Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Verifiable vs Non-verifiable Claims

Please note that I have replaced "Wuhan Institute of Virology" with "a lab in Wuhan, China” as most proponents of the lab leak hypothesis do not implicate the WIV directly, such as Richard Ebright in this Counterpunch article [1]. If we are going to mention the WIV, it should be in the main body of the article, where the connection is properly explained. CutePeach (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Most sources do, however. This article isn't about the promoters of the lab leak theory, it's about the RS coverage of it. WIV should be mentioned in some way, if not in the opening sentence. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Well said, —PaleoNeonate – 20:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, ProcrastinatingReader, agreed. We cannot diminish what most RSes say, which is that the WIV is the primary location implicated in this theory. It's what WP:DUE tells us to do.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Some issues

Let's consider this version. Expansion would require including who promotes and promoted it, resulting in a similar article to the content at the misinformation article and perhaps information on the investigations one, both already more complete (and would be redundant)... —PaleoNeonate – 15:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

There can be overlap on content between articles; in fact, there often is. It doesn't help (per current consensus #1) we have no agreement on the best article for some of this information, and some of those articles can probably be trimmed with a link to this article. The misinformation article is 95k chars of readable prose, which is near the limit of WP:SIZERULE

That being said, legitimate content has consistently been removed from those two articles, not due to fringe reasons or NPOV concerns, but simply because it (apparently) doesn't fall within scope. On the former, it's usually Alexbrn who removes citing "this article is about misinformation, which that is not". On the latter, it's usually others who say the added content is not relevant enough to the subject of the article. So a lot of information can be added here that doesn't fit within the others. If this article shouldn't exist, the case needs to be made at AfD, not by sheer force. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Were you aware of the various previous incarnations that were deleted per consensus? Also, although one review closer supported it above, the closing statement was for a draft article. But with the current stub, we at least don't sport a huge misinformation article in mainspace... —PaleoNeonate – 15:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: I sound like complaining above, but if an article was to eventually exist, it definitely needed WP:TNT so I thank you for your initial restart, —PaleoNeonate – 23:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Motivations

The article mentions Trump and allegations of racism, but missing is the attempt to sanction China in hope to offset a monumental domestic management failure, —PaleoNeonate – 15:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I added something along those lines. If you know of other sources feel free to add. Separately, a list of good articles (scholarly and media) would be helpful in expanding the article, as I believe a lot has been lost over time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the source of most of the problem is the absence from this article of the elephant in the room: the bait-and-switch pushed by right wing media that takes tentative support for the possibility of a lab leak and turns this into a plea for false equivalency between the zoonotic and lab origin hypotheses. Lab origin has, as far as I can tell, virtually no serious support: all the available genetic and other evidence points to a zoonotic origin, and a lab origin is implausible for a number of reasons. Wuhan is a logical place to be studying a novel zoonotic coronavirus, and a leak from the lab as the origin of onward transmission has not been definitively ruled out - if it is even possible to do so. I think it's important to separate virus-origin with pandemic-origin here, especially with the disinformation being published by NewsCorp in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk • contribs)

I consider this covered at current time. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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.

---

COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis --> Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

This article is totally redundant with the coverage of the topic at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, as well as Wuhan Institute of Virology and COVID-19 misinformation. Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 should be the main article that discusses the lab leak claims, and there is no need for a second article that duplicates the coverage, especially with the current two paragraphs the article has now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Merge. Agreed. I think the very nature of the Investigations article tells us that it will have the exact same DUE/UNDUE requirements as this new article, and therefore will very likely duplicate entirely the contents. And where it does not duplicate, it will very likely become a POVFORK, serving as a slightly less frequented article to hang POV statements. This is a bit analogous to the relationship between CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory and John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories. And it takes only a quick glance over the former to see how messy of a situation that is, full of POVFORK-type inclusions and FRINGE content not properly contextualized with the mainstream view. I think we should avoid that fate at all costs.

For an example of this done well, I would point to Moon landing Hoax Claims section of the Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories article. This second set is a situation where the notability and DUE nature of any content in one article should mirror exactly the other, and so they are the same article, one a subsection of the other. If we are to do an expansion of this section of the Investigations article, with careful attention paid to NPOV and RSUW, then I think that would be much preferable to an independent article.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose merge/delete A lot of reliable sources are now covering this, so the situation has changed. There is enough valid sourced information to make an article. I started at [2] Dream Focus 20:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (merge proposal)

You're not proposing merging, defined at WP:MERGE as A merger is the process of uniting two or more pages into a single page. It is done by copying some or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page and then replacing the source page with a redirect to the destination page. You're saying the page is redundant to existing ones, and you're proposing effectively deleting it. So I don't understand why nobody wants to open an AFD? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Because an AfD implies the topic is not notable, which is incorrect. There would be a lot of kneejerk AfD votes that would go "!keep obviously notable" without even addressing the deletion rationale. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, according to the first sentence of WP:N, "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Isn't this the subject of the discussion? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Many people at AfD's don't actually properly read the deletion rationale, and AfD's are only actively attended by a relatively small number of users. A AfD is likely to devolve into a long contenious discussion, similar to that seen for the MfD essays on this topic, which is something I am trying to avoid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't think either are true. AfD regularly deals with arguments based on NPOV/BLP/OR/other policies, successfully and as the primary venue. It has a reputation of doing so with high participation and wide diversity in policy arguments, the discussions are widely advertised, close after 7 days, and provide conclusive judgement. The merge process is plagued participation issues, is a poorly organised system, and discussions remain open for indefinite periods of time. No matter, I am happy to oblige and make a procedural nomination myself, and hopefully we can get a firm conclusion to this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Daszak

Regarding this removal. It's inevitable that Daszak is going to be covered in this article in some form or another. The two main events driving a resurgence of the theory are: the WSJ report, and the Daszak mess. The coverage of him is not exactly favourable in sources. Although there's no consensus of any intentional wrongdoing, the sources do agree that The Lancet report at the time stigmatised discussion on the issue and appears dodgy. I don't see how total exclusion of that content is justifiable, really. Naturally it'll need tweaking for NPOV as it was written by one user; I tried to copyedit it slightly but I'm not familiar with all of the sources on that issue so perhaps people could try do that rather than delete? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue has been handled relatively well at Daszak's own biography. But turning this article into a raft of absurd accusations against Daszak would be highly inappropriate: effectively suggesting that the lab leak idea has merit because we should somehow doubt one of the world's top experts on this topic. Daszak's work remains the consensus on this issue because virologists and infectious disease ecologists know their stuff and agree with him. For our purposes, journal article publications by other scientists overwhelmingly support Daszak's scientific work and publishing. -Darouet (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Those two pieces of correspondence in journals (not peer reviewed) are criticised by investigative journalists. Scientists don't have a monopoly on conflict of interest allegations, and it remains a well covered aspect of the issue in reliable sources and is quite central to the theory. Which policy allows for the removal of one paragraph of well sourced unflattering content? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, the coverage on his own article (Peter_Daszak#COVID-19_pandemic) takes a similarly negative tone: The letter has been criticized by Jamie Metzl for embodying "poor science", and by Katherine Eban of Vanity Fair as having had a "chilling effect" on scientific research and the scientific community by implying that scientists who "bring up the lab-leak theory... are doing the work of conspiracy theorists". According to emails obtained by FOIA, Daszak was the primary organizer of the letter, and had communicated with colleagues while drafting and signing the letter to "conceal his role and creat[e] the impression of scientific unanimity.". It also caused controversy since Daszak did not disclose that his EcoHealth Alliance group had an existing relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, with some alleging that this was an apparent conflict of interest. In June 2021, The Lancet published an addendum in which the April 2020 letter's authors were asked to update their competing interest disclosures. As the only author to do so, Daszak listed his cooperation with researchers in China. So you'll have to explain the problem here? You don't think those things (eg a letter producing a "chilling effect" on the discussion of this article's subject) are things that should be mentioned here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the topics you mention (the "chilling effect" of the letter, and the later COI statement) are absolutely notable on this topic. Regarding the original diff mentioned, it had some serious NPOV/OR/WTW issues ("objective evaluation of a lab origin by the scientific community was halted" and "small group of researchers who were funded to study pandemic causing viruses" both being problematic, and that's just the opening sentence). Important topic, definitely needed a rewrite from what was originally there. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I didn't write it. While I agree it needed copyediting for tone at minimum, I think as a rule it would've been better to do that than full removal. I attempted to correct some of it and I think that was a reasonable base for further modifications. I just think it's less likely to be a testing editing process to try build on others' contributions rather than delete, unless there is absolutely nothing to build on (such as in the most recent section I removed). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed another paragraph, but that one should stay, agree with Bakkster Man. There are two things here. (a) there was indeed a COI as a matter of fact (this is nothing special, a lot of people have COI with regard to something). (b) a letter by scientists (basically an opinion letter) was criticized by people who disagree - this is fine to include if properly worded. My very best wishes (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that the notable (and out of the ordinary) item was not the COI itself, but the lack of disclosure until the following year. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

True. Things like that can be even regarded as a scientific misconduct which undermines his credibility on this issue. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll write more on this later - sorry for delay - but this article is about the lab leak idea, not about how one of the leading researchers on this topic can't be trusted. Such a focus would become a coatrack and a mechanism for implying, but not arguing outright, that we should discount the science on SARS-CoV-2, and one of its leading scientists. If any part of this is mentioned, we can note the allegation very briefly, and then note why it's the case that this doesn't seem particularly relevant to scientists interested in or studying the origins of SARS-CoV-2. There's a ton written about the political motivations of the attacks on Daszak and that should receive more prominent mention, as it helps explain the lab leak idea in the larger context of scientific consensus on the issue. -Darouet (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It's covered in the context of the investigation, by several reliable sources. It's noted as having a chilling effect on the investigation, by several reliable sources. The effective derailing of an investigation is clearly (according to several reliable sources) an important event to be noted in the article of that investigation. It's the reliable sources that decide what is relevant to a topic. There is nothing unreliable in the slightest about The British Medical Journal, The Times, The Conversation, an investigative journalist at Vanity Fair, etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree. To cover the history, we should mention the alleged chilling effect of the letter as described in the sources we have, and the renewed openness after the WHO report was published. One sentence on the Daszak COI disclosure is worth noting in the context of the letter, I wouldn't suspect anything more or less to be likely to be appropriate. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

this article is about the lab leak idea, not about how one of the leading researchers on this topic can't be trusted absolutely, —PaleoNeonate – 20:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Text copied from SARS-COV-2 main article to here

Per my comments above and the discussion there, I've copied text and sources (but have not transcluded) from Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and origin to this article, COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis#Scientific consensus on likely natural zoonosis from bats. I or other editors might copy additional material, and possibly modify it slightly, from that article into into one in order to contextualize the discussion about a possible laboratory origin with strong scientific references.

Per User:ProcrastinatingReader, I am copying rather than transcluding, so that we can decide what to include at a more granular level. I'm hesitant to take this approach because it can be used to shift text away from what scientific editors have added at SARS-CoV-2 and towards a pro-leak viewpoint that is right dismissed by most scientists. Nevertheless I'm adopting the copying approach in the hopes that we can avoid that pitfall. -Darouet (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You can see the diff of the copying here [3]. -Darouet (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a good start to me. There's probably more that can be added, but there are editors better versed on the science than me. Perhaps Novem Linguae? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, looks good to me. I'm sure some other people will take a crack at it too :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Lancet IRT speculation

IRT Special:Diff/1034473522, the intended emphasis was not "more investigation needed", but that it was a call for legitimate scientific investigations by the scientific community, resulting from the widely disseminated unwarranted/hasty speculation. Another editor had also tagged it as primary, so maybe it can be left out for now... —PaleoNeonate – 19:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. A claim like that (which is contentious and concerns contentious stuff that has easily escalated to edit wars in the past) needs to be sourced with a high quality secondary RS which has a very close interpretation to the statement.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware when I originally inserted this source that a huge controversy was created around one of its authors. If used, it would need to be with a secondary source that mentions both this paper's position as well as how controversy was fabricated... —PaleoNeonate – 20:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Another source from Github

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.

---

I just want to point out that there is this good Link to Github, which is a really nice summary of the lab leak hypothesis. May be good for some sources https://project-evidence.github.io/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.223.75.224 (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The conclusion section is a good summary of this document. Looks like a list of pro-lab leak sources and arguments. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Just me, or do these look like primarily WP:SELFPUB circumstantial evidence, with not a bit of reliable WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Didn't dig too far because none of it was formatted clearly enough to know what I was clicking into, but if someone else can dig the reliable sources from it knock yourself out. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I'm seeing some red flags. Such as the assertion that WIV was engaging in the creation of chimeric coronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2 is a mosaic virus. Maybe some Wikipedian with expertise has time to spend on deciphering all this, but I'll be sticking to the best sources we've found on this topic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, this is almost entirely WP:OR, based on primary sources that often do not say what the authors have cited them to say. For example, their citation of the SHC014 paper completely misunderstands where/how the research was conducted, as it was at the Baric lab, not the WIV. Their citation of the bat COVs paper in 2007 also completely misunderstands that paper, asserting that it involved chimeric viruses, when it involved mostly pseudoviruses (which cannot replicate, they are more aptly described as "Virus-like particles (VLPs)") which are actually the basis for vaccines, not bioweapons. That's just the first two links I clicked. They also cite the "Huang Yanling" conspiracy theory, for which no actual evidence exists (and has been debunked by experts numerous times). They also cite the "Canadian Lab" conspiracy theory that is not only unsupported by evidence, it misunderstands which viruses are which [4]. I also LOL'd when I read this: "If an infected animal was indeed the culprit, why did it fail to infect a single person outside of the market?" which means these folks either don't know about, or have completely ignored, all the evidence we have supporting pre-market spread in Wuhan/Hubei. I presume there are more errors here, as it does not appear these individuals have any qualifications to understand the papers they cite. No virologist or biodefense researcher would make such simple mistakes. I would echo Novem Linguae in saying that, as a wikipedian with expertise, I don't want to spend the time necessary to decipher this, and I think the cursory survey of their scientific rationale I just went through means no one should. It isn't worth our time.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• This document ... examines the probability that each claim is true to allow the reader to make his or her own conclusions. and An earlier version of this document referred to us as "Project E.P.S.T.E.I.N." Yeah, I'm done; that's too much of a red flag. This blatantly isn't MEDRS compliant and I wouldn't use it as a source even for non-MEDRS statements. If there are useful links in the document, someone else can find them. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:15, 20 July 2021 (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.

A reality check from BBC News

The lab-leak idea is now being described as an "unproven theory" - not a "conspiracy theory". BBC no longer appears to support using that term, which appears nowhere in this 980-word Reality Check. "Coronavirus: Was US Money Used to Fund Risky Research in China?" BBC News, 23 July 2021. –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: There are different versions of the lab leak. Some of them (anything that claims deliberate engineering, notably) have been thoroughly refuted by scientists and are still conspiracy theories, based on the WP:BESTSOURCES (scientists in relevant fields writing review articles in relevant journals). The one version that isn't is properly differentiated as such at the bottom of the #Versions section. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Your parenthetical policy restatement ("scientists … in relevant journals") is good creative prose. If you go reread the WP:BESTSOURCES policy description, though, you'll find a quotebox right above it that cites BBC Trust's policy on science reporting.

BBC News isn't a scientific journal – yet we can nonetheless treat it as an eminently authoritative high-quality source here, per BESTSOURCES policy. (Look online for the most reliable resources … or ask at the reference desk.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Citing BBC News when BESTSOURCES explicitly says "Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources." is quite a bit of a misreading of that. You're supposed to look deeper than the newspaper, which is what I and others have painstakingly done whenever challenged - see examples here and here. WP:SOURCETYPES is also quite clear. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Some scholarly material may be outdated…. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Clear enough for me! –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"Outdated" could apply if the material in question was several years old. Journal articles from a few months or even a year ago are certainly not "outdated", especially not when they keep getting cited by their peers, and especially not when more recent articles do not disagree with them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I scanned through the article, and none of our uses of the word "conspiracy" seem out of place. There have been others which I've removed, but broadly speaking looks good right now. We're either using past tense (was considered, chilling effect, change in reporting, etc), attributing minority opinions, or accurately describing the way the theory was weaponized politically. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

A reason why both are intertwined is also that for it to be the case one must suspect a lot of people to have hidden information and lied, including scientists there are no valid reasons to doubt, other than having international scientific relationships, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 14:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The BBC is very politically correct, as recently as 2018 they referred to the JFK incident as "cover-up", the word "conspiracy" only appearing when quoted by others. It would not surprise me that they referred to it as an unproven theory, but we all know that if it was, and it was covered up, there would have to have been a conspiracy to do so. It's a bit like the "sprint" qualifying at Silverstone last weekend, it definitely was not a race, even though it was a race. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The word "hypothesis"

During the AfD - closed recently as "keep" - a few editors, myself included - voted "keep" with some concern about the NPOV potential of the word "hypothesis". I wondered if we could discuss this word in the article title - maybe we should be looking at an article title without its potentially weighted and heavily suggestive definition?

Off the top of my head - "Allegations about..." or "Coverage about..." could be a good alternative. Open to any suggestions. doktorb _words^deeds 05:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps keep this discussion contained to the section immediately above: Talk:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis#Requested move 26 July 2021. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

"Versions" section -- what exactly is this theory?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "the lab leak theory" is the stuff in #Accidental_release_of_a_natural_virus right? Basically, if I understand correctly, the theory spread under this name is that a natural zoonotic virus found its way into a lab somehow (perhaps by workers collecting samples), possibly was altered through some scientific stuffs (like "gain of function research"), and accidentally someone walked it out of the lab and it made its way into the wider world? The "bioweapon theory" isn't actually the "lab leak theory" right? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, I'd consider any theory in which the virus was not deliberately released as a "lab leak theory". Meaning, potentially, a bioweapon which accidentally released would be a "lab leak", but not necessarily as credible of one as the others. The challenge is, lacking strong epidemiology of the early outbreak, much of the supporting evidence cited to support a lab leak refers to the laboratory's activities and potential markers of such in the virus genetics. So we can't adequately describe any individual theory without explaining each and how they differ, which does make it challenging. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Confused mashup of (#"Accidental lab leak of a natural virus" vs "accidental leak of a modified virus" vs "intentional bioweapon"), and: conspiracy theory vs political disinformation vs scientific hypothesis... The current article touches all of it, I think. —PaleoNeonate – 17:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I group lab leak into the following 3 versions: deliberate bioweapon (Li-Meng Yan stuff), gain-of-function research, accidental release of a natural sample. I often see them discussed together, although you could certainly argue that bioweapon isn't a "lab leak" if it was released deliberately. I think Li-Meng Yan was fuzzy on that part though... she just said that SARS-CoV-2 looked bio-engineered, she didn't necessarily speculate how it entered circulation.

Right now our article appears to conflate/combine bio-engineering and gain-of-function research into one category called "Deliberate genetic engineering". It also strangely doesn't go into depth about gain-of-function research, not mentioning the term anywhere except the "see also". It might make sense to split that section into "Bio-engineering" and "Gain-of-function research", similar to the COVID-19 misinformation article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, not helping is that some have linked both gain of function research and bioweapon in their claims. I however agree about the technical distinction, —PaleoNeonate – 17:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, Yes I would agree that we should make that technical distinction.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

BOAS RS

Why say Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is not RS? I searched Wikipedia and I see it is cited 49 times on biosecurity topics. I think the Wade article is the best and most cited article on the subject.--Francesco espo (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, what statement are you trying to include cited to BOAS? ProcSock (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I suggest asking for opinions at WP:RSN. ProcSock (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Wade's piece in BOAS, in this situation, is not an RS here because it is an unmodified reprint of an opinion piece originally self-posted by Wade on Medium. It is an opinion piece, by someone who does not qualify for WP:RSOPINION, so it is not useable for our purposes, much less so because it makes WP:REDFLAG assertions, both because they are "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community" and because Wade alleges that there is a cover-up within the scientific establishment ("This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."). "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.", not the opinionated ramblings of a non-expert. In addition to the above, which is part of the core verifiability policy, you can have a look at WP:MAINSTREAM. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC) 18:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

BOAS featured Wade's investigation as the top article on its main page for five weeks (May 5 through June 7). And the Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise (so it says). This sounds like the kind of RS we can use here! See RSN, 10 May 2021 and 24 May 2021 (as we're not trying to say whether this nonmainstream WP:FRINGE hypothesis is likely to be true). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC) 23:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

While I'm opposed to using the source as reliable enough for the broader Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article, I think its republishing in BoAS is sufficient to support using it reliably here. All given the caveat that we attribute the claims to Wade and not portray them as equal weight to scientific papers and opinions. That is to say, while his claims are weak (because they're mostly an aggregation of weak claims) they're still verifiable, and should be presented as such: claims which accurately represent the views of a minority. Perhaps some additional caution on any claims based purely on pre-prints.

I'd rather we use BoAS as the source referencing pre-prints as such (that is to say, as a verifiable source for unreliable claims), than link to the pre-prints directly. It's not peer-review, but it's at least a bit of a filter (for instance, he didn't cite Li-Meng Yan, helping us distinguish the more rational minority view from the true crackpots). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Except it is just an opinion piece, and thus a primary source, which still makes REDFLAG claims even if they aren't quite as crazy as those of others. There's already a mention of it in the article, based on independent and secondary sources, and I think we ought to keep it like that. Of course, the coverage can be expanded if need be - although it needs to remain clear that Wade is alleging the virus was genetically manipulated and that these claims have been rebuted by scientists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Its author (a former NYTimes science reporter and science editor) calls it an in-depth news story — and directly contrasts it with editorials or opinion pieces. BoAS listed it as a featured story. Have you found a reputable authority that calls it an "opinion piece"? –Dervorguilla (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC) 19:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It's worth asking how independent 3rd parties describe the article. Would need to back up the "in-depth news story" claim, as well. A few examples based on searching Google News for "Nicholas Wade" covid:

Extended content

"disgraced journalist Nicholas Wade has penned an error-filled, misleading piece promoting this nonsense"[5] "the science writer Nicholas Wade points out in a landmark essay in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists"[6] "In an exhaustive account of the viral possibilities published this week by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Nicholas Wade argues that the Chinese lab is the most likely source of the world-wide agony."[7] "Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times science writer known in part for writing a controversial book about how genes shape the social behavior of different races, published a lengthy essay on Medium."[8] "Baltimore’s “smoking gun” quote appeared in a May 5 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists — not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but a respected publication that has run numerous articles on the COVID-19 pandemic... The article itself, by science writer Nicholas Wade, has become one of the most often-cited pieces in support of the lab-leak hypothesis."[9] "the former New York Times science reporters Nicholas Wade and Donald G. McNeil Jr. have written long essays on Medium outlining why they take the lab leak hypothesis seriously"[10] "This is especially true if there’s any chance that the Covid-19 virus was engineered, in so-called gain of function research, to be more transmissible and lethal — a possibility raised by, among others, a former science writer for this newspaper, Nicholas Wade"[11] "Nicholas Wade is not an alarmist, and not a conspiracy theorist. He is one of the most eminent science journalists in the country, having done stints at Science and the New York Times, and he has released a very long, technical, and (if you’re into that sort of thing) riveting article on Medium weighing the evidence on the origin of COVID-19."[12] "In May, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists joined the fray, with a piece from Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times correspondent with a dubious line in racial theories, running with Baker’s hypothesis."[13]

Worth pointing out, a fair number of these pieces are opinion themselves. Adding the search term "in-depth" I was able to find one major source backing up the "in-depth" side.

• "In a May 5, 2021, in-depth analysis of clues about COVID-19’s origins, former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade summarized 2018 and 2019 NIH grant documents involving EcoHealth Alliance"[14]

I think it's fair to say, reception is all over the map, in part depending how much you agree with his conclusion (or that of his previous work, referenced above at times as "controversial" and "disgraced"). Mixed enough not to take the BoAS's claims at face value, but not necessarily so mixed as to completely disregard or spend more space challenging his authority than describing what was said. I'll note, the relatively obvious solution for the above concerns is probably to find reliable sources repeating/reporting Wade's claims, and cite those. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: The only MEDRS which discusses (and dismisses) Wade's claims is Frutos, months before Wade published his piece in BOAS, so it doesn't name him, obviously. The other sources, which do mention him, are Gorski and I think the snopes article, neither of which are MEDRS. I doubt we'll get much more than that. Mainstream NPOV (what we're aiming for) is not a headcount of how the topic is covered in the popular press. If the popular press say one thing, but the scientists and the academics say another, then we give more weight to the scientists. If the scientists describe Wade's claims as bollocks, we describe them as such (while still mentioning them per WP:DUE, because of the coverage they receive in the press).

@Dervorguilla: "Story"? Like Hänsel and Gretel? Joke aside, what BOAS says it is has no bearing on how we consider it. What we do consider is the three criteria listed at Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source. The work itself promotes many WP:REDFLAG claims, for example, by alleging there is a conspiracy to cover this up within a supposedly unethical scientific community ("Any virologist who challenges the community’s declared view risks having his next grant application turned down by the panel of fellow virologists that advises the government grant distribution agency.") Second, the author, a journalist, known for having written a very troublesome book about genetics (which was widely denounced by geneticists) makes many claims about topics far out of his field of expertise, saying right from the start that "By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses.": Wade has no expertise in virology, biology, or any related field. Why Wade decided to publish this work about "the molecular biology of viruses" (not about "biosafety", since Wade is explicitly making claims about the genetics of the virus, only spending a very short amount of time on safety procedures at the WIV) in a journal which has no relation with the topic also speaks of the reliability of the publisher, and the fact that there was no effective peer-review of this (this is further confirmed by the fact is is basically an exact copy of the self-published piece on Medium). As for what the work itself is, it clearly looks like a piece where the writer explains their opinion (right from the start, Wade writes that "But those clues point in a specific direction. And having inferred that direction, [...]") This direction, which Wade claims is that "The evidence above adds up to a serious case that the SARS2 virus could have been created in a lab"; is dramatically at odds with the reliable sources published by scientists in the relevant field (such as those I quoted to the IP in the RM discussion), which write stuff like "Therefore, although a laboratory accident can never be definitively excluded, there is currently no evidence to support it."

Given that, I contend that, very clearly, Wade's article is making exceptional claims, but fails to meet the "exceptional evidence" required to do so. REDFLAG clearly states "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." (which the Wade article/essay/opinion piece is not; and which WP:MEDPOP pieces in newspapers are not either); and gives as an example "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. [emphasis mine]" I don't think there's any possible dispute that Wade makes claims which are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community; nor can there be any dispute that Wade claims (as quoted above) that there is a conspiracy to silence proponents of this idea. Because some journalists and politicians have taken Wade's claims uncritically does not mean that we can do so here, since we're an encyclopedia, which means we are biased towards academia and actual science, not the popular Zeitgeist in one North-American country. The only way we can use the Wade piece, therefore, is to report on notable claims made within it, if these have also been reported in independent sources. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If the scientists describe Wade's claims as bollocks, we describe them as such. Completely agree, and never intended to give any indication otherwise. Merely addressing that these are the kinds of references that should determine how we refer to the article/essay (the two terms I'd suggest), rather than taking BoAS or Wade's self-description at face value. And continuing the discussion that I support citing Wade's piece directly with the due weight it deserves here (as opposed from my opinion that it's UNDUE on the Investigations article). Bakkster Man (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, RandomCanadian, I broadly agree with most of what you two have written above, but I would lean towards Bakkster Man's assertion that this BOAS piece is not at all useful for claims of fact, but is likely useful for attributed opinions weighted duly in proportion to their representation in articles about the leak theories.

In this case, given a comparison between the sources we have at the top of the article, and those listed describing Wade, I would put that due weight at "maybe a couple of sentences, or where otherwise important to establish Wade supported an idea already in the article."

Nothing Wade said should be taken as fact, and we should only include things he's said if others deem it important enough to discuss. Most of all because the Wade piece is WP:PRIMARY, but also because he is not an expert by any meaning of the word. He has no formal training in biodefense or biosecurity, and he has never published about it before in any reputable outlet. No one in any of these sources characterizes him as having expertise in these topics, even if they (in a non-reliable way) praise his piece. No literature or scientific sources praise his piece or his expertise. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:53, 29 July 2021 (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.

)

Problems with the Who investigation

We should quote exactly what those involved said. What I wrote in a different draft I think explain the situation well:

WHO's director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated: "Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts". The WHO team investigating the virus's origin were not allowed to do a full audit of the Wuhan lab. He later stated it was "premature" to dismiss the lab leak as the origin of the virus.

Over two dozens experts signed an open letter calling for a proper investigation in China specifically to determine if a lab leak happened from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Their complaints about the previous investigation was that China was given veto power over who was allowed to be on the investigation team. Peter Daszak, who has a long-time collaboration with the Wuhan lab, was on the team. Other complaints were that they weren't allowed to enforce international protocols, they weren't allowed to demand access to records or samples at the lab, nor talk to any key personnel there.

Former CDC director Robert Redfield stated he believes COVID-19 came from the Wuhan lab. He also states the WHO were compromised.

The WHO-China investigation team did write in their report: “The closest known CoV RaTG13 strain (96.2%) to SARS-CoV-2 detected in bat anal swabs have been sequenced at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wuhan CDC laboratory moved on 2nd December 2019 to a new location near the Huanan market. Such moves can be disruptive for the operations of any laboratory.”

References

Dream Focus 08:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It has to be covered up to some point considering that it's among arguments used to dismiss the legitimacy of the official investigations. It's already covered in 3.4 Accidental release of a natural virus at the moment, however. There's an empty subsection about RaTG13, but it's also covered in the current Scientific background section (not a direct ancestor). —PaleoNeonate – 19:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Updating this thread as Tedros was added. There were various previous discussions on the importance of avoiding GEVAL between WHO official statements and the director... —PaleoNeonate – 17:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: thanks for bringing this to my attention, I was unaware of the previous discussions – would you be able to link to them for me? I personally think it's better with Tedros' comments included, especially as he said there would be a further WHO-led investigation into the lab leak theory in that speech. I'd like to read why others think differently. Even if Tedros' comments are removed, I think the mention of the WHO report in the lead should still include a clause qualifying it by that saying that data was withheld. Several scientists on the WHO team said this (Tedros was simply repeating their concerns in his speech) and there was widespread coverage of this. Do you have any suggestions on the best way to present this? Jr8825 • Talk 19:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer, now deferring this to the new related thread below. But you can look at the talk page archives of the origin investigations and the misinformation articles, —PaleoNeonate – 07:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Claims and rebuttals

Unfortunately this presentation invites typical WP:GEVAL: "foo says this but bar says that". It may be unavoidable but could be mitigated by formulating the paragraphs with care and avoiding to attribute the mainstream scientific view where possible (vs claims and public opinion, per WP:YESPOV). —PaleoNeonate – 19:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, agreed that it is risky. But it is similar to the approach taken at Moon landing conspiracy theories, which is also a heavily contentious article. I think if done well, it can make everybody happy. Because it puts the steel-manned arguments forward, and then knocks them down. But of course that will require very very delicate craftsmanship, agreed.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: That's what I'm trying to do with the #Deliberate genetic engineering subsection (to begin with). It probably needs to be done with the others too. Is the current format good? i.e. , "Somebody notably said X. Scientists say X is bollocks for reasons Y and Z". Or do you have better suggestions? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and for things that are not discussed in reliable sources and are only supported by primary or dubious sources, they are likely simply undue and should be omitted. I spent a few hours reading a number of sources earlier today and noticed that no credible source presents such pro/con lists. Various mention the scientific consensus that a lab leak is considered unlikely, especially as a pandemic origin. We often find the standard "cannot be ruled out" or "more information is needed", etc, that conspiracists tend to transform into "yes" shows (and unfortunately even Fox News does this, misleading many, some sources mention this fact). As we know, that's not new and happens with ufology like cherry picking in a recent report, it happens with dubious medicines and pseudoscientific medicinal treatments, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 20:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm for a better answer to your format question I'll come back later after having reread the current state of the article, I might also boldly copy-edit... —PaleoNeonate – 20:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Furin cleavage site

There needs to be some discussion of the genetic arguments that COVID-19 was designed here, I think? Specifically arguments such as Nicholas Wade's arguments about the furin cleavage site? I haven't looked into this in enough depth to want to write the whole thing unassisted, but my brief analysis has suggested that MEDRS sources are pretty clear that Wade (and others) are simply incorrect here regarding the importance of the CGG codon, and the text will need to make that clear. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree that we should include a discussion of it, but only where it is covered (and how it is covered) in reliable secondary sources. Examples from the sources list at the top of this talk page: [15] [16] [17] [18]

We need those secondary RSes to tell us how to frame our discussion of the Wade piece and couch it in the mainstream scientific view that they source from other primary sources (scientists, articles, etc). Sorry, I want to make clear I think you probably agree with me on this, just wanted to put it out there. :) --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You forgot the paper by Frutos, which explicitly addresses the claims about the "uncommon" codons and many others; and there's also the discussion that was had here for sources about the FCS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, Ah yes thank you, that is an important source I forgot they talked about it as well. Agree Frutos et al. should be in the mix here. Here's the link: [19].--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Accidental lab leak of a natural virus" vs "accidental leak of a modified virus" vs "intentional bioweapon"

We need to include all three of these in this article, because all of these, except 'intentional bioweapon' are easily described as part of a "lab leak" in the common vernacular. The bioweapon theory must be differentiated from this hypothesis, so it merits a small inclusion in this article as well.

We cannot continue to muddy these terms any further, and when we discuss them here, we really need to be very specific. Or else this article descends into the fate of basically every other COVID-19 origins article, namely arguing past each other for paragraphs and paragraphs. Differentiation of these things is key, and including discussion of all of them is key. See also a similar discussion at the COVID-19 wikiproject.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Those are very different things. Option 1 implies zoonotic/natural origin of the virus. In fact, all pathogens ever leaked from labs (even labs involved in bioweapons programs in the USSR) had natural origin. There is a huge confusion in publications about this with regard to COVID-19. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree quite strongly with Shibbolethink in this matter. jp×g 02:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Noting my agreement too. If we're going to have an article on this, we must make the difference clear (as, however, is also already done, if a bit clumsily, at COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_origin). There's likely also something that can be found on the confusion between the different hypotheses itself - there's this where the author writes that

The risk of conflation is not simply due to the audience’s inattentiveness. It also results from how the lab-leak theory has previously been reported. Until recently, it was itself categorised as a conspiracy theory. In early March 2020, for instance, a widely circulated open letter published in The Lancet condemned as “conspiracy theories” all hypotheses suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t have a natural origin. This meant it was lumped together with the idea that the virus was deliberately created as a biological weapon. In turn, this creates problems when politicians later try to rehabilitate the lab-leak theory: if one supposed conspiracy theory turned out to be credible, some might wonder whether other related conspiracy theories might be credible too.

Of course, how much weight is DUE for this is another question, but sources exist is what I'm saying. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There are actually two additional lab leak related theories which are not captured, ref:[20]. The first being a deliberate infection of a natural virus. The second, somewhat a variation of the accidental lab leak of a natural virus but implying not so much a "leak" but rather indirectly the relocation of collected of live bats and bat-related samples to Wuhan by the WIV contributed to a natural spillover event in Wuhan indirectly; inadvertently aided by the WIV. For all these five different theories, it is important to weight the RELATIVE evidence of each and every theory against it's alternatives, rather than simply to weight scientific publications sprouting WP:RS. There is for example, overwhelming improbability of the spillover event occuring at the wet-market which the PRC blamed; especially given limited sale of bats[21] and the immediate coverup of other facts by the WIV and PRC; for example around the mis-sequencing of samples[22] and access to WIV databases[23]. Whilst many lab leak theories either are (or border on) being unsubstantiated conspiracies it's no less ridiculous than the wet-market story [24] which somehow still remains in WP mainspace despite being completely unsubstantiated... PRC information operatives at play perhaps? Aeonx (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"The first being a deliberate infection of a natural virus." Is there a reliable source you can point to which considers this a credible possibility? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I could and the nature article I referenced already includes this as one of the possibilities. However I'm not going to. Why? Because I loathe to descent this talk page into a discussion about what is and isn't WP:RS and what is/isn't WP:DUE before we've even established the various scope and aspects that are reported. As I already mentioned, all of these ideas are theories, so you're question about credibility should first be clarified. What is credible when it comes to limited information and the possible presence of deliberate cover-up and misinformation?

There are ongoing issues that seem to mean that some totally ludicrous and in-credible origin stories about Wet-Market exist in mainspace and I dare say the same standard of credible WP:RS has not been followed, instead relying on news reports and PRC reporting, which we know is historically manipulative. Aeonx (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"news reports and PRC reporting"? I didn't know that American WP:NEWSORG (such as CNN, WSJ, NYT, WaPo, et al.) - the same kind of sources that have been reporting on the lab leak in a more positive light than serious scholarship - were "PRC reporting": you might want to make sure your arguments actually make sense and are not just vague insinuations and subtle personal attacks? Wikipedia is neither a battleground nor a debating society. On the other hand, you're always free to suggest additional scholarly sources (the same kind on which much of this is based) to improve the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Here is why this is really important, among other things. In response to claims that a virus of natural origin accidentally escaped from a lab, Chinese representatives respond [25] essentially this: "No, this virus is of natural origin. Therefore, it did not escape from any lab" This is nonsense, an intentional misinterpretation. When combined with refusal to cooperate with WHO, this sounds to me almost as a self-admission of guilt. My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  When I hear the same stupid shit again and again, then, when someone suddenly proposes something that sounds like the same stupid shit at first but is actually a different stupid shit, sometimes I do not notice it and respond as if it were the first stupid shit. This could be what happened to the Chinese representatives here. We should not construct articles around your original research which ignores Hanlon's Razor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Serious BLP Violations

Jr8825 your removal of the widely reported Cotton saga is contentious, [26] but your edits here [27] put the false claim that Pompeo and Trump alleged that the virus was created as a bioweapon, which is a very serious WP:BLP violation. This needs to be removed immediately.

Neither Cotton, nor Pompeo or Trump made such an allegation. There was a discussion on this with Guy Macon here [28] and another discussion with Bakkster Man here [29] [30], clarifying this misconception. The Jan 2021 "Fact Sheet" put out by the USDOS mentioning Secret military activity at the WIV [31], is not an allegation by Pompeo or Trump that the virus was created as a bioweapon. It was a very carefully vetted document that has also cited by the Biden Administration, which we discussed here with Pkeets My very best wishes Thucydides411, Shibbolethink and Bakkster Man [32]. I don't care how we want to present this information, but we definitely should not use it to misprepresent Pompeo and Trump's position.

This is perhaps an innocent mistake by Jr8825, but it is revealing of a bias by certain bias editors who demand to go through the WP:BRD on every little comma and discuss their WP:SELFPUB opinions lest you get dragged to AE on trumped up charges of misconduct [33]. Bakkster Man and Shibbolethink, I kept this post saved in my Evernote since yesterday afternoon, just to see if either one of you would spot it, but I have to go to sleep now, so good night. The particular nature of this matter also puts the WP:LIE to point #19 in Shibbolethinks’s AE post, which should tell you something about the rest of his points. Tagging ToBeFree, DGG, Valereee, HighinBC, CaptainEek and El_C. CutePeach (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

My edits were intended to improve the paraphrasing of the source so that the text more closely followed the existing inline citation. See The Conversation; Peter Knight, Professor of American Studies, University of Manchester : "The general lab-leak theory, along with hints that the virus might have been designed as a bioweapon, were promoted by Trump, US senator Tom Cotton, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon. All had previous form in using conspiracy rhetoric to blame America’s woes on enemies without and within." The only issue is that the source does not mention Pompeo, which is my mistake as his name was already in the text previously, I will remove it now. Jr8825 • Talk 18:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825 I realise it was an innocent mistake on your part and thank you for fixing it. This Conversationlist opinion piece is not a good enough source for this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, so its still a BLP violation. Please see the sources in the above linked discussions. I really need to go to sleep now. CutePeach (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

How is "Trump and other politicians said X" an exceptional claim? That was widely reported in many sources (whether we want to cite all of these sources, or whether we're satisfied with citing one analysis by an academic, is another issue). WP:REDFLAG makes a nice list of what is an "exceptional statement which requires exceptional evidence". This doesn't seem to be such a kind of statement. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps relevant: This one is not about direct claims by Trump or Pompeo, but relevant IRT a previous closed (as in to avoid scrutiny) program https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/25/politics/biden-shut-down-trump-effort-coronavirus-chinese-lab/index.html later determined to have been inconclusive and misguided when evaluated, then the program shut down. And "The State Department project began in late 2020, months after Pompeo and President Donald Trump first claimed that the virus could have originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In May 2020, Pompeo claimed there was "enormous evidence" and a "significant amount of evidence" to support the claim -- despite the US intelligence community saying there was no definitive answer as to precisely where and how the virus began transmitting." It was compared to the Iraq stove pipe by this source https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/27/did-covid-come-from-a-wuhan-lab-what-we-know-so-far . I'm not saying that this would necessarily be the first in a timeline if earlier items are also properly documented in independent sources, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 21:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Also adding: when well cited to sources considered generally reliable (WP:BLPRS), it's not a BLP violation to echo them. If those sources are retracted, then other sources should be used or the supported material also removed. —PaleoNeonate – 22:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to further emphasise, if anyone feels they can provide a better summary of the sourcing on this (or are more well-read than me) please go ahead and adjust the sentence accordingly. As I mentioned above, my edits were made from a copy-editing perspective as the previous wording was unclear and grammatically poor, and although I've read a moderate amount, that specific change was very much based on the existing inline refs. Jr8825 • Talk 23:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't help much here, Jr8825. This material appears to be a (partly) original interpretation of a source for a contentious allegation about a public figure. Without multiple sources, it needs to get removed, per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPPUBLIC. I also question its prominence of placement (per WP:DUE). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

While I expect there's plenty of sourcing to support the assertion those figures promoted misinformation, I'm inclined to agree with you here – I'm not certain they're central enough to the lab leak theory to warrant inclusion in the lead (perhaps they are, again, I haven't read sufficiently extensively here). I agree there are potential BLP concerns, although this might be addressable with additional sourcing as PaleoNeonate suggested. Jr8825 • Talk 09:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that we need to be very clear with what we cite, and when the citation is from. As our article describes, while a news article last November might have described the suggestion of an accidental lab leak as "promoting conspiracy theories", that would no longer be the way the source would describe it. As further reason to avoid the lede, it's going to be difficult to lump so many public figures together, particularly when the statements by (for instance) Cotton were very different from the funding and advocacy of Bannon. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The text was removed – quite rightly, I think – but this resulted in a complete lack of mention about Trump in the lead (he's discussed quite extensively in the body) and a lack of context for the following sentence. I've re-added parts of the sentence with more conservative wording. Please review/discuss. Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Altered timeline of events

FormalDude you altered the timeline of events with your removal of well-sourced content that you call an unsourced description of speculation by social media users that is not encyclopedic [34]. Both the Caixin and BBC Chinese pieces reference these social media users / netizens, and one can argue that in a country where mainstream media is censored, social media should matter. We are not citing the social media content directly, but the UPI, Caixin and BBC Chinese sources. Please restore the content and source you removed so that our readers can know the hypothesis was formed in China by netizens and scientists there, and not in the USA by politicians and conservative media pundits. Perhaps someone here can also add the Feb 6 2020 paper by the Chinese scientist couple Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao, which is well covered in reliable sources [35], as they were, in fact, the first scientists to make the inference, and no one has heard from them since. CutePeach (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach, the source does not support the claim at all. There's no mention in that article about social media users nor netizens. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 00:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: That source (UPI) discusses Chinese "social media" posts at grafs 13–14 (under Link to lab denied).

The institute had previously denied the outbreak began among lab technicians, including a woman identified as Huang Yanling. Huang was rumored to be "patient zero" on Chinese social media.

Wang's statement came after messages on Chinese social media claimed the director had been "frequently" reselling lab animals to Huanan market vendors.

–Dervorguilla (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: This has been open for just over a week. Since my only comments here were basically telling off an IP for giving their own opinion about how much evidence there is about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, and since I don't really care about the title, I'll give a go at closing this. I'll remind everyone that this isn't just a headcount.

Per the criteria, a good title is commonly recognisable, including for readers unfamiliar with the topic, precise and concise.

There have been multiple proposals, but relatively little discussion of how they fit with the criteria. Much of the discussion seems to be about which term would be more accurate, but this was also met with concerns about the neutrality of the proposed title. Those concerns are in line with WP:NDESC, which suggests staying non-judgmental and avoiding titles like "allegations" (or the very similar "claims").

The two more convincing options, based on this reading of policy, and also reflected in how many editors are supporting either (or both), are either to keep the current title ("hypothesis") or to move this to "theory". Some editors object to "theory" because of implications about the validity of the article subject. This does not seem to be borne out by reliable sources (plenty of which, including scientists, do use "theory"), and is also succinctly summarised by User:力's description of the wide range of possible epistemic values. In addition to looking like a precise-enough title, this also appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME, per many editors in the discussion. "Hypothesis" also appears justifiable in light of the criteria, but I don't see the same kind of support for it amongst the participants, nor does it seem that it is as common as the alternative.

Therefore, there is a rough consensus for a move to COVID-19 lab leak theory. I'll hold off on doing the move immediately, in case anybody has some strong objection to this.

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

---

COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis → COVID-19 lab leak claims – More than a few editors mentioned a rename during the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis.

I would like to propose we keep the page and give it another name: COVID-19 lab leak claims ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 04:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging user who mentioned the title in the AfD discussion (with no expectation to participate, just a courtesy): Berchanhimez, Shibbolethink, Dhawk790, Czello, Chaosdruid, Jr8825, XOR'easter, Crossover1370. Also pinging users who took part in the previous merge discussion: Hemiauchenia, Dream Focus, ToBeFree. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 01:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Key points:

1. What should the qualifier be? (Ex: claims/claim, theories/theory, allegations/allegation, etc.)
2. Should the qualifier be plural or singular?

––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 01:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support claims. Much more neutral and avoids the entire issue re: hypothesis vs. theory and scientific vs. lay definitions. A claim can have mountains of proof, or no proof at all. It is perhaps one of the most neutral ways to describe this.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• It's worth considering if we can avoid a term entirely and just use COVID-19 lab leak as the title. Assuming not, I'm neutral regarding "hypothesis" v. "theory", and "claims" or "suggestion" or "discussion" aren't much worse than those first two. "Conspiracy theory" is blatantly inappropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  "Disinformation" is also blatantly inappropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  力, I think "COVID-19 lab leak" is too supportive. It presupposes that such a leak happened. It also does not really focus the WP:DUE aspects correctly imo. We need a name that demonstrates that we are talking about all the relevant leak ideas not just one such idea.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Hmm yes, it's a similar problem with "COVID-19 China cover-up", —PaleoNeonate – 02:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm very tempted to agree that it should be "hypotheses" or "theories" over a singular, as there are multiple different theories/hypotheses discussed in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  They don't appear to all be valid, however, to use "hypothesis" or "theory" to describe all of them... —PaleoNeonate – 02:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  There's certainly disagreement regarding whether "hypothesis" or "theory" or both or neither imply that the claims are true. I don't feel either word implies truth, yet I will not claim that consensus is with me. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• No official statement from me yet, but it's tricky: COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory is another relevant name, COVID-19 lab leak disinformation fits for what some have done, both are very political however while there's always the actual hypothesis, that however unlikely has not been falsified or confirmed and may never be but that some scientists agree needs investigation. Time will tell if it will always only remain claims (hypothesis fits here), but that's what we have now... If it's "COVID-19 lab leak claims" how do we also present it as a scientific hypothesis? Yet another possible variant would be "story", that some sources use. Adding "allegations" in case it makes sense... —PaleoNeonate – 02:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  The article already presents the scientific hypothesis and the less than scientific hypothesis. I think "claims" is a word that encapsulates both. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 03:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well, we first have to decide if it is just one thing. If it is two or three, then we have to separate that. The problem for me is that there were several differing theories.

1 The "leak" was either a cover up for deliberately releasing it or it genuinely escaped by accident

2 What "leaked" was manufactured there, or was brought in from somewhere else as a sample

3 It was "a few years old in the form of RAT coming from a mine", not that it "came from bats via another animal" to the market

4 It either started "when lab workers got ill at home bringing it to the market" as no proof found it was on food at the market, or it "was there from lab workers who were on lunch break" and either one was cleaned up by the government sterilising the market. After all, someone has to come up with how it was "leaked" ...

For me, the issue is that this seems like a catch-all, which is why I suggested going with a title much like the JFK conspiracy theories article.

It does feel like there are several theories all mashed up into one "it came from the lab" page.

I would happily support "Covid-19 lab leak claims", as the pluralism is very necessary IMHO; so "Covid-19 lab leak claims" with redirs from "lab-leak conspiracy theory/theories" or the much less desirable "lab-leak hypotheses" --- as well as redirs from any other possibilities.

I think you'll find that most scientists think it needs further investigation, even Daszak said so on several occasions before and after the letter, and throughout the last year. When they went there, they did look into it. It is just that it has been conflated with probability. The lab leak probability is also considered extremely low by most scientists. It took 12 years to find the source of SARS.

We have to remain neutral, so "claims". All the rest seem biased, in some way validating the claims. There is still no evidence either way on any of those 4 points. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

"most scientists think it needs further investigation" in the origin, of course, that includes the most plausible natural one (as you say, it's a difficult thing and takes time). Your points are rather convincing to me that "claims" could work... —PaleoNeonate – 03:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support claims per Shibbolethink, if that fails please consider "Allegations". Forich (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support "theory" if we're voting, and we want a neutral word, "theory" is best; it covers every epistemic value from the theory of gravity to the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Theory implies there are general principles upon which the supposition is based, but this article explains the lab leak supposition has little evidence or proof. That makes it far closer to falling under the definition of claim (to state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof). ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 04:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  theory: A working hypothesis given probability by experimental evidence or by factual or conceptual analysis…. hypothesis: A proposition tentatively assumed in order to draw out its logical or empirical consequences and so test its accord with facts that are known or may be determined. claim: An assertion, statement, or implication … often … likely to be suspected of being made without adequate justification. (M-W Unabridged.)
  

To illustrate - If Trump really did make speculative comments suggesting the virus was designed by China as a bio-weapon, that would count as a claim. (All such obvious misinformation should get added to the COVID-19 misinformation article, which already exists.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, I can't tell what side you're on here... Based on those definitions you gave, claims seems the most accurate descriptor for the title. The entire article is about the claim that COVID was leaked from the Wuhan lab. These are allegations rather than an established theory. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 14:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ambiguity of meaning does not make theory more neutral. WP:NPOV actually enjoins us to avoid vague language. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Claim, story, idea, or allegation. Not theory, that's for things carefully thought-out by experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  I completely agree, that is my issue with using "theories" as well. Also because theory implies, in my mind, that there exists already a supposition for exactly how it happened, which there does not. These are changing ideas and will continue to change as new information is presented. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 19:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• WP:CRITERIA is the article naming criteria. The WP:COMMONNAME is obviously COVID-19 lab leak theory. I don't see any policy based reason to override that. WP:NPOVNAME states the name should be used even if some editors think it's non-neutral. "COVID-19 lab leak claims" is practically never used by sources, and ironically using it would probably mean Wikipedians are substituting their POV in place of the sources, which isn't permitted by the article titles policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sources across the spectrum: [36][37][38][39][40][41][42] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  "Theory" here, cannot mean scientific theory (that is distinct from a scientific hypothesis) but the more general colloquial usage. It may be a midway compromise between claims/story and hypothesis, which makes sense (and maybe you're right that it's also a common name in the media)... —PaleoNeonate – 13:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes PaleoNeonate is right. My main concern is that theory insinuates that the claims are established, when in actuality they are still developing and being investigated and possible to change. I think the sources explain that, although they seem to be alright with labeling shifting allegations as a theory, so maybe it is fine to have that as the title. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 14:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  How do we know readers won't simply assume theory means 'scientific theory', with all that entails, rather than the more informal sense of 'idea used to account for a situation'? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC) edited 22:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  I understand the concern including that many people can't distinguish between those terms. Colloquial "theory" usage is like a guess or an idea, more than a scientific hypothesis or a scientific theory (a fact creationists play on to misrepresent evolution as "just a theory", for instance). I have a sources archive and used a series of grep/wc commands. "Theory" has many more matches relatively to "story", "idea", "hypothesis", etc. A few matches are "conspiracy theory" (the latter could well become part of the title at some point in the future too, depending; afterall so far there's much more evidence pointing at disinformation campaigns than at scientific malpractice or a non-natural origin)... —PaleoNeonate – 04:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Support theory and oppose all others as others are clearly not in line with the article titles policy. The COMMONNAME here is quite obvious, and I don't see a policy-based argument advanced to support any other suggestions. Suggest people read the policy page and make clear which section of the policy is being used as a basis for alternate proposals. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

    As XOR'easter points out, Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

    It's not inaccurate. Some editors are claiming it's inaccurate, but there's a big difference. Firstly, WP:NPOVNAME says: Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words. ... In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. Secondly, reliable sources across the political spectrum and academic journals and commentary from scholars who find the theory dubious[43][44][45] all refer to it by the same name and/or as a theory. It doesn't really seem like the place of Wikipedia to second-guess the consensus of reliable sources and scholars, and actually it seems that editors claiming that the term "theory" somehow implies the idea is credible are doing so by their own definitions of "theory", i.e. engaging in prohibited original research. It's not even accurate original research (consider, y'know, a conspiracy theory). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

    So we're just going to ignore the word "ambiguous"? Cool, cool, cool. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

    Figured you were referring to inaccurate, because "ambiguous" didn't make sense. The cite note next to the word suggests it's referring to the WP:PRECISE criteria, such as with the heart attack example, not opening the door for editors to do OR on the dictionary. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

    Should we ignore the common meanings of words? That seems to go against the core idea of recognizability. As 力 ponts out, theory is ambiguous because it can refer to a range of epistemic phenomena. Doing OR on the dictionary happens to be how we create descriptive titles and avoid vague, clichéd, and/or POV language, among other basic writing tasks. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support a page move & support COVID-19 lab leak theory, per 力 and others. Support "COVID-19 lab leak claims" as a distant second preference. Jr8825 • Talk 09:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I now support retaining "hypothesis" as a second preference to "theory", after reading the points made by editors below. I continue to prefer also support "theory" because 1) it may be the COMMONNAME and is more accessible (easily understood/recognisable) 2) I don't think the concern about it implying more scientific weight than "hypothesis" is too severe, as in common usage this isn't the case and I don't think many readers will make that distinction. Jr8825 • Talk 11:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Updated, I now think both keeping the current title (advantageous in terms of precise terminology) and renaming it "theory" (advantageous in terms of recognisability) are fine, I neither support nor oppose a change, which I guess leaves me slightly in favour of the status quo. Jr8825 • Talk 05:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  A comment on the issue of pural vs. singular. I think we should use the singular form because the subject of this article as a whole (the idea that the virus emerged from a lab) is one idea (i.e. all versions of this theory have that much in common). I think it's clearer to maintain the singular form in our title and first sentence. Shout out to ProcrastinatingReader, whose changes to the lead paragraph were incredibly helpful in my view, as even though I restored the singular phrasing of the first sentence, I think changes helped distinguish between the overarching "hypothesis/theory" and the separate versions. Jr8825 • Talk 14:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support theory a page move & support for it being named COVID-19 lab leak theory as 力 and others have said. If not then support "claims" over the current wording.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DukeLondon (talk • contribs) 12:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support nearly any reasonable qualifier in the title. "Hypothesis", "Hypotheses", "Theory", and "Claims" all have their benefits and downsides, but any would probably be 'good enough' for being clear enough to most people that it's a possibility (rather than a certainty or a conspiracy) without agonizing over the edge cases. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support rename to "COVID-19 lab leak theory" (or theories) - WP:COMMONNAME is a policy-based argument that convinced me with the examples provided above, and although "theory" could be considered misleading in a scientific sense, is the colloquial usage (and better than hypothesis). —PaleoNeonate – 15:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I’m not opposed to “‘’’theories’’’” I would say it’s my close second. But I do think the pluralism is important, given that we aim to address multiple theories where most sources are considering one at a time, or conflating them all into one. Most scientific sources use “theories” although many also say “conspiracy theories.” Of course I think it’s fine to use just “theories.” Per COMMONNAME.—Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Raw data from a somewhat related discussion at AfD: hypothesis 25; hypothesis or theory (per COMMONNAME) 4; claims (per NPOV) 3; misinformation 3; conspiracy theory 2; conspiracy theories 1; investigations 1; other 2; — (didn't say) 15. -Dervorguilla (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Dervorguilla, It's truly not very appropriate to include the AfD votes given that the rename wasn't the topic most were addressing. Renaming and the merits of various names was also not part of the initial AfD explanation, which further muddies the water. Overall, those who were supporting "keep" do not automatically support "keeping the name." To say otherwise feels very disingenuous to me, because those voters also cannot defend themselves here.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I trust it's obvious to readers of this thread that "AfD" means Articles for deletion. I accordingly expect them to understand that those who were supporting "keep" do not automatically support "keeping the name." I don't believe I need to tell them what they already know. (What some may not have known is that 16 voters did voluntarily suggest other names, even though that wasn't the topic.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support "claims" — as the article already indicates, there isn't just one version of the idea, so having a singular term in the title is just wrong. I don't see how WP:COMMONNAME comes down absolutely in favor of "theories"; as it says, Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. This opens up room to avoid the connotations of "theory" noted above. Of the various proposals made so far, "claims" seems the least bad, and I haven't thought of a better one. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support "theory" or "claims". Theory is the most common name as follows from Google searches. "Claims" is a good descriptive title per above. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support "theory". The WP:COMMONNAME is obviously COVID-19 lab leak theory. In plain English, a theory is a neutral proposal of a cause which can be confirmed or disproved. Renaming to "Claims" is non-neutral and can therefore be considered as an attempt to influence readers. (Alain Pannetier (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC))

  @Alain Pannetier: It should be plural though, should it not? The word "theories" is more accurate than the singular "theory" because there is more than one idea. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 22:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  @FormalDude:. Agreed. There are a number of unnatural or coincidental observations that can be parsimoniously elicited by one or more of the distinct lab-leak theory variants. Since all these theories have in common, at some point a human factor, bundling them under a common article makes perfect sense. Hence the preferred "Lab leak theories", more informative article title, also matching readers expectations. (Alain Pannetier (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC))

  @Alain Pannetier: Could you change your comment to show "theories" since that's what you're supporting? ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 23:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's actually just one idea, that it leaked from a lab. The bioweapon theory is rarely classified as the object under discussion in sources discussing the theory. In any case, as per the analysis I gave above, "COVID-19 lab leak theories" does not exist in reliable sources. Just Google it and try finding any results. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: What about the 'Versions' section of this article? I see that's been discussed elsewhere on this page, but it still lends to the premise that there are multiple ideas/theories/claims as to how it leaked from a lab. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 01:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support rename to "COVID-19 lab leak theory" since that is common name. Doesn't have to be scientifically accurate, the word "theory" is used for other reasons. Dream Focus 23:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Has "allegation(s)" been proposed? I think that would be the best fit. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Suggest "Allegations of...". My proposal is that the article name becomes "Allegations of COVID-19 lab leak." This would align with COMMONNAME, I think, and remove some of the potential bias of both "hypothesis" and "theory". The latter word still retains the potential for finger-pointing and assumption of guilt which we should try to avoid. doktorb _words^deeds 04:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support "theories", the article captures more than one version already, it should be a plural, and should align to the fact these theories have been proposed from clinical and academic communities over a significant period of time and were included in the formal WHO global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2; claim implies merely an ascertain without any evidence which is not the case here. Aeonx (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Neither theories nor claims implies an ascertain without any evidence. Theories and claims are both just suppositions, though theories will more often have evidence, and claims will more often not. But again, neither a theory nor a claim technically needs to have evidence. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 06:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose theory. Wikipedia uses an encyclopedic register, not a journalistic one, and in that context theory will undoubtedly lead many readers to assume that this is a scientific theory supported by rigorous experimental testing, instead of what it is, a hypothesis in need of further evidence. Clarity and neutrality of description outweigh commonality IMO. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Well, "lab leak" is clearly not science. But something like "allegations of" (see above) would also work just fine. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  How do we know readers won't be misled by the word theory into thinking that it is science? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  A theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain one or more observations in a consistent, holistic manner. E.g. Big Bang Theory. There are a number of observations about SARS-CoV-2, that have puzzled epidemiologists, virologists, immunologists, and microbiologists in their respective domains, that can be more parsimoniously explained by a human factor. Especially when one considers recent techniques of Reverse genetics that were proved to be commonly used in the Wuhan labs. Nothing unscientific here. (Alain Pannetier (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC))

  Is this your own original research, or can you demonstrate that this is the prevailing view among reliable, scientific sources? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  By setting the bar as high as "prevailing view" you are implicitly admitting that this is at least a minority view. Just as there are other acceptable minority theories for other phenomena. My understanding is that Wikipedia is not in the business of selecting which theory people should prefer, but to faithfully reflect the body of evidence and ideas encompassed by such theories. Using 'claim' or 'allegation' is a blatant attempt to influence readers. At least admit it. (Alain Pannetier (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)).

  You want me to admit to something I've never tried to do? For the record, I support hypothesis as the most neutral and accurate term. See also WP:OTHERCONTENT, WP:GEVAL, and WP:PROFRINGE. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  "Wikipedia is not in the business of selecting which theory people should prefer" is mistaken as well as wrongly worded: WP should clearly express the mainstream scientific view, the scientific consensus. For now, this is that some scientists advocate for further investigation other than the natural origins, that public opinion is confused about it, but that a fully natural origin is the most plausible. "Claims" would therefore also be appropriate, if COMMONNAME was not policy. —PaleoNeonate – 08:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep the hypothesis title, as it is not yet a complete theory, and per reason given by Sangdeboeuf. Sgnpkd (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Sgnpkd: Do you have an opinion on whether it should be kept singular (hypothesis) or made plural (hypotheses)? ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 20:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support "theory": "Claims" is clearly NPOV compared to the current title, it is leading language that implies it has no weight, in the same manner as you might write, "the ghost hunter claimed he saw a phantom in the haunted house". The lab leak theory was supported by numerous legitimate scientists. Theory is the more WP:COMMONAME and therefore the one that should be used._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm: Do you have an opinion on whether it should be kept singular (theory) or made plural (theories)? ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 20:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  I believe it should be kept singular. While there are different variations of it (manmade vs natural, etc.), they are just permutations of one theory, that it leaked from a lab. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support "claims" per nomination. Would also support any of the proposed options except "hypothesis", "theory", or their plurals. All options are equally recognizable so WP:UCRN is not a very relevant argument, and that naming criterion is not synonymous with Google hits. VQuakr (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Hypothesis or theory. Oppose POV titles like Allegations and claims. Theory is already plural, so no to theories.--Francesco espo (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think the idea that theory would accurately capture multiple individual distinct and unrelated suppositions is incorrect; the word theories exists for reason, to collectively refer to multiple theory occurrences. Taking the view that that non-countative use of the word 'theory' to encompass these separate and distinguishable ideas lumps them together as simply the same, they are not. Aeonx (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Prefer "hypothesis" and support "theory" per above - these are the most neutral terms and are what sources use, although "hypothesis" seems more accurate. Oppose "claims" - this is very much POV and contrary to a guideline for just this, WP:CLAIM: To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. It's not 2020 anymore - the idea that a lab leak is just some political conspiracy theory is outdated. While it's still a minority view, some scientists take it seriously and say it needs to be investigated further, as stated in this letter in the prominent journal Science: Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable. [46] Crossroads ^-talk- 03:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• These are claims. In fact they're woo, but we can't say woo in an article title. They have no supporting evidence and have been manufactured by US politicians to meet the needs of US politicians. Hardly anyone outside the US gives them any credence at all, and quite rightly.—S Marshall T/C 08:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, your opinion on this matter is irrelevant to the renaming of this page. 2600:1012:B049:3FD5:F841:3DBE:5488:A017 (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry to contradict you, but the whole purpose of this discussion is for Wikipedians to express our opinions. This is how we decide things.—S Marshall T/C 18:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It says on this page that this is not a place for discussing the article's subject. Surely you knew that I was referring to your opinions about the lab leak idea and not your opinion about the article's title. Thank you for your warm welcome. 2600:1012:B049:3FD5:F841:3DBE:5488:A017 (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• My position is that the article's title should reflect the article's content, and the article's content clearly demonstrates that these claims are unsupported by evidence and resoundingly doubted by the experts. They are a useful talking point for US politicians who substitute repetition for evidence. My position is that we should say so, and the article title should take into account our rules and policies about misinformation and pseudoscience ("woo", in my comment above). The specific rule that I want to apply is aptly expressed at WP:TINFOILHAT: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." We shouldn't dignify this claptrap with words like "hypothesis" or "theory".—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

(Same person here)...Lab leaks aren't pseudoscience...especially when the alleged "mainstream" view has not been confirmed, while investigations into the "alternative" explanation are being stymied by the country that would be liable if it was proven true. No credible intermediary host has been identified and some experts, early on, entertained the possibility (Dr. Andersen of UCSD). Your labeling relies on extremely shaky denials by the chinese communist party who were extremely opaque about the virus from the beginning. You are advocating for a robust focus on scientific opinion (fine) while focusing exclusively on how politicians have used this idea for political purposes. If you ignore the politicians, there are quite a few experts who are open to the possibility, and if that is so, whatever "tin foil" justification you just gave ironically gives credence to what non-scientists say (some politicians have an extremely horrible grasp of science and technology) and subsequently degrades the quality of the encyclopedia. If you want to avoid incorporating pseudoscience into wikipedia, you should stop bringing up what politicians say. 174.193.195.2 (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC) — 174.193.195.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I join issue with you on almost everything you say there. They are pseudoscience: Claims without evidence that few experts are willing to take seriously. It is not "communist" to say so, and indeed, in reaching this view, I have given no credence at all to the Chinese Communist Party. US politicians, and their echo chambers in the US media, are amplifying this noise to such an extent that it risks drowning out the signal. (I am utterly appalled to observe the disgraceful, craven coverage of the matter given by my countrymen in the BBC.) The preponderance of reputable authorities agree on a zoonotic origin for COVID-19 and, as encyclopaedists, it's our duty to be very clear about this, in article titles as well as their content.—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall: It's not pseudoscience because it's not so "obviously bogus" that we can call it that in wikivoice without additional justification. It's probably more accurately described as questionable science because there's no evidence for it, although there's always a possibility, however slim, that the evidence could change in the future. "Unsupported by evidence and resoundingly doubted by the experts" ≠ unanimously rejected by experts. TINFOILHAT doesn't apply until the strongly favoured hypothesis (natural origin) is conclusively proven, or the lab leak theory is conclusively disproven. We can report the characterisation of the theory as pseudoscience by some scientists, but we shouldn't be treating the subject of the article as a whole as pseudoscience at this moment in time. Jr8825 • Talk 13:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall: While I agree the theory is lacking significant reliable evidence, I believe it's clearly against policy to label all lab leak possibilities as pseudoscience. Per WP:FRINGE/QS Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point. If it were unambiguously pseudoscientific, then the WHO wouldn't have investigated (and continue to investigate) the possibility. I continue to advocate that most lab leak possibilities are WP:FRINGE/ALT instead: To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

And since most reliable sources don't treat it as pseudoscience at this time, neither can WP... —PaleoNeonate – 20:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

(Same IP here)...I'm not saying "lab leak" "ideas" are really even scientific, let alone pseudoscientific. Investigation will require complex science, but the idea itself is too mundane to label scientific or pseudoscientific. I'm thinking languge like "proposal" or "explanation" or "proposed explanation" is ideal, but not ideal for the title. So I do think "hypothesis" could be replaced with a better word, but I can't think of it. I will say that it is interesting that actual pseudoscience is treated with what some editors here would characterize as radical dignity...check out Cold Fusion. Maybe "COVID-19 lab leak" is the best possible title that is hiding in plain sight. Deep breaths...let the cortisol decline...you only live once...you will have the best time of your life with the "COVID-19 lab leak" title. 2600:1010:B061:E35E:D007:98BE:6722:39DF (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

While I appreciate the simplicity, I'm definitely concerned that "COVID-19 lab leak" would be interpreted as an event that definitely happened, rather than a "proposed explanation". I think we're better off with a little less simplicity and brevity (within reason, adding a dozen words to the title would clearly be absurd) if it avoids misconceptions about the content. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

"COVID-19 lab leak" is an awful title because it suggests that something there's no evidence for is a fact. Jr8825 • Talk 17:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support "hypothesis" unless we are also going to characterize explanations which involve natural origin as "claims" in the same article since both are viable explanations without confirmatory evidence. Many of the influential people who are calling for a lab leak investigation aren't saying it is fact. These people are not making "claims" and it is unfair to characterize those voices and views as such. 2600:1012:B049:3FD5:F841:3DBE:5488:A017 (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC) — 2600:1012:B049:3FD5:F841:3DBE:5488:A017 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  That's your opinion (it very well might be the opinion of some politicians or journalists, but see, this isn't a popularity context). Qualified scientists writing in papers reviewed by their peers say stuff like "There is a strong evidence that SARS‐CoV‐2 virus originated in bats; however, the intermediate animal host is still unknown." [47] and "Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory." [48], as well as "The other issue to be addressed beside the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is how this virus infected human beings at the first place. The marginal conspiracy theory of a voluntary released of an engineered virus forwarded by the press, blogs and politicians (Sutton, 2020; Everington, 2020) is not supported by any data (Calisher et al., 2020; Fowdy, 2020). This hypothesis of voluntary release has an impact on part of the population experiencing fear and distress, especially because there is still no clear explanation for the route of SARS-CoV-2 infection. There is consensus within the scientific community to consider that SARS-CoV-2 has not been engineered and is a naturally occurring virus." [49]. Or even referring just to the "accidental lab leak": "Therefore, although a laboratory accident can never be definitively excluded, there is currently no evidence to support it." Now, Frutos seems to use both "theory" and "hypothesis", almost interchangeably, so that doesn't help, and it isn't an issue I really care about. However, your comment about "no evidence" is wrong according to high-quality sources on the topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Good morning, can you please explain what you mean by "no evidence"? I see no reason to write a full response until you address this. 2600:1010:B061:E35E:D007:98BE:6722:39DF (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Why would I need to quote your own posts to you? You wrote: "both are viable explanations without confirmatory evidence"... That is, according to reliable sources, patently false. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are misquoting me because you see no difference in meaning between "without confirmatory evidence" and "no evidence", in the interest of WP:AGF, I highly recommend watching a few episodes of Law & Order as a fun way to learn. 2600:1012:B027:8D2D:31B7:867F:6700:299C (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

That's besides the point. It seems like you're try to say both natural and unnatural origins are viable explanations because neither have been fully confirmed. That's wrong because both have been studied extensively, and reliable sources clearly indicate that a natural origin is the most likely. Scientific evidences are not a black-and-white all-or-nothing situations, they're a consensus that develops over time.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 00:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I do not recognize "theory" or "hypothesis", but neither. --49.150.98.214 (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Lol we're not calling it "COVID-19 lab leak" sorry. ––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 23:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• support claims As noted above, that's where we are right now. Lots of claims, but little evidence. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support theory - Largely per common name, and an accurate description of what it is. The others come off as a little POV for my taste, specifically ones like claims or allegations. PackMecEng (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  Has the lab-leak "theory" been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method? If not, then it's not a theory in the scientific sense. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• I propose Covid Lab Leak Conjectures. To me, conjecture (statement/conclusion without sufficient proof/evidence/information) sounds less POV and more formal than "claim" (which carries the POV connotation of being potentially false), yet at the same time it avoids labeling these ideas as hypotheses, a hypothesis being a tentative proposed model of events formulated to be verified / proven by testing, i.e. a testable well-formulated conjecture. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and verified to be true.--Zaheen (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Zaheen I doubt anyone who sees "claims" as somehow being too NPOV would not see "conjectures" in the same light. That said, I think conjectures is also a very good option for the retitle because it is precise and accurate. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support "claims" (plural), as the article encompasses multiple ideas that range from "plausible but unlikely" (accidental) to "complete conspiracy" (bioengineering). While "theor(y/ies)" is the WP:COMMONNAME, it is mostly used when referring to the accidental leak, and not the bioengineering one. "Claims" would give the best balance when discussing both the plausible and conspiracies than "theor(y/ies)", which gives too much credence to the bioengineering conspiracy. "Allegations" as mentioned above would also work as a second option. Jumpytoo Talk 00:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• The current hypothesis is that the virus emerged in or close to Wuhan, China, where it was first detected, but so far no direct ancestor to the virus has been found…. (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, “Coronaviruses”) The ECDC is a preeminent (and comparatively technocratic) international public-health authority. It’s using the term "hypothesis" to describe the idea that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in China. We can likewise use it to describe the idea that the virus emerged specifically at WIV. Not "theory" (too strong). See COMMONNAME re usage of major international organizations. –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC) 01:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The Joint WHO-China Study specifically describes the rumours of a leak from the laboratory. So "rumor" may be also OK per COMMONNAME (term used by major international organizations). –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support theory, and weak oppose hypothesis. Hypothesis is a more scientific-specific term. Theory, as is one of the better options for keeping it neutral. As 力 said "it covers every epistemic value from the theory of gravity to the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship". Further, as PaleoNeonate noted "Colloquial 'theory' usage is like a guess or an idea, more than a scientific hypothesis or a scientific theory ", and as ProcrastinatingReader pointed out "theory" may be more aligned with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOVNAME, for theory being a more commonly used name in the news. Al83tito (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support "theory" per 力. feminist (+) 07:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep "hypothesis" - I think there is a lot of misunderstanding on what the lab leak hypothesis being investigated by science is. Scientists have already debunked the possibility of genetic engineering, but scientists have also found it pretty plausible that COVID-19 may have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institue of Virology, just as it has happened with other viruses dozens of times. [50] [51] [52] As politicized as the lab leak hypothesis is, and with very little evidence supporting it, it is also worth noting that researchers have very little evidence to suggest that COVID-19 has natural origins either. It is completely possible that we may never know where COVID-19 originated, but this is not the place to discuss this. Aasim (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Theories, on the other hand, are drawn from one's own experience. A hypothesis is the subject of scientific inquiry. Aasim (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Awesome Aasim: The theory of gravity, theory of relativity, big bang theory, etc. are all scientific inquiries.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 23:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Theory from Wiktionary: "A description of an event or system that is considered to be accurate."

  Hypothesis from Wiktionary: "Used loosely, a tentative conjecture explaining an observation, phenomenon or scientific problem that can be tested by further observation, investigation and/or experimentation. As a scientific term of art, see the attached quotation. Compare to theory, and quotation given there."

  May also want to look at Lexico's definitions of both: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/theory https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/hypothesis. Hypothesis is the starting point, theory is the result. Aasim (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well that's a fair point but it wasn't the one you were making in your initial comment.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 23:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  This is a good time to remind everyone that we base titles off the Wikipedia:Article titles policy. The closer should disregard all comments – including maybe 1/3 of those in this section – that have no basis in that policy. That includes words based on editors' personal feelings on the theory, in both directions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2021 (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.