Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

USDOS Statement on possible WIV lab leak and applicability of WP:MEDRS

JANUARY 15, 2021: https://www.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/

The virus could have emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals, spreading in a pattern consistent with a natural epidemic. Alternatively, a laboratory accident could resemble a natural outbreak if the initial exposure included only a few individuals and was compounded by asymptomatic infection. Scientists in China have researched animal-derived coronaviruses under conditions that increased the risk for accidental and potentially unwitting exposure.

We now have an official accusation by the US Government of the Chinese government covering up a possible accidental lab leak (a topic that has also been covered extensively in reliable sources, like this article in AP). Can we now discuss how WP:MEDRS may or may not apply to this topic, as I have been saying all along? The possibility of an accidental lab leak will only continue to gain more scrutiny in the popular press, academic circles and diplomatic channels, and regardless of whether I and other users are banned from contributing on this topic, we as Wikipedia editors are going to have to learn how to discuss policy on this matter in a cordial and congenial manner, without calling proponents "fringe types". Wikipedia editors will also have to beef up their own knowledge in virology, biosaftey, so as to understand what is and is not being discussed here, as per Forich's guide on messy terminology above. We certainly shouldn't be attempting to delete an entry on a highly regarded academic consensus from a very notable group of academics, relevant to this topic.

By no means are my proposing that we should we close the thread on MEDRS sources above, as collecting MERS sources will be useful for building out origin sections in entries such as Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and Coronavirus disease 2019. What I am proposing is that MEDRS should only be establishing medical claims, and while "causes of diseases" is considered to be a medical claim as pr this discussion); in the dearth of evidence for establishing the cause of this highly unique and once in a century pandemic, we should be able. torevert to WP:RS to establish that there is a controversy around the WIV and Covid-19, and that is not a mere unproven "conspiracy theory". Until the Chinse government allows for an open investigation, there will never be any MEDRS sources expressly proving or disproving on any specific origin scenario. Scientists can only hypothesise.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Political source, not WP:MEDRS. May be interesting when secondary commentary on this appears. Using it to say there's a "controversy" is like using Trump's statements to say there's "controversy" over whether injecting bleach counters COVID-19. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Which are the sources being used to claim this is a conspiracy theory? Arcturus (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This is under discussion - there are several sources on conspiracy theories in the "MEDRS sources" section, above. Alexbrn (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Two stand out - Zoumpourlis and Barh (they might be the only two), but neither of them supports the blanket assignment of "conspiracy" to all potential lab-based origins. Arcturus (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

that because "all potential lab-based origins" seems to include the fanciful/illogical imaginings of some editors here, which do not feature in RS at all. What we know from RS is that there was a conspiracy theory this virus was derived in a Chinese lab, and that has been debunked. We thus report on what RS says. Stick to the sources, is what I say. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Most emphatically yes. Speculation about how The possibility of an accidental lab leak will only continue to gain more scrutiny is crystal-balling, which is not what we're here to do. XOR'easter (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

By "fancful/illogical imaginings of some editors", you are no doubt referring to myself, and by "do not feature in RS", you are referring to numerous statements made in numerous articles from numerous respected scientists, just because you don't think they meet MEDRS. The question I have posed is whether MEDRS is even applicable, which is a question you have constantly evaded. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You, and the growing roster of socks here yes. I've have reiterated several times that WP:MEDRS is required for material in the realm of biomedicine. As an admin has pointed out, editors trying to use non-MEDRS sources will likely fall afoul of the sanctions in effect for this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There are users who share your POV, and others who share mine, but that doesn't make them socks and I'd rather you stick to the merit of your arguments. I've reiterated several times that in the dearth of evidence for any origin scenario, there can be no WP:MEDRS source proving one scenario over the other, and we have to revert to regular RS, stating that there is a controversy. As for fanciful/illogical imaginings, it is widely held that H1N1 flu subtype in 1977 came from a lab leak. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not think the White House spokesperson's office published a finely worded fact sheet on Trump's gaf about bleach as the US State Department has done here?

This statement by the USDOS is of significance, in that it is the US government's official position, and it will be interesting to see how the incoming administration broaches the subject. The US gov does not often get behind "conspiracy theories", and if you want to class the lab leak theory along with things like the Time Cube or cattle mutilation, then you will have to provide MEDRS sources that make the case very strongly. Otherwise the "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation" labels have to go, and replaced with "controversy".

I so happen to believe that MEDRS does not apply to this topic, as we are dealing with the outbreak of virus with unknown origin, on which is a Chinese government blackout. I have long maintained this position in this discussion and it deserves thoughtful consideration.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The US gov does not often get behind "conspiracy theories". In happier times, this would have been true. No longer. XOR'easter (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, we would need MEDRS sources if we wanted to claim that the virus was (or was not) leaked from the lab as a matter of a scientific study. But the source is fine if you only want refer to an official view/a statement by US government. I am not saying that the official statement was correct about anything. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Would probably need some secondary commentary to establish weight and avoid editorializing from a primary source. Alexbrn (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that would be better. WHO investigators suppose to investigate this, along with other things. Will they be able to do it? I strongly doubt (given the information blackout by Chinese government), but whatever they find can be cited. My very best wishes (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The use of 'conspiracy theory' is highly impartial given the depth of reporting on this theory. 'allegations' is a much more appropriate term to use given the current consensus on this issue. Correctus2kX (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories can, and are, reported upon in depth. That doesn't make them less conspiratorial, just better documented. "Allegations" is a weasel word. XOR'easter (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

When Trump statesd that his loss in the 2020 Presidential Election was due to "voter fraud" when it clearly wasn't, Wikipedia didn't create WP:FALSEBALANCE by giving credibility to these spurious claims, even though they came from the head of the US Govt. Anything the Trump administrations says cannot be considered a reliable source of fact, only for their views. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is not D. Trump or even Pompeo. That was apparently produced by people from an office of Morgan Ortagus. Importantly, it does NOT say that the virus was leaked from the lab, and the text does not claim anything extraordinary, anything that could not be found in other sources. I do not see any problem with citing this directly somewhere, with an attribution to US State Department. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

At best, it's WP:PRIMARY. And the extensively documented institutional rot where scientific matters are concerned argues against giving it air time, let alone emphasis. XOR'easter (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump's misdemeanors are well documented, but the USDOS has worded its fact sheet very carefully, and I don't see anything that can be considered biased. The fact sheet now represents the US government's official position, and I doubt it will change much going into the new administration. There have been scientists warning about biosecurity risks of gain of function research for years, like these. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@ScrupulousScribe: The British press are starting to report on the story. .Roland Of Yew (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday are the furthest things from being reliable sources. The Telegraph describes Pompeo's assertions as going over like a lead balloon: The claims were dismissed by analysts; "Zero details given," noted Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at Scripps Research, rating the statement as "an F"; Mr Pompeo's statement offered little beyond insinuation. XOR'easter (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Jeez. The important part is , says US -- the Trump admin has been on an anti-China rampage for near a year. C'mon... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This point on samples from Milan seriously needs to be addressed as there is a risk of disinformation. Many scientists have been sceptical of the claims regarding these samples. The current wording attempts to suggest that the pandemic arose in Northern Italy, of which there is no evidence.

"In addition, presence of RNA of the coronavirus is reported by an international research team from an oropharyngeal swab specimen dated early December 2019 in Milan, Italy, which appears unrelated to the institute.[45]" Correctus2kX (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree, the "italy origin" stuff all fails WP:MEDRS and a big WP:REDFLAG is flying. Furthermore, what does it have to do with this Chinese institute? Alexbrn (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion on WP:RSN pertaining to whether or not the WP:MEDRS applies to the origin of covid. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for labouring the point, but which sources are currently supporting the assertion that the lab leak is a conspiracy theory? I can't see any good ones in the article. Arcturus (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arcturus: WHO 2020, Bahr et al (2020), Zoumpourlis et al. (2020), all top-notch MEDRS. Forich (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: top notch maybe, but they don't mention conspiracy theories. Again, which are the sources being used to assert that anything to do with a lab leak is conspiracy? Arcturus (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think there is actually a consensus (of sources and experts) on one thing: the origin of the virus needs to be studied and investigated. That's why WHO people went to China. That can be noted anywhere with proper refs such as an article in Science discussed above, etc. I would like experts to find the specific population of bats where the virus originated, find the intermediate hosts (if any), etc. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit this article any further. The NPOV tag that was added by another editor should be sufficient warning to the unwary reader. Park3r (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oh yes, good idea, unless you want to be debated on ANI. I too will stay away. As about using this source (the subject of this thread), yes, it should be used on the page [1]. One should never use WP:MEDRS as a cudgel to exclude non-medical claims (nothing in the claims by State Department was about medicine). My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Those who refuse to allow even the slightest deviation from treating the 'lab leak' hypothesis as a conspiracy theory should read this excellent summary of the evidence:

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/the-hunt-for-covid-19s-origin-and-the-lab-leak-theory/ Correctus2kX (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

CNET is a website for consumer-electronics news and reviews, not a reliable source for anything medical or scientific. XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware that links on talk pages also had to conform to WP:RS or MEDRS. The linked article is a discussion about why the lab leak theory is so fraught and why it’s labelled as a conspiracy theory, and perfectly appropriate for this talk page, since we are discussing the same topic. Park3r (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

If I had not previously commented on this talk page to say the same thing I will say now, I would not have even hesitated to promptly close the discussion in the hope that it does not resurface, and I'd remind ScrupulousScribe that this appears to have been debated well past its natural death (just take a peek at the archives and the number of usually very large sections about conspiracy theories et al.) and that re-iterating the same arguments and the same kinds of non-MEDRS sources will not bring about a different reaction than repeating what is written at WP:MEDRS and WP:FALSEBALANCE - which I'd encourage you to get thoroughly acquainted with before continuing on this path. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV flag

The term "conspiracy theory" was subject to an NPOV flag. This has not been resolved, particularly as it seems to conflate the hypothesis of an accidental release with more outlandish claims that the virus was engineered as a bioweapon (see above discussions). The tag was removed on what seem to be flimsy grounds. I don't have an ideological axe to grind, and I have been able to debunk right-wing conspiracy theories on Wikipedia while adhering to established processes. I find the over-broad use of MEDRS and now the removal of an NPOV tag while there is an ongoing discussion to be unusual to say the least.Park3r (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Both of these are equally outlandish in that they are not supported by a significant (or for the record, any) MEDRS. Complaining about the removal of the tag during a discussion, while maybe fundamentally correct, doesn't solve the fundamental issue that "conspiracy theory" is the most accurate term for most of the silly ideas therein mentioned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Not been paying close attention to this, but this is actually very common for WP:FRINGE topics. What usually happens is WP:PROFRINGE editors want a kind of "hostage" tag in place as a badge-of-shame, only to be removed once things are "resolved" (="resolved to their satisfaction"). On WP:FRINGE medical topics it is also very common for WP:MEDRS to be resented. Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

considering that there is an active discussion, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect the tag to be kept in place, especially since it was added in January 2021. As for the rest of your insinuations, I seldom edit medical articles and find Wikipedia to be a poor source for medical information. Your pattern finding appears to be flawed. Park3r (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Same happens in political articles, a handful of editors try to keep an article tagged like a Scarlet Letter. ValarianB (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

As an addendum, whenever this does happen, the solution is to resolve the underlying dispute (usually, by improving sourcing quality - as always). Letting the argument devolve into a "should there be a tag?" dispute is really Wikipedia at its arid worst. Alexbrn (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I've whipped highly contentious articles into shape in the past and would ordinarily try to fix the sourcing, but the combination of enhanced sanctions, the use of MEDRS as a cudgel and what seems to be a default assumption of bad faith are too much for me to engage in any the kind of serious editing the article needs. I doubt I'm the only one. Let's hope this regime doesn't spread to the rest of Wikipedia.Park3r (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Calling my actions "unusual to the say the least" is disingenuous. Knock it off. You saw my action as unusual and did the right thing. WP:BRD Then you added this post which is a passive aggressive response to something you didn't like.

Addressing points raised on the merits of Wikipedia's WP:PAR I read through the recent discussions on calling this a conspiracy theory and this is what I see. Current long standing consensus stands that the lab release theory is a conspiracy theory. We can go with WP:MEDRS or relax to just WP:RS, but when we've got multiple MEDRS sources against some random bullshit magazine, why are we burning time arguing the point? If MEDRS isn't something required, then we have multiple reliable sources that characterize the theory as a conspiracy theory, with MEDRS compliant sources to the same effect, versus seemingly random blogs and editorials. Finally, on the topic of characterization as a conspiracy theory itself, each historical discussion has led to the same consensus.

So at worst, we have a concern about sourcing on whether sources need to be MEDRS compliant or not. The decision in that sourcing needed leads to the same result. A preponderance of WP:V sources characterize the lab release theory as debunked conspiracy crap. Article text in WIkipedia's voice that is true and based on the relevant research community for a topic is expected. Continuous POV pushing on this topic gets us nowhere useful. Jdphenix (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, I honestly question whether or not Park3r is editing this article in good faith.

[2] "I did my best, but I suspect we'll get an "I did my best, but I suspect we'll get an "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia" rewriting of history if the political winds make the lab escape hypothesis more palatable (a similar thing happened with masks, where "experts" did a 180 without blinking), and the controversy will disappear. For now, I'll stay away from Covid-related topics.Park3r (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)"

[3] "I was not aware that links on talk pages also had to conform to WP:RS or MEDRS. The linked article is a discussion about why the lab leak theory is so fraught and why it’s labelled as a conspiracy theory, and perfectly appropriate for this talk page, since we are discussing the same topic. Park3r (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)"

[4] "I haven't been following this too closely, but from what I've seen, there's something very interesting going on with this topic. At this rate a Streisand effect could kick in.Park3r (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)"

Baselessly accusing other editors with Orwellian comparisons is a real WTF not useful. Jdphenix (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:HOUND certainly comes to mind here, but I do find the stridency and nastiness around this topic to be quite bizarre. For the record, I did 3 edits on this article: fixing the location of the NPOV tag, reverting your removal of the tag, and trying to find a more neutral header for the conspiracy theory section, which was reverted (that got me to look at the talk page). I have no further interest in engaging in this topic, and I wouldn't dare make substantial changes to the article.Park3r (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yet another baseless claim.

I found specific contributions that specifically relate to COVID-19 and your editing opinions on this topic. I'm interested in ensuring that content on Wikipedia remains high quality and doesn't succumb to constant POV pushing. That's not hounding. If there's community consensus that I'm in the wrong here, I'll go away. (Because to be frank, I'm not interested in participating in a community that would hold such an opinion).

Regarding "I have no further interest in engaging in this topic, and I wouldn't dare make substantial changes to the article, " this is the third time I see you've made a recently made a similar statement, two times before you reverted my edit here. So you'll have to forgive me for not believing you. Jdphenix (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the NPOV flag; it's present because there's a continuing dispute. It has yet to be resolved here, and I'm guessing it won't be. I expect we're looking at a RFC or something similar. Arcturus (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

First - there has been discussion ongoing for 3 weeks since the addition [5] of the NPOV tag.

* I see no arguments that support removing conspiracy theory language that's rooted in anything other than flawed reasoning.

** Additional sources since July's RfC were scrutinized and found not to be reliable sources for changing the characterization of this conspiracy theory. There were additional MEDRS sources that definitely affirm the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory.

** Regarding the argument that the text of the article as-is conflates the accidental release theory with a purposefully engineered bio-weapon, both are called out and refuted by RS in this section. They're not conflated, they're just related conspiracy theories about the same topic.

** Overall, there has been a failure to demonstrate that this characterization is actually controversial, using Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines.

* Supportive arguments for keeping conspiracy theory language are rooted in sourcing guidelines.

** Good arguments rooted in MEDRS and RS sources demonstrate this is a conspiracy theory.

** To the point regarding MEDRS, a July RfC affirmed the lab leak theory is WP:FRINGE and could be revisited with additional MEDRS sources. We did that here.

To address MEDRS versus RS specifically, we can source "conspiracy theory" from several high quality publications of either kind of source. The discussion about requiring MEDRS for this content is interesting, but ultimately doesn't result in an actual change.

Regarding an RfC; we don't really need to open one when the fundamental question is "should we use high quality sources for content?" Jdphenix (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I put the banner back because none of the conditions which allow its removal have been met. I think your fundamental question is reasonable, except that it applies to the whole of Wikipedia, not just this article. The fundamental question here is at a higher level - "are the lab leak theories conspiratorial". Could you reconsider going down the RfC route? I don't see any other way forward at the moment. Arcturus (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Consensus is not yet achieved." on your revert summary when I point you to exactly where it is currently decided. What? The July RfC characterizes the lab leak theory as a fringe theory and invites a revisit upon new MEDRS to the contrary. Characterization of these theories as a conspiracy theory lines up exactly with current consensus. I don't know what else to say. It is a conspiracy theory, and the constant stream of POV pushing editors isn't going to change that. New reliable sources would, and those have been discussed at length and on the same RfC. Jdphenix (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"July RfC". That is a problem. It's from six months ago. This issue is fast-moving and that RfC is therefore redundant. If POV pushing is occurring, it's happening both ways. As asked of RandomCanadian below, what sort of source do you think is applicable, specifically to support the conspiracy assertion; MEDRS, RS or either? Arcturus (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:RECENT might be useful reading. Regarding sources, I'm not entertaining the idea of jumping down that rabbit hole again. The most recent discussion is currently on this talk page, Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology#MEDRS sources. Regarding POV pushing, we'll have to agree to disagree that it's coming from both sides. Jdphenix (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

If you can ascertain a conclusion from that discussion, then "you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!". It's a genuine question on my part - I cannot see what the conclusion was, so I'm wondering what other editors think about it. Put another way, must a source asserting conspiracy be MEDRS? Arcturus (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's my attempted paraphrase of that section. I am completely discounting comments that an editor has chosen to strike. My own thoughts (rather than an attempt at paraphrase are marked).

Consensus is clear from July RfC that the lab leak theory will not be mentioned, and a change to that should be revisited once there is MEDRS to a different affect.

MEDRS is required to support a claim that the virus is bio-engineered. Claims like "the lab has a poor record of biosecurity" [Credit to Alexbrn] or similar don't require MEDRS. So the question of "is the characterization of 'conspiracy theory' required to be supported by MEDRS" is a complete waste of time. However, if there is MEDRS available as well as news, lay-media, etc. that both support the same claims, there is support to prefer MEDRS sources.

Mention of "conspiracy theory" or characterization as such is isn't covered by the previous RfC. As such, I don't see how requiring MEDRS came up here. It is important to note that recent MEDRS sources exist for the characterization. I don't think I need to mention the RS sources (they are cited in the article as-is).

Shortlist v.2 in the talk section summarizes current understanding of MEDRS sources. Zoumpourlis 2020 is used to support the conspiracy theory characterization, though support for that isn't clear in the talk page discussion I ended up reading the same review and came to the conclusion similar to Alexbrn; bio-engineered is definitely a conspiracy theory, lab release is unsupported and unlikely.

Because MEDRS is absolutely required for biomedical related claims (e.g. the supposed bioengineered origin of SARS-CoV-2), and there is MEDRS that opposes that view soundly. As such, conspiracy theory is a suitable characterization.

Regarding claims of conspiracy theory as it related to a purposeful lab release, that's already cited in several sources on the article right now. As it's not a biomedical claim, news is fine to support this content.

I remain convinced that continuing to attempt to excise conspiracy theory language from this article is a long and protracted case of WP:IDLI.

Okay, thanks. The Zoumpourlis 2020 reference supports conspiracy theory for the biological weapons scenario; that's all. It's no good for any other type of lab origin. I think most editors can agree that the suggestion of bio-weapons is conspiracy. Non bat origin may be okay for conspiracy as well. However, there are other scenarios. I'll get back tomorrow with some further thoughts. Arcturus (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I would support removing the npov tag as it is on those who wish to include it (WP:ONUS) to convince us that "conspiracy theory" would be the wrong term. Per Jdphenix and others, the vast majority of reliable sources (medical or otherwise) consider both the lab leak theory and other claims as such. Therefore, we have no reason to further entertain such conspiracy theories by claiming there's something not neutral (in the WP:NPOV) sense to call them out as such. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The tag itself details three conditions, and if any one of them is met, the tag can be removed. Currently, none of them are met. Regarding WP:ONUS; "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." It's about content, not about tags. It could be argued that the disputed content is that which labels all lab leak theories as conspiracy. Unfortunately, it seems this one has a way to go yet, and as mentioned above, I'm thinking that RfC could be the way forward. I don't think the vast majority of sources categorise the theory as "conspiracy". Incidentally, this debate is massive, and spread over many pages. What are we saying here about MEDRS versus RS? Maybe someone could summarise the current consensus (if any). For example, should a conspiracy claim be supported by MEDRS, RS, or either? Arcturus (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the specific argument that no criteria based on Template:POV section was met for removal of the tag. Specifically, "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." (emphasis mine) Jdphenix (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The debate being "massive" is only an indication of one thing:

• It having lasted way too long and evolved into WP:DEADHORSE territory.

As regards "do we need MEDRS or RS" in this case it is entirely irrelevant as both seem to agree that these are conspiracy theories: therefore the answer to your "or" question is an emphatic "yes". In any case, we should always strive for the best, highest quality sources available: MEDRS are likely to better fulfill this requirement than random articles in popular press publications; and if they were somehow conflicting then MEDRS would be what should ultimately go in the article. If you want to start an RfC feel free to do so, that we may have a final conclusion, although I guess the result should already be apparent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• I removed whole thing, but not opposed to partial restore and wiring something shorter and more neutral/encyclopedic. If it tells in WP voice, "it has been the subject of multiple baseless conspiracy theories", this begs the question: why this should be included at all? My very best wishes (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that there were multiple conspiracy theories involving this lab is probably noteworthy, but the article on misinformation is probably a good target for these. A short and to the point rewrite would be appropriate: just much shorter than before because if I look at article size it has been nearly halved by removing it so what is essentially a footnote in the history of this lab should not again take so much text to explain. I'll work from the text still in the history section. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sure. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Better to remove the entire thing. The prior paragraph with all that nonsense about how the virus may have emerged in Northern Italy was completely disgraceful. Thank you for removing it. Correctus2kX (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Content doesn't get removed because someone thinks it's disgraceful. It gets removed when it's not factual or relevant. Jdphenix (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not like it now. I will look at this later and maybe fix including a partial self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2021

In section "COVID-19 pandemic"

please change

"Early in the pandemic a number of myths and conspiracy theories had circulated, among them that the virus has been constructed in a Wuhan laboratory. Subsequent genetic analysis of the virus laid these to rest, finding that the virus had originated in bats."

to

"A number of theories on the origin of the virus have been proposed, among these that the virus originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The institute has a published record of conducting "gain-of-function" experiments aimed at creating new, more virulent, or more infectious strains of diseases in an effort to predict and therefore defend against threats that might conceivably arise in nature. Many scientists argue experiments using this gain-of-function technique on samples from the institutes own coronavirus collection could have led to the creation of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)."

reliable sources to back up information: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/ewsu2giezk/city-of-silence-china-wuhan 2A00:23C5:F013:7900:A15B:F04C:EF66:DB8F (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Declined See the above talk page discussion and archives for why. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory claims

Some content in this article remains problematic. In the History section we have this statement "The laboratory has nevertheless been the subject of multiple conspiracy theories, widely rejected by the scientific community, about the origin of the virus.[8][9][10]". The sources 8 and 9 do not mention conspiracy theories at all, so they appear not to support the assertion. The third source is written by reporters from a US radio station. It does have a paragraph about conspiracy theories, but "multiple conspiracy theories, widely rejected by the scientific community" is not supported. I propose the sentence is removed. Arcturus (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree those sources don't support it, but multiple sources in the kludge of a discussion above do iirc, so the sources can be swapped out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, there is no consensus above on any sources supporting the assertion. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

That some editors choose to be vocal about their viewpoint doesn’t mean they are the consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is still a matter of investigation and the text should say "numerous theories..." indicating the current scientific view, but without calling minority views conspiracy theory myths. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS again

This edit[6] (repeated by ScrupulousScribe) splices a suggestive non-sequitur into the middle of a paragraph and edits text text to misrepresent a MEDRS source, which does not say the bat origin is "most likely", but that it is the case. Editors are reminded that WP:V is a core content policy, that WP:SYNTHESIS is prohibited and that this topic is subject to special sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus above that WP:MEDRS is applicable for a matter unrelated to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and there is also no consensus on that particular MEDRS source being WP:BESTSOURCE, given the way it contradicts other sources. It is clear that Jshin47 is a new user, and we should be welcoming to him, and any other editors who wish to offer a more nuanced point of view. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, WP:V is a core policy. There is in fact consensus that WP:MEDRS applies, but even it it didn't an academic peer-reviewed secondary source is still supreme in comparison to lay sources and tweets. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus that MEDRS applies. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I, for one, think we should use high-quality scientific sources (for this subject, that would be WP:MEDRS sources) for scientific claims, such as the origins of SARS-CoV-2. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

And there are others, such as I, who believe that while MEDRS should normally apply, the Chinese government has made it as such that there are no MEDRS sources to determine the origin of the virus. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, and WP:CLUE is relevant. If we allowed every outbreak of WP:PROFRINGE grutching to unseat established WP:PAGs, Wikipedia would descend into nonsense. If in doubt, double check at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Something that the BBC calls the "biggest scientific controversy of our time" (not a WP:PROFRINGE grutch) should require a much clearer approach for establishing how WP:PAG applies here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

We use serious sources, not silly hyperbolic journalism. Alexbrn (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Even generally-decent mainstream journalism is prone to false balance about scientific controversies — quoting one person from each side of a debate, or quoting people in such a way that they appear to be two sides of a debate, when in fact their views are only separated incrementally. On some topics, mainstream journalism is the best source material we have to work with and so we can't say much anything about whether the balance is false, but that's not the case here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The BBC is a decent mainstream reliable source, right? They have covered the issue, as have The Times, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, and many others. For as long as editors like you and Alexbrn continue to conflate legitimate scientific inquiry, as reported by the likes of BBC, with disproven conspiracy theories, as promulgated by the likes of Li-Meng Yan, this issue remains disputed. There is most certainly not a consensus in favor of continuing to conflate the issues, and omit key details about such inquiry from the article, as it currently does. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Weren't you just recently topic-banned (and then unbanned) from Covid? I'd suggest the issue be handled with care. Fact is, those theories are considered by MEDRS and high quality sources (WP:BESTSOURCES - its not simply because something is "reliable" that its an ok source: if better sources contradict lesser ones (and scientific journals vs mainstream press is the prime example) then we go by the best available sources). In this case, there is no serious MEDRS-level source which claims that those conspiracy theories have any grounding in anything but thin air, therefore we report what the best sources say, so no, the conspiracy bullshit does not go in. I've removed the tag since its an issue which was just discussed (and has been perpetually discussed) earlier with consensus that the current content was way too much and you re-inserting it feels a bit like WP:DEADHORSE... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

As was pointed out by myself and others, the scientific journal (MEDRS source) does not contradict the mainstream reliable sources, and addresses only known conspiracy theories (relating to bioweapons). There was also no agreement in the above discussion that that journal is WP:BESTSOURCES, specifically because it failed to address any alternative lab origin theory other than bioweapons. And since you are new to the conversation, let me also remind you that there is also no consensus that MEDRS even applies to something that clearly does not classify as Wikipedia:Biomedical information. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if MEDRS wasn't required for this article, applicable MEDR sources would still be better than MEDPOP. In this situation, we have a hypothesis (lab leak) that has been cultivated primarily by laypeople, with the opinions of a handful of scientists (of varying credentials) thrown in to provide (seemingly) mechanistic legitimacy. We don't need MEDRS to describe entirely layperson-designed scenarios, which don't include scientific assertions. But as soon as you introduce an "expert" analysis that attempts to explain how the scenario could have occurred, you need rigorous MEDRS to rebut (or support) the claim. And when a particular mechanistic claim does not have abundant MEDRS, it is not DUE: it is clearly disregarded by the scientific community and therefore should be omitted from the article. So, while the "lab leak theory" as a general concept may be acknowledged here, any supporting details inspired by a hypothetical mechanism cannot be included. This would of course include the opinions of random scientists. JoelleJay (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay, If I understand you correctly, you consider "supporting details" of the theory to be WP:UNDUE, especially when it makes a mechanistic claim. However, I would like to understand whether you would make any differentiation between the claim that COVID-19 was possibly created as a bioweapon, to the claim that it was possibly subject to gain-of-function research? That's like me asking whether you think we should merge the Biological warfare article into Gain of function research article, or visa versa, as a dual-use section, and I would expect a pretty clear answer. Also, I do not think Marc Lipsitch, David Relman and Richard Ebright are "random scientists", and they are of the opinion that the theory should be considered and the possibility investigated. Just yesterday Forbes published an interesting piece on the subject of this differentiation, quoting Ebright (and also Filippa Lentzos). Most reliable sources make the differentiation. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I meant "supporting details" for the accidental lab leak hypothesis, not for distinguishing it from the intentional release scenario which is entirely separate and discounted. It doesn't matter whether I personally make a distinction between bioweapons research and GOF DURCs; the possibility that WIV was engaged in either with this virus is not being entertained enough by the scientific community to be DUE at this time. That the popular media has picked up on the topic is unfortunate but unsurprising, given the hyperbole generated by the 2011 pause on funding. Having a handful of scientists whose statements can be aligned with alarmist news reports doesn't mean the scenario has gained widespread acknowledgement among the thousands of other experts, whose relative silence on the matter carries far more weight. If we went by what experts quoted in the lay media say, our articles on TCM and AYUSH therapies would be full of nationalist woo bullshit. JoelleJay (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If we want to use non-WP:MEDRS to discuss the gain-of-function conspiracy theory, a useful source may be PMID 33442004, which is some commentary by Angela Rasmussen on the "often contradictory and sometimes outright ridiculous conspiracy theories that spread faster than the virus itself". This is already used at the Gain-of-function article. Excerpt:

A favorite version of the laboratory-origin stories relies on the fact that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered for gain-of-function studies that were also previously performed with bat SARS-like coronaviruses to understand cross-species transmission risk (Nat. Med. 21, 1508–1513; 2015). The irony is that those gain-of-function studies provided valuable information about the biology of SARS-CoV-2. Gain-of-function research is also subject to intense scrutiny and governmental oversight, precisely because of the high risk involved in conducting it safely; thus, it is extremely unlikely that gain-of-function research on hard-to-obtain coronaviruses (such as bat SARS-like coronaviruses) could occur under the radar.

This doesn't make any biomedical claims, but also does not mention the Wuhan lab specifically. Alexbrn (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Rasmussen's article provides a compelling argument from the perspective of a civilian virologist, but anyone with a professional background in Counter-WMD, diplomatic security (as I do, for both), intelligence and/or national security threats more broadly would point out that questionable research could be 'under the radar' - and usually is. It would be naive to assume that Rasmussen is unfamiliar with Plum Island, Sverdlovosk, Dugway Proving Ground or Fort Detrick [for example], where large numbers of her peers have worked for 3 generations on studying biological agents and their potential defensive & offensive application, and researching effective mitigation methods. The fact that the intelligence communities of the US, UK, and the EU at large are becoming more vocal about China's intransigence [not less] is more than enough to justify treating this topic separately from 'misinformation.' There are now many peer-reviewed studies questioning the veracity of the sequences of RaTG13 and several samples taken from patients [including the 'index' patient]; invalidation of a sample on which many of the opposing articles' sequencing analyses are based should not be the domino necessary to justify a different treatment of this topic. Until any evidence is provided to the contrary by the WHO, there is far more scientific support and evidence on LitCovid (NIH's PubMed) for GOF accidental release theories than the 'frozen meat' hypothesis. Especially since November. Using Rasmussen's opinion piece as acceptable MEDRS implies a dialectical treatment of the issue it does not possess. The fact that her quote is pithy and self-assured does not make it worthy of inclusion, much less as an authoritative reference beyond dispute. --OtiSuMetEmou (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Except the whole political thing has strictly nothing to do with the WIV, or at least would be very UNDUE and failing NPOV and MEDRS. The diplomatic ramifications et cetera can be put in the proper article, which is COVID-19 misinformation (or whichever relevant sub-topic article if there is one). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

break

One point here keeps getting repeated, and is wrong. The best MEDRS does not "just" rebut the "bioweapon" claim, but lab construction in general ("conspiracy theories regarding the construction of SARS-CoV-2 in a secret laboratory in Wuhan") without even mentioning bioweapons. Alexbrn (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that is based on your interpretation of it. And also, it is not the "best" MEDRS, as you claim. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No intepretation, a direct quotation. As a MEDLINE-indexed, reputable-published, review article, PMID 32945405 is the best MEDRS (on this topic). As it says: "The genomic and bioinformatic analyses of the aforementioned studies, as well as the results of previous studies, confirm that the virus originated in bats and this way put an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue". Alexbrn (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The paper you selected, and the comment you selected from it, does not discount other lab origin scenarios, particularly the one relating to gain-of-function research. It is irrelevant to the subject at hand, and making any inference from it in relation to lab origin scenario involving GoF research, is original research. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What part of "confirm that the virus originated in bats and this way put an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue" is hard to understand? No inference necessary; to the contrary, interpreting this to mean in some way "it was maybe made in a lab!" requires interpretative contortions. Alexbrn (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Its not hard to understand, but no one said the virus didn't originate in bats. This was pointed out by other editors above, such as Forich, as it is pretty clear the paper doesn't make the necessary differentiation. It would be better for you to leave this discussion to other editors like JoelleJay, who seems to have a better grasp of the science than you do, so that we can reach a consensus and agree on content changes. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice attempt at WP:OWNERSHIP. As Forich wrote (15 Jan): "we have to follow Wikipedia rules, and it looks like a strong MEDRS against the lab leak". I agree with that. Wikipedia's purpose is to reflect reliable, relevant sources. We also know from RS that the gain-of-function "story" is a favourite one among the conspiracy theorists. Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not ownership. You have taken up considerable time to push your POV, and JoelleJay, who shares your POV, makes stronger and more direct points that I feel would enable us to reach a consensus. If you are going to quote Forich, you should also include his others on the matter, such as his "benevolent interpretation" comment (also Jan 15). Your MEDRS source is irrelevant for the reason given, and the applicability of MEDRS is also in question. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but threatening "It would be better for you to leave this discussion to other editors" is classic WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. WP:FOC. The business of editing Wikipedia is fundamentally quite simple: find the best sources, then summarize them. We're doing that with the lab leak and all the best sources are aligned: it's a remote possibility & conspiracy theory. When and if the sources change, Wikipedia can follow, but until then we're sound. Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have gatekeepers and you are not in charge of determining what sources are considered best, and which policies apply where and when. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Gatekeepers? I didn't write "It would be better for you to leave this discussion to other editors". Wikipedia policies apply throughout the project, unless you want to invoke WP:IAR. But some policies are non-negotiable, such as WP:NPOV. There was already a lengthy process on this Talk page of finding the five or six WP:BESTSOURCES on the virus' origin.[7] If we stick to summarizing those, NPOV will be safe. Alexbrn (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The lengthy process you mention above did not result in a consensus, as you did not address the concerns brought up by editors (like Forich) with the sources you selected, just like you didn't reply to Forich's debate conclusions in WP:RS/N. Unless you find a MEDRS source that makes the clear distinction between origin theories relating to gain of function research and bioweapons, and rules them both out unequivocally, then MEDRS as a policy isn't even applicable here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to find a MEDRS source to address concerns that don't exist in the realm of MEDRS, but in the realms of WP:FRINGE. I'm not making any claim beyond the sources we already use. All that's necessary is to reflect WP:MEDRS and uphold WP:FRINGE when discussing conspiracy theories, or even plausible but unaccepted ideas. Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to continue deleting contributions as you did with the contributions from Jshin47 and Aettius, then as per WP:REMOVE, you must provide reasons for doing so. You could have just fixed the problem, as per WP:PRESERVE, by adding the sources. If you believe that MEDRS applies here, then you need to find a MEDRS source to support your position, and gain consensus. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I gave edit summaries. The core problem is with NPOV, and the way to "fix" undue airing of fringe theories is to remove them from the encyclopedia. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn that removing NPOV violations is often a valid way of dealing with them. WP:PRESERVE does not mean that all material ever added to the encyclopedia has to stay. Alexbrn has been doing a lot of work to find applicable MEDRS-compliant sources, so I don't see how you can fault them there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Guest2625: Do you think this material should be reinstated, from your recent removal of material? It's a statement of fact, sourced, and tangentially relevant to WIV.

In January 2021, a WHO team went to Wuhan to investigate the origins of the virus. The WHO tweeted that "all hypotheses are on the table as the team follows the science in their work to understand the origins of the COVID19 virus." Arcturus (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Note. This text is from the source and could be added to the deleted section I mentioned above: WHO, which is based in Geneva, Switzerland, said late Thursday on Twitter that its team plans to visit hospitals, markets like the Huanan Seafood Market linked to many of the first cases, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and laboratories at facilities like the Wuhan Center for Disease Control. Arcturus (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"All hypotheses"? Which means what? Bat virus, bat virus via pangolin, lab-leaked bat virus, bioweapon by China, bioweapon by US, bioweapon by Liechtenstein, virus by 5G, virus by unicorn snot, virus by Daleks, virus by grey goo made by Greys, and so on? Tweets have that character-limit problem, which can lead to ambivalence, and they should not be used when it does.

This has been gone long enough. There has been no working argument for treating the lab leak idea as reasonable, there has only repetion, strawmen, repetition, and repetition. Drop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, twitter is not good. We should use a source like this instead [8]. It has this statement; WHO said the 13-person team will meet Covid-19 survivors, visit the seafood market linked to the early outbreak and the spend time at the Wuhan Institute of Virology - which is at the heart of theories that Sars-Cov-2 escaped from a lab. The WHO is visiting the lab in connection with its attempts to identify the origins of this pandemic, and you don't think that fact deserves a mention in an article about the lab? Extraordinary. Arcturus (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Has the WHO said that the purpose of the visit to the lab is to investigate the lab leak theory? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Not according to the source I've identified. I don't know if it's mentioned elsewhere. Arcturus (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The whole thing is ridiculous, as if, even imagining there was some kind of State-ordered cover up, if would be busted by a no-doubt mild-mannered team of WHO scientists ("did the virus come from this lab?" / "no" / "oh, okay then"). Alexbrn (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You could be right, but that doesn't matter. We should just follow the sources. If a RS like The Telegraph reports that the WHO team are visiting the Institute to investigate the origins of Sars-Cov-2, then that is highly relevant in an article about the Institute. Arcturus (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If the WHO doesn't say it's visiting the lab to investigate the lab-leak theory, then we shouldn't in any way imply that it is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

We say what the source says. Readers can then make up their own minds. Arcturus (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If we put in text that implies the WHO team is visiting the WIV in order to investigate the lab-leak theory, then that's misleading. We should allow the reader to make up their mind, but that doesn't mean we should imply something that isn't true (or which the WHO hasn't stated). -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"All theories are on the table" is so vague as to indicate ineptness from whoever is managing the WHO social media. In any case, it does not indicate anything about which "theories" these might be. Simply because WHO might be visiting the lab does not imply they are investigating it as a possible origin (linking the mentions together as to imply it is clearly WP:SYNTH) - as far as we know, they might simply be visiting the lab to get up-to-date information from the local virologists (a far more benign aim, no? In any case, neither of these two hypotheses go in because they are not found in any WP:RS). Re-inserting the NPOV tag despite this discussion having just been had and resolved (and then starting yet another one on the same subject) shows an unwilligness to move on. Because the outcome is not what you want does not mean the discussion needs to be repeated fifty times until the desired outcome is attained. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not synthesis if the link is done by the source. Nevertheless, I suggest we include the following statement, sourced to The Telegraph; As part of their investigations into the origin of Sars-Cov-2, an investigation team from the WHO will visit the Institute. The text can be edited and modified accordingly, when the visit is complete. This simply states a (highly relevant) fact and draws no conclusions as to the purpose of the visit. Arcturus (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to weigh in a bit. About a year ago we were having this discussion because there was a preprint on BioRxiv from pretty serious researchers stating the lab leak hypothesis should be considered. It was rejected because It's a preprint and not MEDRS. All my claims were dismissed as being fringe and therefore no change was made regarding the "conspiracy theory" language used. It's been a year now and I'm pretty concerned to see it didn't move an inch, even with the BBC, the Bulletin of Atomic scientists, credible scientists now saying it's likely and a few papers on the subject. I think it's time for the gatekeeping to stop. I'll leave this paper [9] I found, pretty easily, on the subject. It's from a credible scientist in a peer reviewed journal (Bioessays) and in my opinion is eligible for MEDRS. It cites specifically the WIV for gain of function and lab leak. I'm gonna leave you with the proverbial I told you so. I probably won't come back again for a while because I recall the discussion being quite toxic around here. Thanks. Feynstein (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I will add that with the history of the subject here, the recent discussions (those I read) and the recent developments in very mainstream and peer reviewed publications like the BBC, AP, BioEssays, etc. I consider this page to be a perfect example of WP:STONEWALL. There's clear evidence of systematic bias at this point if anyone is still rejecting the lab leak hypothesis as fringe. And since there's a power imbalance between the gatekeepers and the editors who feel this page is problematic, no progress is being made. It feels like there's always a roadblock to inconvenient narratives eh? https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-55404485 Good night. Feynstein (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(EC) That (clearly non-MEDRS) source has already been discussed. The authors of the article are a staff scientist in a mycology lab and an entrepreneur with an MBA–very, very far from experts in viral evolution. This paper could not possibly be used to demonstrate even minor scientific support--it even says so itself: Almost all scientific papers published to date purport that SARS‐CoV‐2 has a natural origin, and the only published paper considering possible a lab origin[1] focuses on serial passage as the technique that could justify SARS‐CoV‐2 special adaptation to human cells. The paper they reference here is another Bioessays piece by Karl Sirotkin and Dan Sirotkin of "Karl Sirotkin LLC". Karl once managed genetics databases for the NCBI, and is now retired. Dan is his son, whose academic career seems to have ended with a bachelor's in poli sci and who now writes a prison stories-turned-COVID conspiracy blog wherein he promotes the likes of Zero Hedge. That Bioessays is publishing articles by people with zero subject-specific expertise and zero or minimal institutional affiliation is a bad sign for its journalistic integrity. JoelleJay (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: It's peer reviewed. Both of them. Your opinion on their integrity is your own. We're not here to debate on whether a paper was written by the Janitor of the scientists son or not, we're here to show it to our readers because leaders in the field deemed them good for publication. Those are both peer reviewed papers in credible journals, our readers deserve to know about them. This is truly shameful and as I just said is Stonewalling. Especially since the new "PubMed" criteria. Which is completely arbitrary. And since there's STILL the mention that the lab leak is a conspiracy theory. It makes all of us editors laughing stock to the public eye at this point. People get here and see this nice propaganda style discourse and just leave because it looks like it's edited by the CCP's ministry of truth. I'm really disappointed. Feynstein (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: You state the authors are a "staff scientist" and an "entrepreneur". Actually, they are a microbiologist and a bio-informaticist. They are highly qualified and their findings are worthy of discussion. Their findings may even be worthy of inclusion in this article. You should pay more attention to content (and the fact that it's peer reviewed) rather than trying to disparage the authors. And you're even trying to badmouth BioEssays. Astounding. Arcturus (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, "staff scientist" describes her professional position, not her field: it is highly relevant that she does not run her own lab. That she's a "microbiologist" means literally nothing since that is an extremely wide field--she's a fungus microbiologist, she has zero published background in virus microbiology or the far more relevant fields of viral genetics and evolution or structural biology. Deigin is not a bio-informaticist by any stretch of the imagination unless you've found some source contradicting his own LinkedIn and Youthereum bios, the first of which very clearly demonstrates his involvement in pharma was exclusively marketing/operations-oriented. So NO, they are not highly qualified in the field their paper is in, and Deigin is not qualified in any scientific field. JoelleJay (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: Just to be clear, your subjective opinion on the credibility of the authors is not a valid argument regarding the inclusion of a peer-reviewed paper. Certainly not as per WP policies. Feynstein (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Feynstein I am responding to the claim that the authors are qualified. Their actual article can be dismissed as non-MEDRS since it is a primary source. Anyway, if the credentials of the authors don't matter then why does anyone bring them up? Why are people belaboring the status and prestige of, e.g., Ebright or Relman if the only parameter we should assess is their articles' content? It's inconsistent to apply notions of credibility in one direction but ignore it in the other. JoelleJay (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay Simply because I find your description of the first author simplistic, demeaning and dishonest. Shoving her off as a "fungus specialist" doesn't remove her evolutionary biology and genomic expertise. Scientist in a general field do it all the time. I was just making sure this was subjective because as a scientist I don't see her that way. It shouldn't be used as an argument because of that.Feynstein (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

How is it dishonest? She works at a post-doc level in a mycology lab doing techniques very far removed from those described in the paper. It's not clear she has done any evolutionary genetics applicable to coronaviruses; most of her published work appears to be related to carbon acquisition strategies among mycoheterotrophs and their mycorrhizal specificity, although she hasn't published anything in the last nine years. The most relevant technique I can see from her 4(?) 8 other publications (none only one first-author, so I can't actually tell what her technical contributions are) is routine fungus-specific barcoding for identifying fungal species. So she is likely familiar with standard alignment packages and can interpret BLAST output, I guess? And presumably she has some background in phylogenetic reconstruction, although she doesn't offer any evaluation of those in the paper. The analyses she does give seem to rest on the probability of particular sequences appearing naturally, but she does not justify whether a particular statistical observation is anomalous within coronavirus genetics.

details

Is it actually relevant that, e.g., "only 5% of arginines are coded by CGG in SARS‐CoV‐2 or RaTG13, and CGGCGG in the new insert is the only doubled instance of this codon in SARS‐CoV‐2."? She also doesn't explain how it's mechanistically more plausible (than natural insertion) that RmYN02 could have mutated SPAARV from ZC45 TASILR when doing so means realigning such that the preceding consensus NS residues are removed by shifting them into a non-consensus location, which then makes the whole domain even more divergent from ZC45. Why is this alignment interpretation more correct than the alignment all the other coronavirus researchers have arrived at? There is no exploration of the mutational effect from the requisite substitutions (several of which are very much non-conservative), not even a mention of consulting AA substitution matrices/BLOSUM-type software.

And it's not at all common for scientists to suddenly jump into entirely different fields, especially as a primary author. That kind of behavior, particularly from people (excepting students) who have very few (or zero! yikes!) publications in any field is one of the biggest red flags when evaluating author credibility. JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Lab construction of the virus is a conspiracy theory per the best sources, the BioEssays source are not RS for such claims; MEDRS would be needed (i.e. review articles or better). Alexbrn (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: So you're using sources as a basis to disprove other sources? That's new. Also pretty biased, as in confirmation bias. Are your "best sources" review articles? I didn't seem to recall they were. My position still hold. You're outright dismissing anything that's not MEDRS (in your view btw, from my past discussions here last year, it was agreed that peer review was MEDRS) so that they have zero weight. And then you bring in your two articles and use their definition to dismiss the whole hypothesis as a conspiracy theory. Even if clearly mainstream sources at this point are saying it's not. Do you know what sophistry is? Feynstein (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This whole thing you're all doing is a huge WP: STONEWALL. There's no denying it. It's simply illogical to still call it a conspiracy theory. With the amount of proof that's now available I would have had a field day last year. I'm very serious with my Stonewall accusation. This is very problematic and I hope you find a way to fix it. Otherwise we're all looking bad. I'm going now, I'll respond tomorrow. Good night. Feynstein (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• As a general principle on Wikipedia we use the best sources, and the use of primary sources to undercut stronger, secondary sources is forbidden by WP:MEDRS. Any previous idea that "peer review means MEDRS" was obviously a silly WP:LOCALCON. We don't override the WP:PAGs just because it suits the agenda of WP:PROFRINGE editors. To get a better understanding of MEDRS I recommend WP:WHYMEDRS and maybe WP:MEDFAQ. Your "stonewall" accusation is about behaviour, and raising it here is disruptive. Take it to AIN or stop it. Also, learn to WP:INDENT your posts as a courtesy; this page is hard enough to follow as it is. Alexbrn (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: I don't like indent it makes it difficult for me to follow the conversation. Sorry. And yes, if you guys don't change your behaviour I will be raising it to whoever it takes, the general behaviour around this topic is disgraceful. Feynstein (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Does anyone object to the text I mentioned above being included in the article? If so, why? Here it is again; As part of their investigations into the origin of Sars-Cov-2, an investigation team from the WHO will visit the Institute. Arcturus (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    I object. How is it relevant if they will go there? Maybe they plan to visit the loo there? Will they look out of the window too? And try to observe a sack of rice falling over? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    It's relevant because it's being covered by reputable sources in their reporting of this significant issue - the issue being that the WHO are investigating the source of the outbreak. Arcturus (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    WP:VNOT probably, unless we can put something non-meaningless. Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    There's no concensus about this and I support it's inclusion. It is relevant to the institute, specifically in it's COVID part. You're using your own subjective impression and your interpretation of the editor's intent to block progress on this page. Arcturus If you include this part and it gets reverted I will revert it back in place, 2 v 1 as of right now. Alexbrn is partaking in edit warring at this point. Quoting policy like its second nature to him. This is harmful to the encyclopedia. Feynstein (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    An invitation to start edit-warring is probably sanctionable. Alexbrn (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    This is not an invitation to edit warring, this is adding common sense reliable source fact about this institute (That the WHO will be visiting it during it's investigation). You doing what you're doing now is edit warring. I'm opening the gates bud, your shift is done. Feynstein (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

    I'm supporting the original editor who raised this point and not doing it myself because I know it's pointless and will lead to a revert from whoever's keeping the gate up today. I'm actually edit-peacekeeping ;-) Feynstein (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There's not much to say at the moment about the WHO team's visit to the WIV. Wikipedia is new a newspaper, so there's no pressure to immediately insert this news item into the article. If there's something more substantial to add later, we can do so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Hi again bud. I propose we at least change the phrasing towards the lab leak hypothesis, at this point the WHO visiting WIV, the clearly MEDRS paper by Segreto [10] and multiple mainstream publications talking about it seriously pushed it off the WP:FRINGE. Btw, I still don't agree with the need for this information to be considered as per Wikipedia:Biomedical_information. It pretty much gets into the medical ethics part: "Discussions about the ethics of a treatment, publication, set of rules or practices, or the handling of an event do not constitute biomedical information. Some issues in medical ethics (e.g., how to handle requests from a delusional patient) are frequently discussed in biomedical sources, but ethicists can also be used as sources." May I remind everyone about WP:GAMING. If people generally agree I will be making that change so that the bioweapon theory is identified as a conspiracy theory but not the accidental leak. Feynstein (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and per WP:FRINGE/PS "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move and the proposed mechanisms were implausible. When a mechanism was discovered through plate tectonics, it became mainstream.": This particular article can't be dismissed by anyone as fringe. Feynstein (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree about the Segreto paper being MEDRS, as I explained in an earlier discussion on this topic. Besides the criteria that Alexbrn has pointed out (e.g., reviews vs. primary research papers vs. essays), the authors are not subject-matter experts (one is a botanist and the other an entrepreneur). The lab-leak theory remains fringe. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

In addition to those points, the Segreto and Deigin paper has been cited only four times on Google Scholar, which scrapes as much as possible, and the only detailed commentary is a preprint that doesn't buy the conclusion. Wikipedia should not be citing papers that the scientific literature itself has all but ignored. XOR'easter (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

break 2

The six relevant WP:MEDRS are listed here. I checked recently and there's been nothing new of equivalent quality published since this list was made. The recurrent problem on this topic is that we've had WP:PROFRINGE editors wanting indulging in WP:POVSOURCING rather than disinterestedly finding the WP:BESTSOURCES and using those. Why make it complicated? Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a sleight of hand to dismiss a legit paper that would make this article more WP:NPOV. Thucydides411 Do you remember our discussions last year? I can't point to any specific one but you said something like a peer-reviewed paper would make it non-fringe. I would like you to look at her university bio [11], actually read the paper, what it says and tell me seriously she's a botanist again. She's clearly an evolutionary biologist within the reasonable scientific community as per WP:FRINGE/PS. Are you guys trying to WP:GAME the process by moving goal posts with new policies that violate WP:FRINGE/PS now that the hypothesis surfaced into mainstream publications like the BBC? I assume you're not, but it would be quite disappointing if you were. Those reviews/primary/essays criterias look pretty arbitrary to me, and it seems like they weren't there last time we spoke bud. Would you like me to escalate to conflict resolution? Or maybe behaviour stuff to see if this is WP:STONEWALLING. This discussion has been going on for a while and a concensus wasn't reached. Two people were even suspended in the process, I'm thinking out of frustration from the inflexibility of gatekeeping editors around here. Feynstein (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, yes, Segreto appears to be a botanist. Her papers appear primarily in journals like the American Journal of Botany and The Bryologist. I don't see what previous publication record she has in virology, much less coronaviruses. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Personalized comments and a failure to focus on content is another aspect of the trouble here, and why there have been blocks. Please WP:FOC. Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Are you seriously saying that the list you guys made up is a concensus? There's only two people (that seem to both agree with it) discussing the articles in the list. Doesn't seem remotely legit to me. Btw, since you brought this up, at this point I will consider you using WP:PROFRINGE to describe other editors on this clearly mainstream hypothesis to be problematic regarding WP:NPA. Thanks. Feynstein (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

We have had WP:PROFRINGE editors yes; they have been blocked. You can read what the admins said to confirm that has been a problem. Hopefully there will be no continuation and we can WP:FOC. That list of sources is the current MEDRS on this topic, yes. If any more are discovered, it would be good to know about them. Until then, we simply follow these good sources. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you consider Segreto's paper not part of this list, do you have a reference to discussions on this matter? There's plenty of stuff going on here and it would help me greatly. Feynstein (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Feynstein: in your own words, what is it precisely that you regard as a clearly mainstream hypothesis? Could you give a succinct statement of that? Then it would be easier to evaluate the relevant evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: When refering to mainstream I'm talking about general RS sources. The BBC and AP having articles about it makes it clear. However, in the scientific litterature I already made it clear that as per WP:FRINGE/PS this hypothesis can't be considered fringe anymore. "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move and the proposed mechanisms were implausible. When a mechanism was discovered through plate tectonics, it became mainstream". Can we have a concensus about this so that the discussion can proceed? Feynstein (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That's why I think the part in this article where everything is labeled as "consipiracy theory" to be factually innacurate. Feynstein (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. What part of the everything that the article has labeled as "conspiracy theory do you regard as mainstream? Surely not literally everything that is mentioned there?. Newimpartial (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I consider this sentence The laboratory has nevertheless been the subject of multiple conspiracy theories, widely rejected by the scientific community, about the origin of the virus.[8][9][10] to be factually innacurate and should be revised in a way that says the lab leak hypothesis is not part of such conspiracy theories. We could agree on such phrasing. Something like While some scientists think the lab could have had an accidental release (citations), it has nevertheless.... Feynstein (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

So you are saying that, whatever conspiracy theories there might be, at least one version of the accidental release hypothesis is not FRINGE? And what are the sources supporting such a version of the accidental release hypothesis? Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This one, precisely[12]. That editors around here seem to discard on the basis of author credibility and some made-up non-concensus policy about respecting a list of pre-approved papers that one side agreed to be MEDRS. Feynstein (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a preprint, so surely we can wait for peer review? This seems to be a whole lot of excitement about nothing. Once there are reliable sources for a non-CT version of laboratory origin, then the article can say so. At the moment, there don't seem to be any. 18:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh but this is not a preprint my friend. It's legit peer-reviewed:BioEssays. Btw I don't recall subjective credibility review of authors by editors on WP to be standard practice for inclusion in our articles. Feynstein (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Here [13] you can see for yourself how thorough it is. Feynstein (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If it isn't a preprint, then what is it doing filed under "Early View"? I thought that was what that section was for. Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Journals release their approved papers on COVID before they come out in the regular issue. Which is usually physically printed. If everyone waited for journals to actually print their stuff there wouldn't be a vaccine right now. Once it says "first published" or "published" it means it's not a preprint anymore. And contrary to what Alexbrn seems to say, it is a primary source because it uses genetic data from databases directly to check the hypothesis. It also does a pretty good job at litterature review and paper critique. That's why I'm claiming WP:STONEWALLING. Maybe if editors read the paper carefully, they'd find out it's a primary source. Feynstein (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

But MEDRS specifies that primary sources are not the standard of reliability on topics related to human health, secondary and tertiary sources are (in fact, this is also part of ordinary RS policy. So why would you want to show that this early-print paper* is primary? Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

*Also, I'm not convinced that the Problems & Paradigms series at BioEssays is legit peer-reviews. It seems to be soliciting more speculative interventions. Added Newimpartial (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a non-review paper written by people who aren't virologists. If we were looking to come up with a list of the best sources in the subject, this paper would never come up. The only reason it's being raised is because it supports a particular point of view. That's not how one goes about doing a literature review. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I'm not sure you get to decide who's qualified in a particular field or not. I'm a physicist and I released a paper on SEIRS Monte Carlo Simulation in epidemiology to approximate the number of asymptomatic cases. You considering this paper not MEDRS for spurious reasons is confirmation bias. Feynstein (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't fall into either categories in fact. I might have missed my point here. It uses data to critique other papers, so it's secondary in that sense. I also said it did a very thorough litterature review. On another note, I don't agree with the need for MEDRS on this one as per Wikipedia:Biomedical information "Discussions about the ethics of a treatment, publication, set of rules or practices, or the handling of an event do not constitute biomedical information. Some issues in medical ethics (e.g., how to handle requests from a delusional patient) are frequently discussed in biomedical sources, but ethicists can also be used as sources." Feynstein (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The Segreto paper indeed discusses the findings of multiple different publications, however, its primary focus is to synthesize those data to support its stated novel conclusion. Review papers survey the current knowledge on a topic and aim to provide an overview of its scientific consensus--without the intent of proving a new interpretation. The material this paper uses to demonstrate its hypothesis is also clearly not what "handling of an event" means. JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

But concerning the relevant part of the paper - the argument that a laboratory-release hypothesis is plausible in the case of SARS-Cov-2 - the argument is surely primary? Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You might want to explain that point further for me. It's not biomedical information, so it's not like you're going to find a litterature review on the efficacy of a certain drug. That's why I don't understand how "an argument" could ever be made to be secondary. Other editors only have papers that don't specifically talk about this issue anyway. It's always some side note in the middle of a paper describing the virus. Feynstein (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

But a "side note" in a paper that documents the consensus in the field is more SECONDARY, and more reliable, than an original argument, which is what the section of the paper in question appears to be. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to add -- that it's always a "side note" is in fact further evidence the hypothesis does not enjoy mainstream scientific support! JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Looked back at sources 8-9-10 and there's only one that's WP:MEDRS in them. But it's from may 2020 and doesnt even says conspiracy in it's main text. Removing that sentence right now, as per the WP:MEDRS requirement. I will discuss further with you after work. Feynstein (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Just so that we are clear: the claim that there is a non-CT laboratory release scenario is subject to MEDRS, but the claim that there are conspiracy theories alleging a laboratory release is not subject to MEDRS. Just as the referring to the hypothesis that JFK was killed by an alien implant as a "conspiracy theory" is not an MEDRS claim, but claiming that it is possible that assassinations can be carried out using alien implants would be subject to MEDRS. Newimpartial (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Well then, change it so that it explicitly states the bioweapon release conspiracy theory. Otherwise saying "regarding the virus origin" is MEDRS bud. You remove the part after the coma and we're clear. Feynstein (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Just so we're clear this: widely rejected by the scientific community, about the origin of the virus is MEDRS af. I'd be in my right to revert your edit and make it so it respects an overriding policy. Feynstein (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

{{tq}Almost all scientific papers published to date purport that SARS‐CoV‐2 has a natural origin, and the only published paper considering possible a lab origin[ 1 ] focuses on serial passage as the technique that could justify SARS‐CoV‐2 special adaptation to human cells.}} What part of this statement gives you the impression that the lab origin is not a fringe view? It's been kicking around in the lay media since the start of the pandemic, surely there would be more scientific investigations into the lab origin than these two BioEssays conjectures by people with zero relevant background (and half of them lacking any science background whatsoever)? Why aren't legit viral geneticists with tenured research positions offering detailed mechanistic hypotheses in support of the lab leak? JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The observation that the conspiracy theories concern the origin of the virus are not MEDRS claims. The sentence in question does not concern CTs that the Institute is a reptoid front, or Batman's Wuhan hideout, or whatever else. Also, do the reliable sources on the CTs actually restrict themselves to the bioweapon theory? That isn't what I've seen. Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: You're edit warring at this point mate, you reverted 2 of my edits. Those are legit concerns regarding WP:MEDRS policy. Whenever you talk about the origin of the virus you need to be MEDRS. I agree with the first part. Please no more reverts. Feynstein (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

And you are disrupting consensus per BRD. But no, I can state that "conspiracy theorists have stated that big pharma is covering up the causation of Autism by vaccines" and that is not a MEDRS claim, it is a statement of fact about a conspiracy theory. By contrast, "Big pharma is covering up the causation of Autism by vaccines" does contain a MEDRS claim, namely "Autism is caused by vaccines". That last bit is covered by MEDRS, and so is "SARS-Cov-2 might have been released from a laboratory". But the conspiracy claims are not. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be a great place to add that paper we're discussing isn't then. Just so, you know, people know the lab leak hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory. As I already said per WP:FRINGE/PS. Or maybe phrase it in a way that doesn't require MEDRS. Like "allegations have been made regarding the institute...". Feynstein (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

But besides that paper, what RS do you know about - even non-MEDRS - that people know the lab leak hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory? Without relevant sources, that sounds like something a conspiracy theorist would say. Newimpartial (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, but of course. I'll simply use those already mentionned above. [14] [15] [16] [17] And most shockingly [18]. "Those scientists who argue that the possibility of an accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology should also be included as part of any investigation are curious about this apparent silence. "I find it very unlikely that such investigations would not have already occurred," Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, told me. "It's a serious risk to resume life as usual without knowing where a dangerous human pathogen came from." Clearly fringe eh? Feynstein (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That quote doesn't really say anything about the plausibility of the lab-release hypothesis, does it? I reviewed the whole article carefully, and the oblique reference to scientists who argue that the possibility of an accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is the only relevant bit, and that certainly is not an assertion that such a position is mainstream, scientifically viable, or not FRINGE. Is that the state of all your journalistic sources? Newimpartial (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It does, as per WP:FRINGE/PS. "Within the scientific community" do you remember? Maybe check the other ones. If you think this is still fringe there's really nothing I can do for you. especially if you add that peer-reviewed paper to the lot. Feynstein (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This quote from the first BBC article I gave you sums up what I actually think of the subject: Dr Lucey still believes that Sars-Cov-2 is most likely to have a natural origin, but he does not want the alternatives to be so readily ruled out."So here we are, 12, 13 months out since the first recognised case of Covid-19 and we haven't found the animal source," he said. "So, to me, it's all the more reason to investigate alternative explanations."Might a Chinese laboratory have had a virus they were working on that was genetically closer to Sars-Cov-2, and would they tell us now if they did? "Not everything that's done is published," Dr Lucey said. So yeah, no animal source yet eh? And you have batwoman saying it came from outside of China, ruining her reputation in the process since we know this is clearly a conspiracy theory. Feynstein (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

And what do you make of the evidence from Italy in October and November? :p Newimpartial (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we carry on with the discussion now that we've established it isn't a conspiracy theory? I nearly lost a day's worth of work on a turbofan engine part inspection replying to all this internet nonsense. If you decide to do so, you'll have to excuse me if I don't answer until somewhere around tomorrow evening EST. Feynstein (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you feel we've established it isn't a conspiracy theory. We have reliable sources saying that it is, and the relevant passage from FRINGE, relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence, seems to apply. Views that are expressed within the scientific community but by scholars whose expertise is in a different field do not make a perspective less FRINGE, viz. Climate change denial. Support for "alternative explanations" for Sars-Cov-2 clearly still must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and that includes FALSEBALANCE and whitewashing.

You also still haven't given any real support for the idea that the Problems & Paradigms series at BioEssays is subject to meaningful peer review. The prima facie evidence is to the contrary. Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: You've got to point to me your evidence that's not from the first wave of the pandemic. No biological host has been found and the current narrative within China and Batwoman is that it came from imported fish or something (which would have sparked epidemics elsewhere, seeing as it was already very evolved to infect humans) making it look like she might be covering stuff up. This makes those older paper pretty out there scientifically. You should read Segreto's paper bud, we're not talking about "weak statistical evidence" here. Did you ever read a scientific paper or you're just assuming? Scientists in a global field do cross into closely related sub-fields all the time. And even out of fields. As I said elsewhere, I'm a physicist and I worked on a paper about SEIRS Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulations in epidemiology in order to estimate the number of asymptomatic cases in a global population based on hospitalisations and deaths. I happen to know about system dynamics and Monte Carlo Simulations enough in another field for it to be legit and pretty useful. Your argument is dishonest at best, her previous papers about evolutionary biology and genomics shows she knows what she's talking about. You should give them a read ;-). And now you're questionning the quality of that BioEssays serie's peer review? You should bring this up to WP:RSN instead of waving arguments like that. As far as I'm concerned if it's not in the predatory journal category there's nothing you can say about it that's not purely speculative. But I want to know, do you think Dr. Lucey from the first BBC article is a fringe scientist? This is clearly a minority view (depending on your definition of minority I guess there's a bunch of biologists who think it could have happened), but it's not fringe at all. You're helplessly clutching at this subjective fringe label of yours to feed your confirmation bias. I demonstrated that this view is at least RS legit because you asked me to do it. If it's RS legit it's by definition not fringe. There's no distinction between MEDRS and RS fringes mate. Get over it. Feynstein (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but what I think is that you lot are very much against Trump or something. And since he was the first to officially come up with this you can't accept it becoming more and more mainstream by the day. Look, I'm really no fan of his. Absolutely not. But you got to get over this particular bias of yours. Not everything he said is objectively wrong. Feynstein (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I might me wrong is the most accurate thing I've read the as saying on this Talk page. But the idea that the lab-release hypothesis is becoming more and more mainstream by the day is (rather hallucinatory) SYNTH on your part. I am not attached to the early hypotheses of SARS-Cov-2 origins, nor am I inclined to shift my views to oppose any perceived political enemies. But you really are misreading WP:FRINGE. It simply does not imply that anything that scientists are quoted as saying, or even anything scientists publish with peer review, is therefore to be treated with the respect of an Alternative Theoretical Formulation (which is still less than the FALSEBALANCE you are asking for, by the way). By the most charitable possible interpretation, the lab-release hypothesis falls somewhere between pure Pseudoscience and Questionable Science, with the precise evaluation depending on what version of the "theory" and what degree of certainty (e.g., "we don't know with absolute certainty that it didn't escape from a lab") we are talking about. But no matter where they fall on that spectrum, these "hypotheses" are clearly on the FRINGE half of the spectrum and are much less well-supported than the more conventional hypotheses. We therefore cannot, per WP:NPOV, present them with FALSEBALANCE. And we have reliable sources stating that at least some of these are Conspiracy Theories, a fact that is also DUE to mention. Newimpartial (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Glad this is out of the way then. I'm not asking for balance, mind you, it's clearly a minority alternative view. What I'm saying is that, as a position, and as a theory of origin, let's say, the accidental release of a (possibly mutated in vitro, or close relative of Ratg13 and such, or even undocumented gain of function studied) virus shouldn't be dismissed as fringe. You read what Dr. Lucey said didn't you? As of right now there should have been an animal found or traces of human passage and evolution found. There's absolutely nothing of the sort. And yes, with every day that passes without any indication of that being found, the accidental release hypothesis becomes more mainstream. And yes, I agree that it is much less well documented than any other. It does pop up here and there whenever a scientist says: "No stone should be left unturned" or something like that, they're probably refering to this in a way that isn't damaging to their reputation. There has been enormous push back from gate keeping virologists who fear losing funding for gain of function research. There's no doubt it would be an enormous game changer in the field. Did you see how BBC journalists investigating the cave where Ratg13 was found always seemed to encounter an unfortunate roadblock? That's weird eh? The circumstancial pile of evidence is growing by the day also. All of this is why, as stated in WP:Fringe with minority views, the softest version of this hypothesis should be introduced within a properly balanced statement, being carefully crafted not to give undue weight. Btw, any paper by Batwoman regarding the origin should be removed from MEDRS. If we're going into credibility, she's lost it all with her statement about contaminated foods. And no, you don't get to peddle a real "fringe" theory like that. It's as if people around here find the narrative pushed by a totalitarian police state more credible than the one pushed by the US government. I really find it funny, no kidding. Feynstein (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Meh, since it's evident you guys won't move an inch I'll just go back into hiding for a while. Maybe the WHO team will have done precisely nothing to find the origin and we'll all still be stuck in this stupid ideological standoff. Maybe at some point people will realize that's what actually happened. Zoonitically transmitted viruses don't simply blink into existence in a city of 11M people. Cya all. I'll be back for a definitive told you so someday. Feynstein (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I really wonder why editors are still stubbornly saying it's Fringe at this point. It's now definitely RS, but they moved the goal post somehow even with a peer-reviewed paper. One can really wonder about good faith I think. Feynstein (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's also very weird how the US national security adviser is a conspiracy theorist all of a sudden[19]. I think at this point mostly people in line with the CCP's ministry of truth still believe it is a conspiracy theory. But that's irrelevant here since it's my own opinion. Feynstein (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There were a number of conspiracy theorists in that administration, and scarcely any scientists. What was your point again? That a White House official with no scientific credentials is a RS on viral origin? Or that the New York Post is a reliable source? Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, I simply said this was my own opinion, hence the NYP article. Why are you focusing on this? Weren't you supposed to check the RS sources above? Feynstein (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitely. Moreover, Wikipedia:Biomedical information is an explanatory supplement, not a policy or guideline; it has not been vetted to the extent that WP:MEDRS itself has, so zooming in to details of its phrasing is usually beside the point. But if we go ahead and do that, the relevant part of the paper isn't a question of ethics, so an exemption for discussions about ethics doesn't apply. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Citation from WP:MEDRS "Wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice. Nevertheless, they are widely used among those seeking health information.[1] For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge". And when you follow the trail to Wikipedia:Biomedical information you find out it's part of an ethical debate, or at least not part of "what is" biomed info. Feynstein (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll be back for a definitive told you so someday. I know that one. Creationists use it too, and several other pseudoscientists too. They cannot convince anyone now, so they claim it will happen some time soon. Poppycock, of course.

I might be wrong, but what I think is that you lot are very much against Trump or something. That one is new. It is using the fact that a notorious pathological liar, fraud, and fantasy-prone conspiracy theorist supported an idea, to argue that those who oppose that idea do that because he supported it. (The accusation "You are very much against Trump" sounds like "you are all round-earthers!" to me.) So, exactly because he is not credible, somehow his support becomes a bonus! That is quite a feat. I encountered this logic only once before, using Trump too, and I don't quite know how to handle it yet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems like admins are encouraging bullying around here, perfect, even when I would be in my right to remove those comments as per WP:NPA I get reverted. Here's my answer anyway

@Hob Gadling: WP:NPA bud, you're being clearly bad faithed. Not excluding an accidental lab leak is RS at this point, only not MEDRS. "So here we are, 12, 13 months out since the first recognised case of Covid-19 and we haven't found the animal source," he said. "So, to me, it's all the more reason to investigate alternative explanations." Might a Chinese laboratory have had a virus they were working on that was genetically closer to Sars-Cov-2, and would they tell us now if they did? "Not everything that's done is published," Dr Lucey said.[20] If you think Dr. Lucey here is also a conspiracy theorist then go ahead and write to him. Plus there's at least one peer-reviewed paper we've been discussing all along, so please regarding your clear WP:NPA please kindly stop. Feynstein (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Please don't be silly. Not excluding an accidental lab leak is not a phenomenon and cannot be "RS" because it is speculation. If an accidental lab leak occurred, or if an accidental lab leak were not provable but were the most likely scenario, those are claims that RS and MEDRS could support. A few interviewees saying "we can't rule out that this could possibly have happened" first, do not meet any RS requirements and second, don't actually make a claim that this article could contain, even if it were DUE to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I just pointed out two bad arguments of yours. NPA is about attacking people, not about attacking their reasoning. Even people who are right sometimes use bad arguments, so, pointing out that your reasoning is bad has nothing to do with the truth value of the position you are defending. If I had concluded that you must be wrong because your reasoning is bad, that would be an instance of the fallacy fallacy. Therefore, Lucey cannot offer any help here. (I also did not compare you to flat-earthers, especially since you said Look, I'm really no fan of his. Absolutely not. It's just that being "very much against Trump" is pretty much the default position for everybody who cares about truth, so feels like a very weird accusation.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: You sure compared my argument to one that would be made by a flat earther or a creationist. No scientist in his right mind would ask to "have an open mind" about this theory. Yet this is precisely what Dr. Lucey did for the lab leak hypothesis. Your comparison to anything flat earth related is pure sophistry. Probably falling in the "moral equivalence" type of stuff. The arguments you made were of no help to the discussion as they didn't adress any of the topics discussed earlier. Feynstein (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not understand how reductio ad absurdum works. This is what happened:

• You used two specific arguments. Also, others we do not need to concern ourselves with here.
• I showed you that with the same two specific arguments, people can and have defended ideas that are obviously wrong.
• Therefore, those two specific arguments are bad reasoning.
• From this, nothing else follows. It does not follow that your view is similar to flat earth, and it does not reflect on you as a personal attack.

For this logic, it does not matter that you have other arguments too. There is no point in repeating whatever Dr. Something said.

All that "moral equivalence" and "sophistry" nonsense is just your misunderstanding of that simple logic.

If after this explanation, you still do not understand, and if you continue inventing new misinterpretations, I will give up and not bother to respond. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)