper, you think we should not use it. Even if the editorial review process vetted the veracity of the paper's claims, and the peer reviewers agreed. And there's all the other authors on the paper as well. Do all of those people's opinions and verifications not matter? Because of what you perceive as a COI? Because you think one of the world's foremost experts on coronaviruses has a vested interest in finding potentially zoonotic coronaviruses in the wild? This is exactly what she was doing before the pandemic, and what she will be doing for many years to come. Finding bat viruses in the wild. She's good at it. It doesn't make it maleficent. I would also remind you that there is, as yet, no actual proof that Shi Zhengli has done anything wrong.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: Do you have a BLP-compliant, reliable source which unambiguously declares Zheng-Li has a conflict of interest? Without one, I don't think we can even begin to have this discussion. And even in that case, I'd suggest we'd want to see the change reflected in WP:SCHOLARSHIP sources, such as secondary papers describing it in that manner or the original paper being retracted for that reason.

I'd also mention, this logic would have us not citing Investigate the origins of COVID-19 in Science, because it was signed by members of The Cambridge Working Group who would also have 'considerable conflict of interest' in a lab origin. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Re Shi, that's not needed per WP:BLUE. See in particular "Pedantry, and other didactic arguments" on that page. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It isn't self-evident to me, and I would wager it is not self-evident to many of the other users here. I tend not to believe a COI exists unless I have concrete evidence of a conflicting incentive structure. In this case, I don't see anything beyond vague aspersions thinly cast.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Fine. The order said communication and publication of research had to be orchestrated like "a game of chess” under instructions from Xi, and propaganda and public opinion teams were to “guide publication.” It went on to warn that those who publish without permission, “causing serious adverse social impact, shall be held accountable.” [29]. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The current state of the investigations on SARS-CoV-2 origin have not led to an official investigation in a court of law against the Wuhan Institute of Virology or Shi Zheng-Li. Therefore, we can not exclude the opinions and comments of Shi Zheng-Li on this page. However, I would suggest we use WP:COMMONSENSE when dealing with particular sentences, for instance, if her opinion departs signficantly from other RS we should always include both views instead of leaving her opinion alone. That said, we should probably start considering whether to improve the coverage of the allegations at Wuhan Institute of Virology, I'll may try it later today. Forich (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Right. Shi has followed Chinese law, so she has not been investigated. But when people publish information contrary to Chinese law, we get things like this: Coronavirus: Why have two reporters in Wuhan disappeared? [30]. So the question becomes, is threat of enforced disappearance if one says the wrong thing sufficient to create a conflict of interest? That's where WP:BLUE comes in. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The paper you removed is not primarily published by people at the WIV. It's primarily authored by people at Eco-Health Alliance. Authored by Americans and Europeans. WIV people were collaborators. Not the primary authors. So I have serious doubts that any interference from Xi Jinping was tolerated....--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: I agree with Shibbolethink: there's only a conflict of interest regarding the origin of COVID-19 if she was somehow involved in the origin. And that's far from certain.

I'll also point out that you've cited no WP:PAG why such a COI (if it existed) would even prohibit our citing this paper. WP:RS only mentions COI regarding WP:NEWSORG and WP:SPONSORED, neither of which apply here.

Regarding WP:BLUE, there are cases where this kind of pedantic insistence is useful and necessary. I also propose WP:NOTBLUE applies here: if the journal didn't disclose a conflict, and hasn't retracted or otherwise noted such a conflict, then it is very much not obvious that one exists. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to be clear, though-- I agree that citing Shi Zhengli alone for statements of fact about the lab leak, such as:

The lab leak did not occur. [Insert ref to an interview with Shi Zhengli]

would be wrong. Clearly she has a reason to say that, and it would be wrong to cite her for such a statement. I would agree with Forich on that point in particular. Where and when she diverges from mainstream scientific opinion, we can state as much. But in this instance, she doesn't. We're citing her paper as part of a multi-sourced statement about the existence of other coronaviruses found in bats. Many people who are not Shi Zhengli can confirm the veracity of that claim. It also matters how controversial the supported statement is (this one is not very, given how many sources we have that support it. It's very clear this is what most scientists think).

In accordance with PAGs, we also elevate sources that go through rigorous peer review and editorial filters to be published in well-regarded scientific journals. And that's what the source you removed is. Zhengli is a middle author, it's an overall research product, evaluated by many different eyes, and peer-reviewed. At that point, it becomes a useful secondary source, not a primary one. The farther we get from unevaluated opinion, and the closer we get to secondary review, the less such an association matters. And the less fair it is to call it a true COI.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Daszak's involvement is a further reason not to use the cite, in light of this: It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Freedom of Information group called U.S. Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific unanimity.[31] Adoring nanny (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, Okay, I disagree that Daszak has enough of a COI to invalidate the publication. And he definitely does not have enough of a COI in this to invalidate the ability for us to use this publication to answer "did they find coronaviruses in the wild?" and "Is this Nat Comm article useful in determining what most scientists think about the virus origin?" On both counts, the answers are yes.

On both counts, we have no reason to think a peer reviewed and editorially scrutinized publication in a very reputable journal is tainted in any substantial way, such that it is not useful in answering these questions.

And we actually discuss what other people think about his possible COI in the article already. But we also cover his opinions on the matter, I believe.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that there's a substantial difference between noting a perceived/apparent/alleged conflict of interest in the article (which we do for Daszak, last I checked) and refusing to cite an otherwise reliable source for perceived/apparent/alleged conflict of interest. Arguably, the latter might even end up acting like WP:CENSORSHIP. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Bakkster Man, that is an extremely important distinction. And I want to make clear, this section is all COI assertions based on allegation alone. There is no proof that Daszak has actually done anything wrong enough to assume he is lying or committing malfeasance. A reasonable person could agree or disagree that Daszak should have disclosed a COI when signing the Lancet statement. Given that he himself is not a Chinese national, he owes very little if anything to the Chinese government, etc. etc. If China banned Daszak tomorrow, it would suck, but he would go on doing his job all the same. EHA has a metric TON of international collaborators.

As a personal anecdote: Before this pandemic, I knew and became friends with several people who worked for the EHA in New York (people who now have jobs elsewhere). Maybe 1/4 of them had any contact with Shi Zhengli's group at the WIV. And all 4 of them had multiple projects that were completely unrelated to China. Is the WIV a good collaborator and is Southern China an important place to look for Viral Zoonoses? Yes. But would EHA be completely fine if they were banned from entering China? Yes. EHA would focus more on Cambodian or Vietnamese bats, probably.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Of course she can and should be cited. Just as Deigin et al. Yes, her words can not be trusted, but that's irrelevant. My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that Shi Zhengli is one of the world's foremost experts on bat coronaviruses and Deigin isn't even a virologist. The above discussion about disregarding research by Chinese scientists by virtue of them being Chinese is quite disturbing, in my opinion, and not a road we should go down. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is not the fact that they are Chinese. It's the fact that the Government of China will disappear them if they say the wrong thing. I would have no issue with citing Taiwanese scientists, or American scientists of Chinese ethnicity, for example. Furthermore, I have no problem with citing them for the official position of the Government of China. But in light of Xi Jinping's direct threat above, they shouldn't be cited in WikiVoice. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm against putting xenophobia into Wikipedia policy, as well as the suggestions that various internationally recognized experts (such as Daszak) should be discounted because they work with Chinese scientists. We should go on what passes peer-review in high-quality WP:MEDRS, rather than deciding that all Chinese scientists should just be discounted. I'm surprised and disappointed that we're even having this discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not we who made the decision that 'communication and publication of research had to be orchestrated like "a game of chess”'. That type of orchestration is not science. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Even accepting that the wording by ABC News is accurate (despite the prevalent anti-China bias in US news media these days), that still wouldn't mean that publications coming from the Wuhan institute are not science. During the course of the pandemic, the US CDC and other reputable sources have "orchestrated" their public messaging, usually with good intentions (although not always with good results). That does not mean that CDC publications are not science, and the same goes for publications from China. Wikipedia should be even-handed and should not take sides in the new Cold War between the US and China. NightHeron (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

ABC News is not more competent than the journal Nature to determine what is and is not good science. Shi Zhengli is one of the world's foremost researchers into bat coronaviruses. She did some of the critical work that determined the origins of SARS. We're not going to start overruling the publication decisions of expert peer-reviewers and editors at journals like Nature, based on some generalized argument that Chinese scientists are unreliable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Like I said: her paper can be used and should be treated just as any other peer-reviewed publication. Same about the paper by Deigin et al. As about trusting her statements in interviews (usually conducted through email), this is a different question. That would be obviously affected by the Censorship in China and other aspects of people living under the communist regime, i.e. people may be forced to withhold information, etc. That affects scientific publishing. It appears from publications that China has something similar to Soviet "First Departments" which had to approve the release of any scientific publications on the matters deemed significant for state security. That does affect people and affects a lot. Just for the sake of example, let's consider Yuri Ovchinnikov who convinced Brezhnev to begin a large-scale program of Soviet biological weapons (according to book by Ken Alibek). During a competition with Har Gobind Khorana Ovchinnikov intentionally published an incorrect amino acid sequence (a peer reviewed publication), so that a competitor would spend some time to find out the reasons for disagreements. This is a story Ovchinnikov was telling his students. Of course it was a rare occasion, and for an important cause. But simply not publishing something (if it was deemed important by censors for "dual purposes") would be a lot more common. My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Your insinuation that highly regarded Chinese scientists might be publishing fabricated data really has no place here. Enough is enough. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I am only saying that Chinese government controls scientific research and publishing, especially on this subject [32],[33], pretty much like USSR did it in the past. Obviously, any censored publications, including scientific ones, may be less reliable/trusted under such circumstances. It does not mean they can not be used. Same with personal interviews through emails, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that logic is we can never verify it. If the publication was censored, we'd never know since it would have presumably been suppressed. And since it was published, that means it wasn't censored. So the papers we'd want to cite would never exist to cite, and the ones which do exist don't suffer from the original concern to need avoiding. "What about disinformation" I hear you say? Back to WP:V, we're going to reflect the mainstream view. If all reliable journals are intentionally suppressing contradictory studies, then we're going to base the article on that mainstream set of publications until either the journals or WP:PAG changes.

This whole discussion is silly, and a waste of time. Especially when we're talking about a paper signed by 15 scientists, rather than something primarily (or solely) authored by the person under discussion. This argument over (essentially) WP:IDONTLIKEIT has gone on too long. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability is not the truth. If published in a reputable journal (as it was), this passes WP:V. That's why I am saying we can use it. Do I personally trust anything she said in interviews through emails? Of course not. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The focus of this discussion is moving from Shi Zheng-Li to our treatment of academic sources from Chinese scientists under pressure from the Chinese government. The appropiate venues would be, on content, Censorship_in_China#Health and Censorship_in_China#Education, where appropiate RS sources describing what is allegedly being censored (or self-censored) should be mentioned. Given that censored stuff is, well, usually hidden from public knowledge, we should consider that whenever a specific scientific journal publishes papers that i) show evident signs of manipulation by Chinese authorities; ii) is accused by many RS of having being manipulated by Chinese authorities; we bring the discussion to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, with a case by case basis of how to deal with the bias introduced in the source (deprecation is one remedy, but there could be other workarounds). Forich (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

New Republic Article from June 29

I don't think we use this one yet, it's pretty good. [34]

Written by Lindsay Beyerstein. Covers the lab leak theory inside and out, from the perspective of scientists and why the consensus is the way it is. There isn't much in here that isn't already in our article, though. So I'm just gonna add it to bolster up non-MEDRS non-SCHOLARSHIP sentences that have become controversial, that it also addresses.

WP:RSP calls TNR generally reliable for long read journalism like this.Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think if we are going to start accepting 'long read journalism' then there is not a consistent argument against such journalism from other reliable media outlets. I would prefer to stick to the best sources we have, which is the peer-reviewed scholarship, on the more substantial points. Especially since this source is biased and opinionated (per RSP). I don't mind having it as a link in the "External links" section, or for sourcing the especially political aspects of the issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

1) RSP says opinion pieces from this outlet are opinionated, but that isn't what this source article is. It isn't an opinion piece, it's a descriptive one. It shows us, through a secondary lens, why a bunch of scientists don't believe the lab leak theory. 2) I'm not saying we should use them for controversial statements, I agree we should only use them for EXTREMELY uncontroversial statements that are also covered elsewhere. I have not put this source anywhere where scientific evidence is being cited, except where the citation is to say "an Expert believes X thing" because it's an interview with several experts. Does that make sense? I would analogize this to the WSJ piece about hospitalized workers. I want to be very clear about how I'm using this, because I agree, it's a very complex area and very grey in a lot of ways. I don't want to rock the boat to start introducing lots of journalism pieces here. It would be counter-productive in controversial places. This source just helps us understand what experts think about this situation. And it is one of only a few sources that reference the annual serum sampling at the WIV, so I cited it for that as well. Just to say it happened, not that it proved anything.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "longform journalism" also includes stuff like the Nicholson Baker piece, which I think it best not included. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The BAS where that's published is not a reliable source, and that essay is an opinion piece. Different from this New Republic piece in that very important way. Again, not sourcing this for anything disputed (e.g. it is also never the only source cited).--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You're getting confused. The BAS piece was Nicholas Wade, I am referring to the long-form journalism piece entitled The Lab-Leak Hypothesis in New York (magazine) from January. On further reflection, the direct quotes from Rasmussen and Robert F. Garry are probably usable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, You're absolutely right I was confusing the two. And agreed, that piece is highly opinionated and masquerades as longform journalism in the same way this one does. I'll make sure that we're only using this TNR piece for the quotes, and put that in the ref template.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a good article to read for discussion of evidence against a lab leak, but it should be used in a similar way to the Nicholas Wade piece; that is to say sparingly, and not at all for contentious biomedical claims. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Gain-of-function research

Okay, Drbogdan, you got me. This is my last one before a wikibreak. I probably won't respond, but I was the revert so I will go ahead and start the BRD in your stead. By all means I welcome everybody else here to discuss without me, I'm just starting it.

You have restored with further reliance on the two citations from a collaboration with Ralph S. Baric and a quote that describes how the work occurred, but not where. Ultimately, when you run this down, it is describing how the Baric lab created mutant viruses, not the Zhengli lab at the WIV. See these relevant quotes from the Christian Science Monitor: [35]

• "In a U.S.-funded study published in 2015, Dr. Baric, using virus sequences provided by Dr. Shi, created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus that showed the potential to infect humans. The NIH had approved the study, but it raised eyebrows among some scientists. UNC’s School of Public Health said in emails to the Monitor that there was no gain of function and the hybrid virus was not sent to China."

• "Dr. Fauci repeatedly and emphatically denied the senator’s assertions. “With all due respect, you are entirely incorrect,” he said. “The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in that [Wuhan] institute.”"

• "Scientists don’t agree on how exactly to define gain-of-function research, but generally it involves enhancing a pathogen to make it more virulent or transmissible. Critics say the NIH is using a narrow interpretation of what counts as gain of function, and has not provided ample transparency into the grant review process for such research."

So clearly this is a controversial claim, that should rely on more robust sourcing than two primary research articles which depict collaborations where the actual reverse genetics experiments were conducted in the US. Can you provide secondary review articles or RSes which demonstrate that it's an accepted fact among relevant experts that "WIV was conducting gain-of-function research on coronaviruses" ? If not, any such claims should probably be duly weighted and put in attribution from relevant people like Dr. Relman.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: (and others) - re: Gain-of-function research (GoFR) reverted edit (+cited refs) - Seems the following recent references in Scientific American, MIT Technology Review and The New York Times" may be relevant to the discussion I would think - there may be more such review references as well - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

References