Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

RFC: Proposed addition of sentence to the lead pertaining to early scientific support of the theory

The second paragraph of the lead currently reads as follows:

The idea that the virus was released from a laboratory (accidentally or deliberately) appeared early in the pandemic. The theory gained popularity in America through promotion by conservative figures including president Donald Trump and other members of the Republican Party in the spring of 2020, fomenting tensions between the US and China. Many in American liberal media and political circles subsequently dismissed it as a conspiracy theory.

QUESTION: Should the following sentence be added to the lead...

Some scientists initially supported the lab leak theory in early 2020, but later changed their stance.

... so that it reads ...

The idea that the virus was released from a laboratory (accidentally or deliberately) appeared early in the pandemic. Some scientists initially supported the lab leak theory in early 2020, but later changed their stance. The theory gained popularity in America through promotion by conservative figures including president Donald Trump and other members of the Republican Party in the spring of 2020, fomenting tensions between the US and China. Many in American liberal media and political circles subsequently dismissed it as a conspiracy theory.

Le Marteau (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(boldfacing added only to highlight this proposed change)

Survey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support as proposer. In the lead, the only mention of early support for the theory occurs in the second paragraph, where it mentions Trump and Republicans. No where else in the lead is early support from anyone but Republicans and Trump mentioned, even though we have strong sourcing for it. The implication for anyone just reading the lead is that this was only a Republican conspiracy theory. Because most people interested in the subject by now know that the theory received support from others besides Republicans and Trump, this damages the encyclopedia's reputation as a go-to source for unbiased information pertaining to the issue. Le Marteau (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Le Marteau: can you add a signature right after the proposed text so that the opening statement can be copied by legobot to the centralized RfC listings? It tries to copy everything from the rfc template to the first signature, but there's too much text at present. Firefangledfeathers 20:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Done! Le Marteau (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, what are we trying to communicate with "initially supported" and "later changed their stance"? Both are very broad, non-specific phrases. Does initial support include mere curiosity or possibility, or only advocacy in support of it being more likely? Was the changing stance for scientists reevaluating as new evidence was found, and/or distancing themselves from what had become a politicized topic? I'd suggest that perhaps the better solution would be to combine this paragraph with the Most scientists have remained skeptical of the idea... they have expressed concerns about the risks of politicization. paragraph. That would better portray the idea in terms of scientific acceptance first, politicization second, and the results of the politics on the science third. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, this is where I believe we had a small mention before. I think if it were DUE anywhere in the lead, it would be here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Putting "early support" (in a few emails to Fauci; in some news; but not in any academic source [the preferred ones for reporting on academic views]) on the same foot as the very widespread skepticism (which has boatloads of proper academic sources to support it) is very much WP:FALSEBALANCE, and would mislead the reader (and "some" is also to be avoided if possible, but not satisfying alternative exists unless we go into excessive details on describing the contents of the emails and properly contextualising them, something which is truly not desirable...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support but also add "senior" scientists, and add that their views only came to light through congressional review. The lead of the article is too America centric and here in Italy we don't care what Cotton, Pompeo or Trump said, so that needs to be refactored for a global view. The first scientist to discuss this publicly was Richard Ebright in Science Magazine on Jan 30 2020 [1], so it should be mentioned somewhere too. Francesco espo (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  "Some senior scientists" is even worse in terms of weaseling and trying to put undue credibility to this than the original proposal. Ebright's status as being in the minority is also well known to you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Fine, then just name them. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  That would still be FALSEBALANCE, and even then it almost certainly shouldn't go in the lead. The lead (of an article about a FRINGE view) already correctly summarises that most scientists have "remained skeptical" of said FRINGE view. The minority that actively support this in some way or another might be name-drop worthy at some point, but their views should not be put on the same footing as the majority, mainstream opinion, especially not in the lead (where it would be most likely to mislead readers). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Balance? Where is the "balance" in a lead which has Trumpers as being the only ones who thought a lab leak might be a possibility? Your concern about how a verifiable fact might "mislead readers" seems to me to be an attempt to censor history because it might be inconvenient to certain agendas. Le Marteau (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Balance? Verifiable fact? Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a mainstream, academic perspective (WP:MAINSTREAM). Your strawman description the lead (I don't know where the fixation on Trump comes from, as he is only mentioned in the one paragraph dealing with the usual US political shenanigans) is disingenuous. The only thing that is inconvenient is that you have been asked to provide scientific sources to back up your statement that "[some] scientists supported this early in the pandemic", but you have not provided any. There are plenty of scientific sources (from early, or much more recently, in the pandemic) which explicitly speak against the lab leak. There is a striking lack of such sources which make the opposite point ("early in the pandemic" or at any time), except maybe from a few figures in dubious journals. The proposed addition doesn't just fail WP:NPOV, but also WP:V. The only sources provided are about the Fauci emails, but neither the newspaper coverage nor the Fauci emails themselves are good sources for the claim which is being pushed (which is not that "A few American scientists, based on preliminary assessment shared via private emails, believed the virus could have leaked from a lab, but this was disproven by later analysis", which is pretty much the only accurate thing that can be said about those emails). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry WP:V requires a reliable source, which we do have. We don't have any scientific sources saying the negative of the statement we make. So there is no contradiction. If we had, for example, a scientific source stating that "Jeremy Farrar did not initially support LL", then we might have an issue. But we don't have such a source. I would further note that the sudden desire to follow scientific sources is curious. Just as a for-example, we have first-class scientific sources for the statement "Scientists have ruled out LL based in part on emails from Shi Zhengli." It's true, it's WP:V, a short-and-to-the-point summary of our scientists' own scientific reasoning for their scientific conclusions as described in their scientific papers in their prestigious scientific journals, but apparently it's about as mentionable as Voldemort. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  You not being self-aware enough to recognise cherry-picking and abstain from doing so is not Wikipedia's problem. When the scientists who supposedly "supported" this idea (and not merely "entertained the hypothesis before ruling it out after further analysis", something which you do not seem to want to admit is the truth of the situation here) themselves say their emails have been cherry-picked and misconstrued (see below), there's not much else that can be said. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: Please strike any statement about my self-awareness, or lack thereof, per WP:NPA. Thank you. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Hey Le Marteau, we already mention in the lead that some scientists consider this worth investigating. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Considering something worth investigating is not "supporting" the theory. But you know that already. Le Marteau (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Broadly support, but we should be more specific. Underlying policy is WP:LEAD, particularly the phrase including any prominent controversies.. This is a prominent controversy and is frankly critical to understanding the subject. How is it that this was dismissed as some "conspiracy theory"? Still trying to come up with the best wording here. One idea would be to name some names. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The entire article is about the theory, and explains what it is, and the support. WP:LEAD does not mean the WP:UNDUE content of some scientists believing it to be a possibility early on should be included in the lead. Corinal (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Broadly support per Adoring nanny. The Intercept, The Telegraph and The Times all reported this story, which is significant in the context of the lab leak theory, and it is due lead with sufficient detail for the reader to understand its significance. LondonIP (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

As above, the entire article is about the theory, no one disputes the theory as a whole is notable, rather the emails being sourced are WP:UNDUE for the lead, and do not even verify what it says. Corinal (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The emails themselves arnt important, but who they are from is. The timing is also paramount. These people, having these discussions, at that moment, is critical to any understanding of the COVID-19 lab leak theory. 2603:800C:3101:D064:F012:4772:169D:82C0 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Why? What makes you say it's critical? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess you could ask, "whats the point of understanding the covid lab leak theory at all"? I supose none of this is critical. My mistake for over emphasis. 2603:800C:3101:D064:B9CE:12A6:2DCA:EF8E (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I asked the question for a very specific reason. We know the lab leak theory is worth examining because our sources tell us it is. That is the very heart of wikipedia's due and undue weight policy. We must rely on the sources, also, to tell us how essential it is to know these scientists were having these discussions. The relevant question is: "Of all the sources about the lab leak theory, what proportion mention that certain scientists were sending these emails early on?" IMPORTANTLY, the question is NOT: "Of all the sources about these scientists or about these emails, how many talk about it being critical?" The first question is how we determine how prominently to feature these sentences, whether they belong in the lead at all, etc. Editors often confuse the second question for the first. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose "Some scientists" is extremely vague, if not WP:WEASEL words, and presenting it this way is WP:FALSEBALANCE as the broad scientific consensus is against the theory and some early emails from a few scientists stating that they viewed it was a posibility at the time is not WP:DUE for the lead. Corinal (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It's the lead section. Lead sections are supposed to summarize what is covered in more detail in the lead. And there's a TON of "extremely vague" terms in the lead... just in the same paragraph the vague terms "members of the Republican Party", "liberal media" and "political circles" occur. Do you also think those are "too vague"? And if not, why not? Le Marteau (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Some of those terms may be too vague, but that is not what is in discussion currently. Though it should also be noted, specificity on who is making claims are far more important when talking about scientists than media outlets. Corinal (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "some scientists" is already being used in the lead. My proposed text simply follows the style and usage already in the lead, and are no more "weasel words" than the already existing example of the usage of the phrase. Le Marteau (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as written and sourced. "Some scientists" is a useless weasel term, private musings are not support, and none of this is significant enough to the topic to warrant mention in the lead. Incidentally, this is the second time in as many months that someone has started an obvious-no-go RfC with a cringey partisan slant on this talk page. Do better, folks. VQuakr (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The Telegraph article happened since the RFC you cited. And how is "some scientists" any more a "weasel term" than "members of the Republican Party", "liberal media" and "political circles" which also occur in the same second paragraph?. Details can be placed in the body... the lead is for summarizing. Le Marteau (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Please don't repeat the same argument in multiple places. It doesn't help reach a consensus, and it appears like WP:BLUDGEON. Making your point once, at one place, is usually more effective than endlessly repeating it (as that convinces absolutely nobody). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not "bludgeoning" anyone. I am asking editors questions about the rationale for their !vote.Le Marteau (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

replying to every single "oppose" vote of this survey with vociferous repetitive arguments is the very definition of Wikipedia:BLUDGEON. Please stop. If your ideas have merit or appeal to the larger community, others will take them up. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The same can be said for people who reply to every "support" vote. 2603:800C:3101:D064:CC43:FB50:4ECB:729A (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Though the phenomenon is much more problematic when it is the RfC author doing the bludgeoning. I will agree that opposition editors who do this are also at fault. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You may be fine with having the lead mention that only Trump and Trumpers thought it was a viable theory. I am not. Given that most people interested in the subject know better, this does damage to the reputation of the encyclopedia. My concern about this, and my attempt to remedy the situation is in no way "cringe" or "partisan". Le Marteau (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unnecessarily vague. "Some scientists" are people with opinions in and outside their field. Some keep pushing for the idea, some have done so in the past, some may have changed their mind, some may promote in in the future, most don't express a public opinion about it. It's easy to find sources about individual opinions but it's not very meaningful. There never was a scientific consensus for the idea, but a switch of consensus, if it happened, would be more meaningful. If the lead reports about "some scientists", it invites WP:GEVAL: some support the idea, some don't. —PaleoNeonate – 06:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the usage of "members of the Republican Party", "liberal media" and "political circles" which also occur in the same second paragraph also "unnecessarily vague"? The lead section is supposed to summarize content which already appears in the body, not go into detail.

"Some scientists" are people with opinions in and outside their field

And "liberal media" are not? "Political circles" are not? "Members of the republican party" are not? Because THEIR opinions are represented in the paragraph in question. Should those lines remain? Because by your rational, it seems they must go. Le Marteau (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

We already say that some scientists have given this idea credence later on in the lead. We aren't omitting that fact. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that, amongst all the arguing here, that there has been no comment on my suggestion above to reorder the content to address what I believe to be the original concern. It does make me more incredulous that this is an earnest attempt to improve the lede, instead causes me to think this is an attempt at POV pushing. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a false equivalence, —PaleoNeonate – 04:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. but later changed their stance. If they changed their stance, why is this so weighty that it needs to be covered in the lead? Also, this quote from the source does not inspire confidence: “The email is out-of-context,” Garry wrote Wednesday in an email to The Intercept. “This was one email among many I was sharing with my colleagues.” So one of the people quoted is saying that his statements were cherry picked. This whole angle seems questionable. In conclusion, seems like WP:UNDUE weight for the lead. In my opinion, the one paragraph in the body where this is covered is sufficient. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. emphasizing this in the lead at all is probably UNDUE. It's making a few emails where some scientists were saying "oh is this possible?" and then a few days later saying "nah, it's really really unlikely." into some huge factor. Scientists consider and then discard ideas all the time, and talk about those ideas among colleagues without ever giving them any real substantial plausibility. This is very similar to the hulabaloo about 'Oumuamua being a spaceship from aliens. Was it worth thinking about very briefly? Yes. Was it so plausible and important that it should be the second paragraph in the lead? No. This is giving huge credence to idle gossip/watercooler talk. It's putting a POV on a pedestal. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support I think that if the emails were simply between fellow scientists it would be different. Trump wouldnt have had a leg to stand on if serious scientists werent telling the government it was 50:50 for a lab leak. I still havent seen a clear explination of the serial passage possibility. Mainly, I think if we name Trump, we should also mention scientists in the same or adjoining paragraph. If thats in the lead or below it doesnt matter. 2603:800C:3101:D064:F012:4772:169D:82C0 (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  wouldnt have had a leg to stand on even if he never did, it's particularly notable because he was POTUS. RS at the time have also described how a fake "investigation branch" was created and later closed, how the intelligence community was bypassed and documented other disinformation attempts including in collaboration with Bannon. It was politics, nothing to do with credible scientific evidence... Also, 50/50 is misleading, the default hypothesis remains the most plausible one, even if we don't find the exact sequence, the scientific community understands how natural sources cause epidemics. —PaleoNeonate – 04:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Im quoting the ratio's that the scientists were emailing to Trump's Executive branch of government with their concerns on a lab leak. We cant pretend highly qualified scientists werent telling the trump administration about a lab leak. 2603:800C:3101:D064:B9CE:12A6:2DCA:EF8E (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  What emails do you mean? The ones to Fauci? Fauci isn't part of "Trump's Executive branch of government." He's part of the NIH, which is part of the executive branch. But it isn't Trump's branch. Fauci has been at his post at the NIAID since 1984. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Please see United_States_federal_executive_departments. The US President is ulitmately held to account for anything that happens at any of these departments under their term. Fauci is simply the head of one of these departments and answers to the President. Fauci is not in a life time appointment posistion like a Supreme Court Justice. 2603:800C:3101:D064:CC43:FB50:4ECB:729A (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Listen, at this point, we're talking past each other. If you want to include something in a certain way in the article, A) show it's DUE in the way I have described to you, and B) write a draft. Everything else is just posturing. Keep in mind, editors may disagree with A or B, but until there is something tangible to discuss, this will always be posturing/WP:FORUM and has no place on this talk page. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Im simply saying that I support this current survey question because it more closely reflects the involvement of scientists in early discussions. 2603:800C:3101:D064:CC43:FB50:4ECB:729A (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Your discussion of the serial passage theory is original research and a personal opinion. Find sources about it, write a draft of what you'd like to be included and where. And then we can, as a community, discuss and edit it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I believe it was Draft:Robert_F._Garry who first brought up the idea of serial passage in these emails. I'd never heard of it until these emails, not my research. 2603:800C:3101:D064:B9CE:12A6:2DCA:EF8E (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  See my above comment to you about due and undue weight. We must rely on our sources to tell us how important this "serial passage" idea is. And, from what I can tell, it is extremely unimportant. Very few people, and especially few experts, talk about it at all. As a result, we feature it only in a minor way in the body of our article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  As mentioned in the Intercept article, Garry and Fauci both discuss it. Its not featured at all as far as i can see. 2603:800C:3101:D064:CC43:FB50:4ECB:729A (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Please read my comment to you above about due and undue weight, and how to determine it: [2] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Suffers from balance issues. It gives the impression that the theory had scientific support and then lost it (due to polarisation). It may be reasonable to say it had a curious response from scientists initially, but it's not accurate to imply it was accepted or ever considered a theory accepted by many scientists. (I'm aware it says 'some', but the point applies nevertheless) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. What does it mean for a scientist to "support" a hypothesis? Does this mean the scientists supported research on the hypothesis, argued that the hypothesis was correct, or something else? A less vague sentence might or might not merit inclusion, not sure whether it would be due weight. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, definitely as written, and perhaps more generally. The concerns raised by !voters above regarding the vagueness of the language are valid. Likewise, I share the concern that it is undue for the lede section. XOR'easter (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you not see that as it is currently written, it is certainly undue toward Republicans and Trumpers in that they are the only ones mentioned which supported the group early on? And if you do, do you think that is OK? And if not, should we just leave it with an acknowledged imbalance? Le Marteau (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't see that. XOR'easter (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as currently worded, because a scientist may speculate (as the Telegraph story says) that a possibility may be more likely than not, and then speculate that the chances are 50:50, but that doesn't mean they once gave "support" and then "changed their position". The wording has a pejorative tone, which could easily be improved. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Good call on the WP:WTW concern. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Saw this at WP:FT/N. The proposed wording is vague, weaselly and weird - particularly in viewing scientists as "supporters" or not of a notion, like it's a netball team or something. Alexbrn (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It sounds too weasely. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Support any agreed wording from of the text in the lead. According to the sources, scientists told Colins and Fauci that a lab origin was scientifically plausible, and even probable, but then suppressed it for political reasons.103.255.6.93 (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022 (2)

"However, another explanation for this is a tendency to build virology labs in proximity to outbreak areas.[60]"

This statement makes no sense are you proposing that Wuhan built a Bat Virus lab in preparation for an outbreak of Bat Virus in 2019? It is difficult to imagine what the author is intending. 216.228.112.22 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

SARS‑CoV‑2 is far from the first coronavirus to be discovered. The source linked in our article goes into more detail: Virology labs tend to specialize in the viruses around them, says Vincent Munster, a virologist at the Rocky Mountain Laboratories...The WIV specializes in coronaviruses because many have been found in and around China. Munster names other labs that focus on endemic viral diseases... “Nine out of ten times, when there’s a new outbreak, you’ll find a lab that will be working on these kinds of viruses nearby,” says Munster. Researchers note that a coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan isn’t surprising, because it’s a city of 11 million people in a broader region where coronaviruses have been found. VQuakr (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I added the word "potential", to indicate it's where zoonotic crossover is most likely to happen, rather than necessarily having had already happened. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

Please change: "The CGG codon makes up 3% of the arginine codons in the SARS-CoV-1 genome, and it makes up 5% of the arginine codons in the SARS-CoV-2 genome."

to: "The CGG codon makes up 5% of the arginine codons in the SARS-CoV-1 genome, and it makes up 3% of the arginine codons in the SARS-CoV-2 genome." 148.76.109.230 (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a a quote from the source which supports this change? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

From the Snopes source article: "The idea presented by Wade is flawed, and Baltimore has since walked back his quote. The CGG arginine codon sequence appears in 3% of the full SARS-CoV-2’s genome and 5% of SARS-CoV-1’s genome." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.36.3 (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done This is also consistent with Frutos et al, paraphrased in the next sentence. The sources provided also include this Nature article, which repeats the same info. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

New claim that COVID-19 contains genetic sequence that was patented by Moderna in 2016

There are quite a few pages devoted to various claims, conspiracy theories, and misinformation regarding COVID-19. I hope this page is the best of those for me to mention this. If not, I apologize.

Anyway, there are new claims that a scientific paper says that COVID-19 has a genetic match with a genetic sequence that was patented by Moderna in 2016, and that the odds of this being a coincidence is one in three trillion. Naturally occurring genetic sequences cannot be patented. So these claims are saying there is a near 100% certain chance that COVID-19 was genetically engineered.

Again, I apologize if I am posting this in the wrong place.

Also, I have no idea how reliable these sources are. But I do know that there are other people here who are far better than myself at making this determination.

Anyway, here are some links. I'll leave it up to others here to decide whether or not these sources are reliable. And again, I apologize if I posted this in the wrong place.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.834808/full

https://weather.com/en-IN/india/coronavirus/news/2022-02-26-new-study-finds-covid-19-dna-linked-to-moderna-patent-filed-in

https://www.biospace.com/article/tiny-covid-19-gene-sequence-raises-question-but-is-it-only-a-quirky-observation-/

https://notthebee.com/article/scientists-have-reportedly-discovered-dna-fragments-in-covid-19-that-were-patented-by-moderna-3-years-before-the-pandemic

https://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE;b8af9ac0.2202

54mmkds (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The odds are waaay better than 4^-19 (roughly 3^-12) that a 19-nucleotide sequence would appear in both a 33,000 BP virus and a 3,000 BP patent. See birthday problem. But this was found from a search of a database, so the odds of finding a hit were even higher. Plus base pairs aren't random; they are organized into codons and not all amino acid sequences are valid. So then it's not surprising that this doesn't appear to have been reported in WP:RS. VQuakr (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the Biospace link gives two direct quotes regarding this.

• “We’re talking about a very, very, very small piece made up of 19 nucleotides. So it doesn’t mean very much to be frank, if you do these types of searches you can always find matches. Sometimes these things happen fortuitously, sometimes it’s the result of convergent evolution (when organisms evolve independently to have similar traits to adapt to their environment). It’s a quirky observation but I wouldn’t call it a smoking gun because it’s too small. It doesn’t get us any further with the debate about whether COVID was engineered.”
• “There can only be a certain number of [genetic combinations within] furin cleavage sites. They function like a lock and key in the cell, and the two only fit together in a limited number of combinations. So it’s an interesting coincidence but this is surely entirely coincidental.”

Also, looking at the math provided, am I wrong that they appear to have calculated the probability of this specific 19 nucleotide sequence appearing at random in both databases? Given that we're talking about the Furin Cleavage Site that has gotten all this attention, rather than a random sequence without a specific structural limitation, this is very much not any old random sequence. It's more accurate to say that the same sequence encoding the FCS (and a surrounding portion) was identified as a modified version of the human genome FCS for the purposes of developing an anti-cancer medication. Which is an interesting coincidence, but doesn't have the same "one in 3 trillion" punch. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Frontiers in X, as you can see in WP:CITEWATCH, is a potentially predatory journal that publishes almost anything it gets hold of. Frontiers in Virology does not even appear on the Scopus list, and its impact factor is not given anywhere. The lead author, Balamurali Ambati, is an ophthalmologist, and why he would publish research that is totally not within his domain of expertise may only lead to answers that suggest this article has no place here. That's the right place to ask the question (you are actually welcome to do so), but there are all hallmarks of shoddy research, so I'd dismiss it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think none of those sources are usable. —PaleoNeonate – 00:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree, it's not particularly notable, basically WP:FRINGE. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow! I really appreciate all of your comments. Thanks to what all of you said, it is very clear to me that it would be highly inappropriate to add any of that content to the article. Thank you so very much for your useful and helpful feedback. 54mmkds (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Quotation marks and punctuation need to be fixed

The first sentence under Chilling effects currently reads:

According to Paul Thacker (writing for the British Medical Journal), some scientists and reporters said that "objective consideration of COVID-19's origins went awry early in the pandemic, as researchers who were funded to study viruses with pandemic potential launched a campaign labelling the lab leak hypothesis as a "conspiracy theory".[1]

This is wrong for three reasons. First because internal quotations should be marked with apostrophes, not actual quotation marks, secondly, because in the original source the period was inside the quotation marks around "conspiracy theory," and thirdly because there is no close quote for the larger quote. It should be changed to:

According to Paul Thacker (writing for the British Medical Journal), some scientists and reporters said that "objective consideration of COVID-19's origins went awry early in the pandemic, as researchers who were funded to study viruses with pandemic potential launched a campaign labelling the lab leak hypothesis as a 'conspiracy theory.'"[1]

There are really just a few minor grammar changes, but I am unable to edit the article myself.JMM12345 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

fixed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Prior lab leak incidents

Shibbolethink, thank you for your input on this section. I think it needs more work, as LAIs aren't the only route a virus could have leaked from a lab in Wuhan. I think we should mention this also in the lead. LondonIP (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have sources describing the plausibility of other routes? This section is not about the various ways covid could have leaked, it's about prior incidents, which are unanimously believed to be LAIs. Given that these events are not always mentioned in articles about COVID lab leak theories (it was actually quite difficult for me to find the phrase LAI or mentions of HIV, SARS-1, Ebola, etc. in articles about the lab leak theory)... I do not think this section would be DUE for the lead. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not about plausibility, it's about what sources say, and scientists like Richard Ebright have always called it a "research" or "laboratory" related accident. The Paris Group published a letter with a table of all the possible routes but I didn't manage to find the link when I searched for it just now. I did find this. LondonIP (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If secondary sources have not said "LAIs aren't the only route a virus could have leaked from a lab in Wuhan" then we cannot include such a notion here. To do so would be WP:OR based on primary sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Jane Qiu: Meet the scientist at the center of the covid lab leak controversy, Technology Review, February 9, 2022 --ZemanZorg (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Media

https://www.city-journal.org/why-science-writers-do-not-report-objectively-on-covids-origins 2600:1700:8660:E180:C429:C5ED:A43E:7A74 (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

See also: City Journal

City Journal is published by the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, that covers a wide range of topics, from policing strategy, education reform, and social policy to urban architecture, family culture, and contemporary theories emanating from law schools, charitable foundations, and public health organizations. Color me surprised. I would rate this as about as reliable as an Op-Ed from the Cato Institute or the American Enterprise Institute. Which is to say, duplicative of the content we already have from Wade. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That a publisher is 'conservative' does not automatically remove it from consideration, see WP:BIASED where it says, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Whether there is a place for his cited opinion is another question. Le Marteau (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

We already have his cited opinion. Why does he get more space? As to whether or not he is qualified as a science writer, one need only look at his several other controversies including Race and Intelligence. He does not have a history of accurately capturing or portraying the scientific consensus on topics for which he is not an expert. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Le Marteau: It's not being suggested that this view be disregarded. However, opinions published by partisan think-tanks are generally considered less reliable, for the obvious reasons. And, more to the point, Nicholas Wade's view is already represented here. The question is, where would we place this less-reliable info in the article, and should this particular piece by Wade supersede the article's other mentions? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it is a question of weight, not that the publisher is conservative. Le Marteau (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not that the publisher is conservative, it's that it's a partisan think-tank. The same reliability concerns would apply to a left-leaning organization. If there's a difference, it's only in which topics they choose to weigh in on, and whether or not they're in disagreement with mainstream scientific consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Partisan sources can be used with attribution if it has enough weight. That is my only point, per WP:BIASED. Le Marteau (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As Shibbolethink already mentioned, we already make note of this author's views, published in other venues. His point was that, because this source doesn't appear to be more reliable than what we already include, it's unclear what we would add to the article (or what we should replace with this content, to keep his individual view from receiving WP:UNDUE weight just because he got published lots of places). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Partisan sources must also be used with attention to not give WP:UNDUE weight to minority views. Unless this source is being used specifically to support a significant factor of the opinions of the American right (for which we have plenty of existing sources, no need for repetition) which has not so far been reported, it probably has no place in an encyclopedic article (which ought to both be a summary and present matters in a way coherent with how they are discussed in relevant topic-related academic sources), given the already identified issues with those opinions being a fair distance out in left field (maybe I should write "right field" instead?) from those expressed by mainstream scientists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

To be sure, I'm listing it in the lab leak theory sources anyway. Not that I endorse the op-ed's usage since Wade is already in the article, but I think it's never bad to have more choice to select the source that presents his point of view. Btw, check up on the sources in the templates - quite a few have appeared recently. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Right, and I think it was absolutely correct to put it in the "Journalist Op-Ed" section. That's why I'm so skeptical it deserves inclusion in the article. WP:RSOPINION, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:WEIGHT teach us to treat such matters with caution and great care. And to ignore all that to shove more non-expert opinions into this article and to increase the prominence of the current opinions... just seems misguided.... I will take a look at the source templates and help make sure everything's in its proper place! But I tend to agree, more sources to choose from is rarely a bad thing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for any of this, why not just say waiting for publication of the wet market preprints? An obvious problem for the article as right now, they're probably due for inclusion and at least as important as much of the opinion and speculation that has already made it in. How could you possibly have criticism of the reporting of the preprints without first mentioning them? Or is there content somewhere i'm not seeing? fiveby(zero) 16:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Vanity Fair 20220331

The effort to close the debate in favor of the natural-origin hypothesis continues today. In February, The New York Times gave front-page treatment to a set of preprints—written by Michael Worobey at the University of Arizona, Kristian Andersen at Scripps Research Institute, and 16 coauthors, including Garry—claiming that a new analysis of public data from the Huanan market in Wuhan provided “dispositive evidence” that the virus first leapt to humans from animals sold there. But a number of top scientists, Bloom among them, questioned that assertion, saying the preprints, while worthy, relied on incomplete data and found no infected animal.

“I don’t think they offer proof. They provide evidence that more strongly supports the link to the wild animal market than to the WIV, and that’s the way I would have phrased it,” says W. Ian Lipkin, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who favors the natural-origin theory. Advertisement

“Some scientists seem almost hell-bent on naming the Huanan market as the site of the origin of the pandemic; and some members of the media seem more than happy to embrace these conclusions without careful examination,” said Stanford microbiologist David Relman. “This issue is far too important to be decided in the public domain by unreviewed studies, incomplete and unconfirmed data, and unsubstantiated proclamations.”

Vanity Fair 2600:8804:6600:45:2CA2:4D0B:E598:F57C (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added the article to the list for consideration (see collapsible box at the top of the page). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki I think if we add this vanity fair we should probably ALSO add the NYT articles which are referenced thereto. But I would add that we probably should avoid covering this in extreme depth given that these are WP:PREPRINTS and thus not very reliable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

One of the two New York Times stories referenced in the article was already in the template at the moment of adding the Vanity Fair investigation (btw, the Time story (2022-03-29) precedes the Vanity Fair stuff, 2022-03-31). Strange I've missed the other one. I think that since the NYT says explicitly it's discussing pre-prints, editors should be aware that this isn't exactly the kind of source we're looking for but might be usable in limited circumstances.

Short story: yes, we should include it, though I think Nature and Science covered it better, if without catchy graphics and maps (the Wuhan lab is, if OSM doesn't lie, about 30 km from the market, so it's a shame that map wasn't shown, but well, at least it's searchable). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Neutral statement: alteration of genome

The current version of the article states: Some versions, particularly those alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are based on speculation, misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.

The problem with this statement is that scientists are currently divided on whether alteration to the SARS-CoV-2 genome, or (more precisely) its immediate progenitor's genome, can be determined without access to laboratory records 1 2 3 4 5.

Baric Graham 2020 (PMID: 32392464) cites Andersen et al (PMID: 32284615) in light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2. But as Ralph Baric later told to PresaDiretta, "You can engineer a virus without leaving any trace" [1]. After dampening his "smoking gun" comment about the FCS, David Baltimore told to Caltech "You can't distinguish between the two origins from just looking at the sequence" [2]. And more significantly, after a (unapproved) grant request by EHA about coronavirus GoF experiments was leaked in Sep 2021; Jack Nunberg told to The Intercept "Whether that particular study did or didn’t [lead to the pandemic], it certainly could have" [3] and Alexander Kekulé told to German television "My unease about the possibility that it could have been a laboratory accident has increased" [4]. Simon Wain Hobson wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung about it: "What we do not know - and badly need to know - is whether this proposal was submitted elsewhere, financed and performed." [5].

A neutral statement would reflect the views of these scientists as expressed in these more recent sources, while tempering confidence about facts that scientists can't know without access to key documents at the Wuhan laboratory. The full quote from Baric is "You can engineer a virus without leaving any trace. The answers you are looking for, however, can only be found in the archives of the Wuhan laboratory".

80.107.62.75 (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this has been a problem for a while, and the main reason the POV tag remains on the Gain of function research page. I would support a rewrite of the sentence using better sources and providing some much needed WP:BALANCE on the issue. LondonIP (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

We do not treat blatant minority views as always worthy of inclusion. This is what BALANCE tells us as well.. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

After the DARPA proposal leak, a number of reputed scientists commented extensively on this scenario, so it's an open question, not a minority view. There are quotes from Simon Wain-Hobson and Alexander Kukel are very relevant, and the comments from David Baltimore in Caltech are relevant too. Regardless of all that, the use of the Graham Baric paper to call this speculation is a clear case of OR. The paper introduces Andersen et al as a response to speculation, and doesn't call it that itself, qualifying it as "possible". LondonIP (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Quotes and comments are opinion, and unless they have been subsequently followed by more serious endeavours which were published in scientific journals, they do not hold nearly the same weight. "Speculation" is well-backed up in sources (Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory.; The suspicion that SARS-CoV-2 might have a laboratory origin stems from the coincidence that it was first detected in a city that houses a major virological laboratory that studies coronaviruses.) and rather a mild way to refer to it (I've also seen As a conclusion, there is no evidence to support the Mojiang mine origin of SARS-CoV-2 and any of the laboratory leak theories. ... These narratives are not evidence-based scientific conclusions. ... In a time of geopolitical conflicts characterized by hidden agendas, false information and manipulations, it is essential to rely only on scientific and evidence-based conclusions and to avoid opinion-based narratives. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The tone of the statement is obviously POV. None of the citations are scientific published papers, and there are numerous other papers that argue strongly (and with good evidence) that it is a lab leak. It is obviously controversial, and it is not the job of Wikipedia to take sides. It needs to be replaced with a more balanced statement. Tuntable (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Obviously you can't distinguish a crap scientific paper from actual ones. Take a look at WP:NOLABLEAK (from where all of the above is quoted). The "both sides" argument is as utter bollocks here as it would be anywhere else. WP:NPOV does not ever mean that we need to present "both sides" equally. We present them based on what the high-quality sources are saying, and high-quality sources are saying the lab leak is at best "unsupported speculation". You don't like that? Not Wikipedia's problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

there are numerous other papers that argue strongly (and with good evidence) that it is a lab leak -- Could you provide a single secondary review paper published in a reputable topic-relevant journal and peer reviewed by topic experts which supports this claim? I cannot think of a single one. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"a number of reputed scientists commented extensively on this scenario, so it's an open question, not a minority view" - By this logic, whether or not bigfoot exists is also an open question. Whether or not aliens have visited earth. Etc. etc. On wikipedia, it is not in line with the WP:PAGs to determine scientific consensus or prevailing scientific view (and the nature of its majority vs minority opinions) via news reports and quotations. We also don't assess what is "an open question" via these methods. WP:MEDASSESS and WP:RS/AC tell us how to assess such things, and it is not via interpretation or summation of a bunch of individual quotations from individual people. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

If there are so many well published papers then it should be easy to find one that actually states

"Some versions, particularly those alleging alteration of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are based on speculation, misinformation, or misrepresentations of scientific evidence."

The citations for the statement in question are clearly not substantial papers.

I also object to the tone of your comments. Insulting other editors by saying that they are incompetent is completely against Wikipedia etiquette. It reflects much more upon your own attitude than upon those making constructive comments. Tuntable (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You haven't even bothered to check WP:NOLABLEAK, which was clearly linked, have you? Nor go more in depth and look at the sources in their entirety and see what else they have written? Not going to do your job for you. Currently, there are some fictitious and pseudoscientific claims as well as conspiracy theories associated with the Covid‐19 pandemic. Some people have alleged that SARS‐CoV‐2 is of laboratory origin and the result of deliberate genetic manipulation. According to these conspiracy theories, a novel virus is a human‐made biological weapon, not the result of natural evolution and selection. (Rev Med Virol., 2021 Feb 14) is rather unambiguously clear and there is no need for us to take any half-measures regarding this. Stop wasting people's time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOLABLEAK is not Wikipolicy, but merely the opinion of some editors. It carries no weight whatsoever.

What we are discussing here is a specific sentence which requires a specific citation, from a reputable source, and that is missing. Therefor the sentence should be removed. Tuntable (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOLABLEAK also contains an extensive bibliography. If you wish to ignore it, and ignore the sources which are already in the article (despite me bothering to quote them, right here), that is entirely your own problem. I'm done wasting my time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tuntable Hi, where do I say another editor is "incompetent" ? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• IP is correct in saying that the paper of a scientist who said we don't know if the virus was engineered should not be cited to say the very opposite. LondonIP is correct in saying the paper only references Andersen et al and doesn't make the claim itself, so our article misinterpretation the author's view and his paper, in wikivoice. In a related discussion on Gain of Function Research, the original author of MEDRS says the question of whether a lab conducting gain-of-function research it not a scientific or biomedical claim but a bog standard human "Well, were you?" question [3]. Yes I read that entire discussion. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  This would be covered by "speculation." (i.e. the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence)[4] As you say, we don't know if the virus was engineered. So, by your reasoning, it is speculative. Hence why the only place where that Ralph Baric paper is cited in this sentence is after the word "speculation." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between speculation and hypothesizing, and Fatbatsat makes a similar point in this related discussion, as does Vosne in this related discussion. Editors oppose the statement for one reason (POV), and the citation of Graham et al on the "speculation" epithet for another (misrepresentation of the authors' view expressed in a Presadiretta interview and their Cell paper). Calling the engineered scenario "speculation" is the POV of one group of scientists (Holmes et al) and we certainly shouldn't be attributing it as that to Graham Baric 2020. It is a blatant misrepresentation of a source that editors have protested for over a year. If we cannot agree on this, we should post a RFC on a noticeboard to group all of these discussions. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"Editors oppose the statement for one reason (POV)" - please do not continue to speak for the opinions of other editors without specific quotations, per the talk page guidelines. Holmes et al is a peer-reviewed secondary review article published in a well-regarded topic-relevant journal, and thus is the best available source for depicting the view of the scientific community about this question. We do not have higher or equivalent quality sources which contradict Holmes on this. The Baric paper also has the quote which even includes the word "speculation". If you believe it fails verification, you should attempt to gather consensus on that view. We have discussed this many times before (stretching all the way back to March of last year [5] [6] [7]), and the informal consensus was in favor of including this word with this sourcing. We should not escalate every dispute to an RFC, as this is a fundamental component of tendentious editing and indeed, I would caution you against this. Given the substantial amount of discussions we have had on this, and the accompanying sourcing, I would view this as a substantial waste of editor time and effort. On the other hand, if you do escalate this into an RFC, we could get a firm formal consensus on it, and add it to the consensus banner at the top of this page! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC and refrain from constantly lecturing editors you disagree with on policies and guidelines. Baric and Graham do not state that alteration of the genome is "speculation", but quote Andersen et al using that epithet, as LondonIP says above. Our article misrepresents Baric's point of view, and the position of his paper with Graham, so it is WP:OR. Holmes et al is indeed a high quality source, but MEDRS is not the relevant sourcing criteria for determining a scientific consensus on this subject, as the original author of WP:MEDRS said long ago. Scientists are divided on this question and a review article giving one POV does not make it a scientific consensus. An RFC will be necessary if we cannot agree on this. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

If MEDRS papers were "not appropriate sourcing for determining a scientific consensus", random scientists getting quoted in newspapers would be even less so. And you're correct that we shouldn't call the engineering scenarios "speculation": most of those scientific papers (reviewed by their peers, and not by newspapers editors) clearly dismiss that as having no evidence and various other terms, including "speculation" but also "conspiracy theory", "rumour", "opinion-based narratives" which are "in a time of geopolitical conflicts characterized by hidden agendas, false information and manipulations"; so on so forth (all cited and quoted here - see, you don't even have to do the hard work of looking for them). If you want to focus on content, you should stop wasting people's time with your clearly tendentious arguments and own up and start looking for sources (like those that have been presented to you, multiple times now) instead of sealioning and ignoring them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Most everyone using the word "conspiracy" has been proven to be conflicted. (eg Daszak) Newspapers using the word are most usually quoting these same people. I believe the only scenario that has no supporting evidence based in fact is "Bioweapon". 2600:1700:8660:E180:8569:1D3F:A66F:E266 (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe the only scenario that has no supporting evidence based in fact is "Bioweapon". Please support your statements with references to reliable sources. Vague pronouncements do not keep us specific or grounded, and thus do not help the discussion approach consensus. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Deliberate_release 2600:1700:8660:E180:E56B:2EFB:3380:FBFC (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

the version proposing the virus may have escaped accidentally is more plausible. Plausibility is not synonymous with supporting evidence. It is very plausible that I will go outside right now and my neighbor will be walking across the way and say hello and wave to me. It has never happened before, but it is certainly plausible. I have no evidence to suggest that this will happen. But it remains plausible. Please support your statements with reliable sources, or take your discussion to a platform where such baseless theorizing and invective is permitted. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

An RFC will be necessary if we cannot agree on this - Do you mean you will start an RFC if everyone here does not agree with your position, or are you open to reconsidering if provided any evidence? Or if you fail to find evidence which supports your position, as you have failed to do thus far?
refrain from constantly lecturing editors you disagree with on policies and guidelines - The only things that should be discussed on this talk page are 1) policies and guidelines (and their application to this article), 2) article content, and 3) source quality, utility, and verifiability. per WP:TALK#TOPIC. It seems, per that guideline, I am on topic.
Holmes et al is indeed a high quality source, but MEDRS is not the relevant sourcing criteria for determining a scientific consensus on this subject - You're right, but WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:PARITY are applicable. And as a result, much of the same considerations apply.
a review article giving one POV does not make it a scientific consensus - Review articles, especially when viewed in aggregate, depict the consensus of the scientific community, since they are peer-reviewed and editorially reviewed and themselves discuss the relevant literature in a secondary perspective. WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:RS/AC, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:PARITY tell us this is the type of source we should use here. And we have several which tell us that "speculation" is an appropriate term to use.
Scientists are divided on this question - Is what you describe here your personal opinion? What high quality peer reviewed secondary source are you using to determine that scientists are divided on this issue? When viewed in aggregate, our WP:BESTSOURCES (as shown in WP:NOLABLEAK) tell us that there is not much disagreement among scientists, and only a minority consider the lab leak theory a likely scenario. Only a very small minority consider there to be any supporting evidence for the theory. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

In a world where Francis Collins is attacking scientists and Kristian Andersen is proposing to delete papers from pre-print servers, it seems very difficult to use WP:BESTSOURCES in a cut and dry fashion. 2600:1700:8660:E180:8569:1D3F:A66F:E266 (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. if our sources are wrong, we are wrong as well. This is the essence of "verifiability, not truth" and it is the guideline that prevents us from inserting our POVs and deciding when to trust which sources.
It appears you have disagreement with those policies and guidelines, and you should probably take that to the talk page of those wikipedia-space articles. This is not the place to debate what the policy should be, it is the place to discuss how to apply those policies as they currently exist. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Let the gaslight burn bright! 2600:1700:8660:E180:E56B:2EFB:3380:FBFC (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Vanity Fair 20220331

The effort to close the debate in favor of the natural-origin hypothesis continues today. In February, The New York Times gave front-page treatment to a set of preprints—written by Michael Worobey at the University of Arizona, Kristian Andersen at Scripps Research Institute, and 16 coauthors, including Garry—claiming that a new analysis of public data from the Huanan market in Wuhan provided “dispositive evidence” that the virus first leapt to humans from animals sold there. But a number of top scientists, Bloom among them, questioned that assertion, saying the preprints, while worthy, relied on incomplete data and found no infected animal.

“I don’t think they offer proof. They provide evidence that more strongly supports the link to the wild animal market than to the WIV, and that’s the way I would have phrased it,” says W. Ian Lipkin, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who favors the natural-origin theory. Advertisement

“Some scientists seem almost hell-bent on naming the Huanan market as the site of the origin of the pandemic; and some members of the media seem more than happy to embrace these conclusions without careful examination,” said Stanford microbiologist David Relman. “This issue is far too important to be decided in the public domain by unreviewed studies, incomplete and unconfirmed data, and unsubstantiated proclamations.”

Vanity Fair 2600:8804:6600:45:2CA2:4D0B:E598:F57C (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added the article to the list for consideration (see collapsible box at the top of the page). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki I think if we add this vanity fair we should probably ALSO add the NYT articles which are referenced thereto. But I would add that we probably should avoid covering this in extreme depth given that these are WP:PREPRINTS and thus not very reliable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

One of the two New York Times stories referenced in the article was already in the template at the moment of adding the Vanity Fair investigation (btw, the Time story (2022-03-29) precedes the Vanity Fair stuff, 2022-03-31). Strange I've missed the other one. I think that since the NYT says explicitly it's discussing pre-prints, editors should be aware that this isn't exactly the kind of source we're looking for but might be usable in limited circumstances.

Short story: yes, we should include it, though I think Nature and Science covered it better, if without catchy graphics and maps (the Wuhan lab is, if OSM doesn't lie, about 30 km from the market, so it's a shame that map wasn't shown, but well, at least it's searchable). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

New findings in virology - Simple experiments show the FCS insertion in SARS-CoV-2 would not be difficult to achieve in a lab

These two publication cited in the PNAS article are relevant to our context:

T. P. Peacock et al., The furin cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is required for transmission in ferrets. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 899–909 (2021).

H. Winstone et al., The polybasic cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 spike modulates viral sensitivity to type I interferon and IFITM2. J. Virol. 95, e02422-20 (2021).

"The exact FCS sequence present in SARS-CoV-2 has recently been introduced into the spike protein of SARS-CoV-1 in the laboratory, in an elegant series of experiments (12, 30), with predictable consequences in terms of enhanced viral transmissibility and pathogenicity. Obviously, the creation of such SARS-1/2 “chimeras” is an area of some concern for those responsible for present and future regulation of this area of biology. [Note that these experiments in ref. 30 were done in the context of a safe “pseudotyped” virus and thus posed no danger of producing or releasing a novel pathogen.] These simple experiments show that the introduction of the 12 nucleotides that constitute the FCS insertion in SARS-CoV-2 would not be difficult to achieve in a lab." Source https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202769119 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empiricus-sextus (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That would be PMID:33907312 and PMID:33563656. Both primary sources and so unreliable for WP:BMI. Why keep bringing unreliable sources to the article? Alexbrn (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. If you removed all the published academic papers about Covid and its origin you would have nothing left. And I am sure you would not allow a reference to Alina Chan's book Viral as it is not an academic publication.

This is not BMI at all. It is not about symptoms or treatments but rather about genetic engineering technology. All of biology is not BMI! Tuntable (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue is not that Alina Chan's book is not an academic publication so much as it is that Alina Chan's book is not a reliable source that is respected by any other reliable or noteworthy publications for the purpose of academic research. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Genetics and bioengineering are part of the thing we call biomedicine. See WP:BMI for further help. Alexbrn (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)