Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

NYT article on China's political alteration of COVID research

I've posted about this before, but we haven't reached consensus. A recent NYT article[1] is explicit:

That the Chinese government muzzled scientists, hindered international investigations and censored online discussion of the pandemic is well documented. But Beijing’s stranglehold on information goes far deeper than even many pandemic researchers are aware of. Its censorship campaign has targeted international journals and scientific databases, shaking the foundations of shared scientific knowledge, a New York Times investigation found.

Under pressure from their government, Chinese scientists have withheld data, withdrawn genetic sequences from public databases and altered crucial details in journal submissions. Western journal editors enabled those efforts by agreeing to those edits or withdrawing papers for murky reasons, a review by The Times of over a dozen retracted papers found.

The phrase "altered crucial details in journal submissions" is particularly troubling. We should not treat journal articles with authorship by people who live in China as reliable sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

We have had discussions about this, and they had either no consensus or a consensus against (basically every editor besides a handful who often advocate for the lab leak). e.g. [2][3][4][5] This is clearly a case-by-case basis situation.
What has changed? The opinion of the NYT? Not particularly reliable for science content. I have no idea what they mean by altered crucial details in journal submissions and no examples have been provided. Do they just mean rewriting parts of articles before publication during the review process? That is extremely normal, and a good thing. Do they mean this? (correcting submission dates a few months after publication, with a formal correction)? That's also a very normal part of the process, and has no bearing on the reliability of the overall publication. Those dates are not/were not important to our article. All of this is probably reliable to discuss the Chinese government's efforts to censor discussion about the lab leak, but we already discuss that in the article, in the lead and the body. With great citations for it.
We also already use extremely few (if any) of the papers written by Chinese nationals without attribution. I think there are maybe 1 or 2 instances where the content is either already supported by non-Chinese publications, or the content is attributed (e.g. Shi on her own lab's research).
This argument also ignores the role of peer review and editorial judgment. (both the journals' and our own). We very carefully do not take the Chinese government or its scientists at face value in this and other articles, just as we do not do so for the US government, or the French or any other government. Where is this widespread use of Chinese publications that are somehow "tainted"? And how is that "taint" directly in conflict with their reliability for the content cited? That is what you need to show, not simply that a paper is from someone born in China. The RfC closure last year from Szmenderowiecki was very clear on this: in order to make a proper close on the question as asked, hundreds of voices about all topics liable to censorship would have to be solicited with showing of how the censorship impacts the reliability of the academic works. This has not happened here, and I hardly imagine it happening anywhere...a much narrower question must be designed to resolve the underlying content dispute
I would also remind the OP of this comment from Corinal in January of last year: "CutePeach is also forumshopping by posting this same thing on multiple pages, I believe in an attempt to find editors who have not fully looked into the discussion to read the loaded question and say no." — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Per the excerpt "Western journal editors enabled those efforts by agreeing to those edits or withdrawing papers for murky reasons", the NYT is saying that editorial judgment is also corrupted. Also, per 'Journals that want to sell subscriptions in China or publish Chinese research often bend to the government’s demands. “Scientific publishers have really gone out of their way to placate the censorship requests.”' The NYT is clearly saying that scientific journals cannot be trusted in this area. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
So you want to use a nonscientific source to accuse scientific sources of telling lies? Exactly what makes them experts of per review? Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't take an expert in virology to recognize conflicts of interest. The question of covid origins has become inherently politicized, so the ulterior motives of every source should be taken into consideration. Considering does not mean censoring, however. Sennalen (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Shibbolethink Wrt to my closure from last year, it was inconclusive because the question was overbroad and the discussion only concerned COVID. If that discussion's question had been whether we can trust Chinese scientists on the COVID-19 topic given this, this and this concern, and these and these allegations of scientific fraud or extremely dubious behaviour, and if the term "Chinese scientists" had been well-defined, then probably there would have been some other closure and I wouldn't have been the closer. The RfC on this topic might be totally legitimate and feature a lot of material to decide the closure on, but I want all users to make appropriate research to that end. The more relevant scientific articles/credible books/good articles, the better. Less bickering, more sources. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
If there are any specific allegations against particular authors or around particular papers they should be raised at WP:RSN. I don't think ignoring the scientific work of a whole group other a newspaper report is warranted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The New York Times is still the paper of record. It isn't merely a "newspaper report". They do investigative reporting; as Sennalen said, the NYT has seen fit to broach the possibility of conflict of interest/ moral hazard between scientific integrity versus journal editorial, business interests, and government censorship. I realize peer review has been found vulnerable but is the best we have. This is a rather unusual situation though. We should have some alternative viewpoint language, along with credible sources cited, regarding the lab leak hypothesis. We can still call it WP:FRINGE. In my opinion, to omit inclusion of anything at all in the article gives an appearance of extreme bias or even neglect (i.e. no one was interested enough to bother updating the article). What would constitute adequate sourcing in order to permit a sentence or even a single phrase in the lead, along with at least one full sentence in the body of the article with sources, regarding the recently increased plausibility of a lab leak origin? I would be satisfied with that. We have U.S. senators, U.S. congressmen, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, the FBI, and the U.S. Department of Energy discussing the possibility of a lab leak origin. I will check on the latest commentary by Richard Ebright. He has expressed other, different concerns (e.g. about matters pertaining to the U.S. National Institute of Health and COVID19 which need not be mentioned here). He is certainly credible and doesn't speculate carelessly. Some virologists have said that it will be difficult to ever ascertain exactly what the origin of SARS-COV-2 is, without full disclosure by China and WIV, which isn't likely.--FeralOink (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Regardless of all the caveats, at the end of the day, this article should follow the normal WP:NPOV formula: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Sennalen (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
... while being sure to omit fringe stuff unless it can be placed in the context of a mainstream view, of course! Bon courage (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Lab leak can easily be placed in context of the mainstream view that it is plausible and supported by a great deal of circumstantial evidence. Sennalen (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
supported by a great deal of circumstantial evidence
I don't believe this language is supported by our BESTSOURCES. Maybe "supported by some circumstantial evidence" — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Have any of the best sources actually used the term 'circumstantial evidence'? That's a law term and might not be a useful way of expressing for the reader. Aside from maybe some genetic evidence which i don't understand all could be said to be 'circumstantial'. But that's part of the pseudoscience right, demanding indefeasible evidence that a lab leak didn't happen? There are some good sources discussing this: remaining viable scenarios indistinguishable for natural origin, demands for evidence beyond what we would normally see, etc. So "supported by some circumstantial evidence", what is that some evidence, and evidence of what exactly, and does it really "support" anything? fiveby(zero) 15:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, I don't know of any very high quality sources which use that language not in a quote or paraphrase. Actually the highest quality sources we have say there is "no evidence" for the lab leak. Circumstantial evidence is just a term that a lot of people use in these conversations, but I'm not aware of any sources which use it.
Unreliable sources certainly do, but not reliable ones (e.g. Congressional republicans: [6][7][8][9]
These use the phrase, but I think they are often paraphrasing the senate report, and they're mostly news "analysis" (less reliable) saying it in passing, not an in-depth exploration of what it means: [10][11][12][13][14] or quoting well-known lab leak proponents like Ebright: [15] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for grabbing those. Personally i wouldn't quibble with someone saying either "evidence" or "no evidence", just an epistemological argument. But justifying a belief based on a "preponderance of circumstantial evidence" is almost an outright admission of viewing only a subset of the evidence, so best to keep "circumstantial" in quotes if it has to be in the article. fiveby(zero) 15:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
They aren't all paraphrasing the Senate report. For example:
  • "some scientists say circumstantial evidence points to the virus having escaped from a lab, possibly the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which had deep expertise in researching coronaviruses" (NYT).
  • "Lack of answers about the origins of Covid-19 and an accumulation of circumstantial evidence have led some scientists, the Biden administration and the World Health Organization to argue that the lab leak theory needs more study. If only China was cooperating." (CNN)
But, yes, fine IMO to say something along the lines of some scientists say there is no evidence for lab leak, others say there is circumstantial evidence for a lab leak. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Hang on just one blessed moment. Just a few days ago we were being told on this very Talk page[16] that "preponderance of circumstantial evidence" was so obviously not support for LL, and so obviously deserving of just a good chuckle, that there was no need to qualify it. But now editors are wanting Wikipedia to frame this whack-a-jack stuff seriously. WTF? if we're going to mention this stuff at all we need relevant framing sources to explain it's BS. Bon courage (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed if this is mentioned it must be framed in the current scientific consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
This thread is about disregarding an entire nations worth of scientific work, no matter who is reporting what any discussion of doing so should be done at WP:RSN through a publicised RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Is it, which nation? Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Per the OP We should not treat journal articles with authorship by people who live in China as reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I think both their source and the OP are stating that scientists and journals outside of China were helping to cover up the lab leak. Which to me is far more of a problem. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
That is a problem, but those are the OPs exact words. Also if others have taken action to cover anything up these are still very broad allegations. They may be worth mentioning in the article, but using them challenge the reliability of swathes of work isn't something to be decided on an articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, I was referring to COVID-related articles, as was the NYT. No concern about pure mathematics for example. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Whatever, this discussion is off-topic and disruptive here. To talk about the reliability of an entire category of publication, WP:RS/N is thataway. Or try WT:MED. Ebright's stuff is a joke (even among the lableak stans I think). Bon courage (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
"Whatever?" That is rude and dismissive. But then, you consider "Ebright's stuff" to be a joke. "Stans"? Okay, you know best. Better than all the PhD virologists and molecular biologists and biochemists who work for the U.S. government and FBI and at the 10 US Dept of Energy BSL4s. And you also know better than Ebright and the New York Times. Understood! I clearly have no place here. Bon courage!--FeralOink (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
According to WP:RS, Ebright is "a total conspiracy theorist".[17] So yeah, Wikipedia ain't going there. This Project is required to reflect accepted knowledge about topics as published in great sources. Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Richard Ebright is an actively publishing molecular biologist, advising members of congress, and sought for quotes by NYT, WashPo, Salon, Science Magazine, and others. David Gorski's opinions in his political group blog aren't useful here. Sennalen (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, no. Because WP:SBM is a great source for fringe science as established by community consensus. I don't think there's any disagreement about any 'significance' of the views. But not in the way LL supporters think maybe. Bon courage (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
If you find a fringe science topic, knock yourself out. Sennalen (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe you should establish a consensus that this isn't a fringe (or fringe-adjacent) topic before saying that. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I see no consensus that this is a fringe topic. 82.154.97.56 (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
All?, I am unsure if there is unanimity in the US government about the lab leak idea. Can you please provide a source that says there is? Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
They isn't unanimity, and if there is such a source, it is incorrect. Let's try to stay on topic in this section. Contrary to a suggestion above, discussion of sourcing on an article's talk page is both normal and appropriate. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
No agreement for We should not treat journal articles with authorship by people who live in China as reliable sources. is going to stick if it's at a talk page level. For anything so wide ranging you need to go to RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Late to the party, but agree that this question is too broad to be decided here and should be decided at RSN. JustinReilly (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
But, IMJ, lab leak hypothesis is clearly not fringe.
Also, origin is not solely a medical or scientific question. There is other evidence that clearly is relevant that is not medical or scientific, such as satellite pics from the early fall of hospitals parking lots overflowing and streets surrounding WIV being shut down. JustinReilly (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
There is other evidence that clearly is relevant that is not medical or scientific, such as satellite pics from the early fall of hospitals parking lots overflowing and streets surrounding WIV being shut down
What WP:RSes say this? Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not possible speculation or misinformation from unreliable sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, those are just examples of why, IMJ, it’s broader than just a medical and scientific issue. I agree that to be in the article it needs to be from a RS and I don’t know if it is. The findings were made in some journal, but it is a primary source.
I don’t know if any reliable secondary sources have made the claim and if not, I agree we shouldn’t include it. JustinReilly (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC: How should we describe DRASTIC?

How should the article introduce DRASTIC?

  • A: a collection of internet activists vociferously supporting the lab leak idea, with the below refs to The New Yorker, The Hindu, and Nature (status quo. I will start a list of refs below shortly.)
  • B: a collection of internet researchers searching documents for information about COVID-19, with the below refs to The New Yorker, Nature, Vanity Fair, and the Washington Post.
  • C: Something else. Please specify.

Adoring nanny (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

C.2: "a collection of internet activists advocating for the lab leak theory" c/o Shibbolethink
C.3: "a loose knit online group researching and advocating for the lab leak idea" c/o Tristario
Extremely pertinent details for this RFC opening statement:
  1. List of sources below detailing how our best available sources describe the group
  2. Prior RFCs at Talk:DRASTIC from July 2021 and October 2021 were withdrawn and closed in favor of "internet activists", respectively.
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


Survey

  • Option B. The strongest source is the WaPo. This description is close to theirs. One difference is that the WaPo limits it to Chinese documents. But as USER:firefangledfeathers said, that's too narrow, so I've left it out. Furthermore, the New Yorker, The Hindu, the WaPo, and Vanity Fair all describe DRASTIC finding documents with information. I will document that under discussion. As a second choice, I could get behind Option C1 from USER:Slatersteven as a reasonable compromise. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. Procedural close. We already had this RfC less than 18 months ago[18] and nothing substantial has changed. Bon courage (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
    I search the prior RfC in vain for a consensus that the WaPo source should be excluded. I similarly search it in vain for a consensus on the phrase "vociferously supporting the lab leak idea". Both were issues raised by your revert.[19] Adoring nanny (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
    One extra source with nothing new in it does not merit a new RfC. Because this is an article about lab leaks (not DRASTIC) we need some text to explain who they are. You text is borderline illiterate anyway: what are "internet researchers"? researchers into the internet? or researchers using only the internet? And they're not looking for information on "COVID-19" (a disease) but viruses and laboratories. This is why launching RfCs without WP:RFCBEFORE is a bad idea and, here, disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
    I'm open to improvements in the wording. I made efforts above at WP:COMPROMISE. I didn't see any reciprocation. Hence the RfC. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
    An internet researcher is someone who knows how to google a word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
    Or maybe they use Gopher? Bon courage (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Between the two, B is more encyclopedic in tone. There are several claims to unpack about DRASTIC
  1. They are an online group
  2. They include scientists and amateurs
  3. They search for covid origins
  4. They investigate leaked documents
  5. They favor lab leak theories
  6. They are sometimes rude or zealous
It will take 2-3 sentences to cover all the facets. Sennalen (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option C. "a collection of internet activists". Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Options A or C.2: "a collection of Internet activists advocating for the lab leak theory" with a side of bad RFC. A is supported by more sources and the highest quality sources (The New Yorker is at least on par with WaPo and probably better quality given the depth of reporting, neutrality, and balance of perspectives in the article.) Other than being from a certain pro-DRASTIC perspective, I cannot think of a reason why WaPo would be considered higher quality. My alternative suggestion can maybe allay some concerns about balancing out "aggressive" from the sources, but still including the number of sources and prior RFC on Talk:DRASTIC which indicate "activist" is the best descriptor. This is a bad RFC because it gave no chance for RFCBEFORE, or to have any other input besides OP in the options. This splits the discussion and inappropriately sidelines alternative choices, making it more difficult for options besides their own to achieve consensus. The RFC top post is also non-neutral, in that it leaves out pertinent information (e.g. the RFC at Talk:DRASTIC, which is extremely pertinent. OP should consider withdrawing and reopening after a period where others can help formulate options. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Notifying prior RFC participants and noticeboards, wikiprojects.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Notifying: User:217.35.76.147, Graham Beards, JoelleJay, Pyrite Pro, Francesco espo, Hemiauchenia, Paine Ellsworth, PaleoNeonate, Dervorguilla, Gimiv, LondonIP, Bwmdjeff, JPxG, Bakkster Man, Geogene, JohnFromPinckney, Animalparty, Morbidthoughts, Zoozaz1, Daveosaurus, Hob Gadling, PraiseVivec, Idealigic, Terjen, Sea Ane, Isaidnoway, XOR'easter, Forich, Modify, J mareeswaran, My very best wishes, BristolTreeHouse, Orangemike, Novem Linguae, JonRichfield, HalfdanRagnarsson, Thriley, Ali Ahwazi, Alaexis, ModernDayTrilobite— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: The Fringe theories noticeboard, NPOV noticeboard, and WikiProject COVID-19 have been notified of this discussion.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Bad RfC, first of all, for the reasons that Shibbolethink explained. I also echo the concerns that the phrasing "Internet researchers" just doesn't make sense. A is acceptable; C.2 is more drab but also generally fine. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option A or C.2. Given the number RSes listed below that have caveat words (such as amateur sleuths in the WaPo) that apply to at least some members, I think B by itself lacks needed meaning from the sources. I am not a huge fan of "vociferously" but I think including that nuance is good so for now A then C.2. Skynxnex (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option A or C.2 for NPOV. If we're going to mention this group we need some context to say who they and need to avoid falsely implying they're a "research body" on a par with the respectable and relevant experts in the field. NPOV isn't negotiable. Bon courage (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option C.1 or C.2 as second preference oppose anything else. If anyone wants to overturn the RFC at the DRASTIC article they should start at the talk page of that article, not by trying to fudge the issue here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C.2>A, per the discussion above. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I am stunned. Did you guys discuss this during last two years? I think C by Slatersteven should be good. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah it's a bad RfC. Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C.2 is most succinct, I think. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking at the collection of sources below - maybe it isn't a representative sample - it appears that none of them specifically use the term "activist". "Activist" has different connotations to the various other terms which are used by the sources listed below, such as "sleuth", "loose-knit group", "amature investigative team", "advocates" etc. So I don't see how the use of the term "activists" would follow WP:NPOV here - if a word like that were to be used "advocates" at least seems like it would be closer to what the general balance of sources seem to say. Is my perception of this wrong? --Tristario (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    We should be summarizing in our our words rather than copying words from sources, so the question is: is this a fair summary. I think considering that RS call the group such things 'aggressive', 'advocates' and 'guerrilla lab-leak snoops'[20] then yes, it is a fair summary. Bon courage (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    "Activist" is a fairly specific term. If not even one source refers to them that way then I'm pretty unconvinced this complies with WP:NPOV. People and groups can be aggressive and advocates - and many are both of those things - without being activists. And also from the sources below there appears to be only one (The new yorker) that uses either "aggressive" or "advocates". Tristario (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    It's up to you to !vote as you wish then, but we should reflect the things found in RS rather than synthesize a position, and avoid reading into sources things from what they don't say. Bon courage (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    I think it bears mentioning that "investigating" and "sleuthing" aren't the only things that the sources say this group does. The sources also describe aggressive advocacy of the pro-lab leak position, harassment of scientists and journalists who are critical of the lab leak idea, and protesting/letter-writing to attempt to move the position of government and non-governmental agencies. To me, putting all these things together, it sounds an awful lot like WP:SKYBLUE activism, and that is also what a consensus of participants in the RfC over at Talk:DRASTIC thought. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
    The issue is that a group or a person can do all of those things, as many do, without being an "activist". Maybe reliable sources should be labelling them activists, but given that they aren't, I don't think we should be choosing that label either. I don't think "researchers" would be an accurate representation of the sources either Tristario (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C.2, or, failing that, A. C.2 is a more neutral summary of what the sources that go into depth on the topic say. The sources being used to advance alternative formulations are largely passing mentions, so it's inappropriate to rely so heavily on them when in-depth sources are more clear on these aspects. --Aquillion (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C2, as the most descriptive, B is laughably neutered. ValarianB (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option B. The focus of the group is quite clearly research (as described in all the RSs and in the name of the group itself).
An activist is a campaigner. It's obvious from reading the sources that campaigning is not the main focus of the group. With any of the other options, the reader could come away with the impression that the group is a campaign group like, for example, Extinction Rebellion or Black Lives Matter, which is obviously wronng. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC) — PieLover3141592654 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Option A. One of its main members is Billy Bostickson, who self-describes as a member of "Rage University", an organization that claims to have a mission "to advance the tactics, tools and techniques of radical activists, empowering them to use information, direct action, media and communication to help communities and individuals to achieve social, environmental and political change, as well as to protect them from State Repression and Violence". Other members seem to have different motivations, but I would go with Bostickson as one the leaders, influencing the tone of the discussion to go in activist ways. Forich (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
    Didn't seem to work very well on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option A or C.2, based on the sources provided below. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
    Internet Activists is succinct. Alternatively a Self-styled Network of Independent Researchers Investigating The Origins of COVID-19 sits fine with me. J mareeswaran (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C.2 is by far the best given our sources, since it highlights their status as non-neutral non-experts. C.1 fails to state they're non-neutral. The others are nonstarters: B is pro-fringe by framing them as disinterested actors and implying they have expertise as "researchers". Option A is a dramaticised exaggeration of one source, turning among the most aggressive up to eleven into "vociferous", which is excessive creative license. DFlhb (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C Per my concerns above, none of the sources call them "activists". They're described with a variety of different terms and descriptions that have different meanings to "activists", as well as different connotations. So using "activists" wouldn't comply with WP:NPOV and I also don't think it would even pass WP:V. In terms of which description should be used, something along the lines of a loose knit online group researching and advocating for the lab leak idea would comply with WP:NPOV better. To me, frankly, using "activists" seems like a very clear cut WP:NPOV violation - none of the sources say that, and it doesn't even represent the spirit of how sources generally describe the group. --Tristario (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    There are two different options C. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    I think @Tristario's suggestion would be C.3: a loose knit online group researching and advocating for the lab leak idea. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you, yes. Or something along those lines Tristario (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, I like C.3. I think it needs to have research in the description because that is primarily what the group seems to do. And this option makes clear that they are not academic researchers. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    Pseudoscientists seem to do science, but do not actually do it. We do not write that they do it. So why would we write that Drastic does something it actually only seems to do? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    Perhaps "researching" isn't the best phrase, but if you look at what the sources say (which is what we should be doing) they primarily describe the group as engaging in "investigating" "sleuthing" "research" "data analysis" "detectives" "open-source intelligence" "exposing mysteries". We need to accurately describe what exactly this group is, and we need to do it in a way that complies with WP:NPOV. Tristario (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, there's doing research and there's "doing research".[21] We're more in the latter situation here. Bon courage (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
    The word 'researching' just means 'investigating systematically'. It doesn't imply expertise.
    For example, a 10 year could research the Romans for a history project.
    Something along the lines of "investigating", "sleuthing" or "open source intelligence" would also work IMO. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
    The word 'researching' just means 'investigating systematically'. It doesn't imply expertise
    "systematically" is precisely the word in that definition which implies expertise. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
    So a 10 year old doing his history homework is an expert on the Romans? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C.2. As several others have stated above, this is a bad RfC. Nothing substantial has changed since the last one. That said, C.2 is the most succinct, encyclopedic in tone, and consonant with the sources. I'm not a fan of the extraneous adverb in A, while B comes across as almost duplicitous in its blandness, as though the group were equally interested in highlighting information that confirms or disconfirms the lab-leak hypothesis. That is very obviously false. Generalrelative (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C.2 - Describes the raison d'etre and remains a good summary of the usable sources we have. —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option B - activists vociferously advocating amounts to MOS:LABEL and is unworthy of an encyclpedic article. 89.206.112.12 (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C.3 or C.2. There emphasis in sources that on the whole they are not researchers. 'Internet activists' seems like a more appropriate term. I disagree that this is a bad RfC, but agree that further discussion on labeling should happen on the DRASTIC article. SWinxy (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  • C.3 - Is the best summary. SmolBrane (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    •C3: “a loose knit online group researching and advocating for the lab leak idea” for the reasons given by @Tristario I think substituting “investigating” for “researching” would be best. JustinReilly (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

How RSes describe DRASTIC

Anyone should feel free to add to the list below. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

(sorted chronologically and formatted by — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC))

Academic journal articles:
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
  • Paul, Pallavi (June 2022). "Mediatised Contagion: Some Propositions on Pandemic Media". BioScope: South Asian Screen Studies. 13 (1): 12–18. doi:10.1177/09749276221097471.:
Described as a collective of ‘amateur sleuths’, DRASTIC or Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19 comprises a global network of journalists, science enthusiasts, pathologists, students and even professional video gamers. Spread across different parts of the world, the members of this open source collectively call themselves ‘Twitter detectives’ whose aim is to solve the ‘riddle’ of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 (DRASTIC Research, 2021). This unorthodox assembly of non-experts is responsible for a fresh assessment of the possibility that the virus fuelling our global pandemic could have come from a lab in Wuhan and not from the Wuhan wet market.
News reports by journalists:
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
a loose confederation of data analysts and amateur sleuths who mine open-source Chinese documents for information about covid-19.
The first clue to this is that the primary intellectual partners Chan and Ridley select for their quest to understand the origins of the pandemic are not virologists or epidemiologists but, rather, a group of self-styled internet sleuths known as Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating Covid-19, or DRASTIC.
@TheSeeker268 is a member of DRASTIC, or Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating covid-19, which formed on Twitter and has been among the most aggressive advocates of the lab-leak theory.
...a group of online researchers and correspondents known as the Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19 (DRASTIC). (Comment: per WP:RSP, the reliability of Newsweek post-2013 should be considered on a case-by-case basis.)
a group of online investigators called DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating Covid-19)
(Comment: Some users have described this source as "unreliable" or "non-neutral" given concerns raised about Paul Thacker's history of promoting anti-science FRINGE opinions such as anti-vax misinformation: [22][23][24][25][26][27])
A loose-knit group whose members call themselves DRASTIC—for the Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19—has driven a heated discussion about possible links between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2.
An online open-source-intelligence group which calls itself DRASTIC has been scouring sequencing data to get insight into activities at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
multi-faceted Twitter group...By May, he was part of a group of two dozen Twitter users from various countries who doubted the theory – at the time undisputed – that the coronavirus had emerged from a wet market in Wuhan....From Twitter threads and private conversations in direct message chats, Ribera and his fellow researchers organized themselves into a flexible group they called Drastic, an acronym for decentralized, radical, autonomous search team investigating Covid-19.
One key group was an international assortment of independent researchers—few of whom were established virologists—that self-assembled on the Internet. The group called itself the Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19, or DRASTIC. The name made them sound like a band of online gamers, but the group diligently uncovered a series of damning facts.
Last year, a member of the amateur investigative team, which calls itself DRASTIC (short for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating Covid-19), combed through online records and found a 2013 thesis by a postgraduate student at Kunming Medical University in China that described six workers at a mine in Yunnan province who fell ill with severe pneumonia caused by a "SARS-like" coronavirus.
As governments got busy in trying to contain the rampaging pandemic, a group of people, scattered all over the world, did not give up their search for the truth. Beginning April-May last year, they started collecting vital in- formation that would go on to provide important clues about modern century’s biggest mystery. They came together on Twitter under a group called DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19), where they shared their findings, sup- ported each other, and slowly, amassed so much credible information in a year that it became difficult for the scientific community and the Western media to ignore the probability of the theory.
Short for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19, it is an informal amalgam of experts and lay researchers from across the world who painstakingly pieced together various strands of data and information to understand how the 2019 SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) or the novel coronavirus, emerged and raced through the globe. The website that this group has now launched says that the team comprises more than 20 people from across the world. Among them are a few from India. Many of these amateur sleuths have chosen to remain anonymous...
a group of amateurs decided to sniff the lab leak theory to the ground
A motley group of social media detectives with backgrounds in science have been leading efforts to uncover clues about the origins of the Sars-Cov-2 virus, particularly if it leaked from a lab in Wuhan
An internet group called the Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19, or DRASTIC, brought the Coronavirus lab leak theory to the forefront again, questioning whether the Huanan wet market was, in fact, the origin of the pandemic. The group is a medley of people from all over the world, many of whom choose to remain anonymous.
outsiders such as the DRASTIC team (an acronym for “decentralized radical autonomous search team investigating Covid-19.”) Composed of 24 self-styled “Twitter detectives” who are mostly anonymous with the exception of a few scientists participating under their real names, the DRASTIC group formed on Twitter in 2020 and has set itself the mission of exploring the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
Some were cutting-edge scientists at prestigious research institutes. Others were science enthusiasts. Together, they formed a group called DRASTIC, short for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19. Their stated objective was to solve the riddle of COVID-19’s origin.
(Comment: Some users have described this source as "unreliable" or "non-neutral" given the multiple concerns raised about the quality of Eban's reporting in other contexts, mistranslations, and misunderstandings of Chinese-language documents she relies upon: [28][29])
The people responsible for uncovering this evidence are not journalists or spies or scientists. They are a group of amateur sleuths, with few resources except curiosity and a willingness to spend days combing the internet for clues. Throughout the pandemic, about two dozen or so correspondents, many anonymous, working independently from many different countries, have uncovered obscure documents, pieced together the information, and explained it all in long threads on Twitter—in a kind of open-source, collective brainstorming session that was part forensic science, part citizen journalism, and entirely new. They call themselves DRASTIC, for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19. (Comment: per WP:RSP, the reliability of Newsweek post-2013 should be considered on a case-by-case basis.)
A small group of academics and internet sleuths has been working for months, using the networks to find each other and publish evidence of the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s activities, especially in relation to the mine...
guerrilla Twitter group...This unorthodox approach has seen them branded by scientists and researchers as maniacs, thugs and conspiracy theorists...loosely defined group known as Drastic, a "Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19."...On Twitter... members of Drastic have targeted virologists and epidemiologists who refuse to engage with the lab leak theory, and they've even falsely accused some of working for the Chinese Communist Party. (Comment: per WP:RSP, the reliability of CNET post-2020 should be considered on a case-by-case basis.)
It seems the search for the origins of COVID had mobilized a bunch of internet sleuths, including Dr. Segreto, who spent hours, days even, rummaging through newspaper archives and arcane databases. They referred to themselves as DRASTIC, the Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19, “decentralized and autonomous and a little radical.”
Editorials by non-experts:
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
In early 2020, it took a few scientists and internet sleuths to correlate the sequence identity of RaTG13 with that of a short bat coronavirus fragment, Ra4991. (Note: Author is a pseudonymous member of DRASTIC)

Discussion

Here are descriptions, per various sources, of DRASTIC finding documents with information about the origin of COVID-19. Therefore, although the sources differ in their brief descriptors (above under "Sources"), they are united in describing various incidents of the actual discovery of documents with information related to the origin of COVID-19. My apologies for the length; I'll collapse to aid reading.

descriptions of DRASTIC finding documents

WaPo: For example, less than 18 months after the facility’s official opening, lab managers issued short-notice bids and patent applications to fix apparent problems with doors seals, the air filtration system and monitoring devices that were supposed to alert scientists to possible leaks. The records were obtained as part of an ongoing oversight investigation by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and independent analysts with DRASTIC

Vanity Fair: But perhaps the most startling find was made by an anonymous DRASTIC researcher, known on Twitter as @TheSeeker268. The Seeker, as it turns out, is a young former science teacher from Eastern India. He had begun plugging keywords into the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, a website that houses papers from 2,000 Chinese journals, and running the results through Google Translate.

One day last May, he fished up a thesis from 2013 written by a master’s student in Kunming, China. The thesis opened an extraordinary window into a bat-filled mine shaft in Yunnan province and raised sharp questions about what Shi Zhengli had failed to mention in the course of making her denials.

The Hindu: The evidence that DRASTIC has painstakingly pieced together points to the possible collection of the virus sample from a mineshaft associated with an incident where miners died of a pneumonia like infection, back in 2012. This involved translating several scientific papers from China translated roughly on Google, and using DNA sequences to compare viruses. The New Yorker: On September 21st, drastic published a startling new revelation. In 2018, Daszak, at EcoHealth Alliance, in partnership with Shi, Baric, and Wang, had submitted a $14.2-million grant proposal to the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (darpa).

Adoring nanny (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Added BMJ to the list above. Did not find a mention in the Nature link. Sennalen (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Removed Nature link, added a bunch of other sources from the previous RFCs and other searches on those talk archives. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

NPOV and other perspectives

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.


This article seems to build a story / narrative and not to include all perspectives, contrary to the principle of neutrality.


It fallls to the trap of "no evidence" which is often misused.

I personally think the scientific consensus is opposite of what is said in the article but don't want to



According to Rootclaim, COVID-19 originated from a laboratory (https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COVID-19-SARS-CoV-2)

According to Dr. Martin who testified to the European Parliament (https://twitter.com/saggiori/status/1660093879566102528), it originated from a laboratory.

Please don't delete this comment before 2025. 91.154.160.83 (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources, by wikipedia's standards. If you come back and edit, please do so with a specific request for a change, and back it up with secondary, independent, reliable sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:11, 28 May 2023 (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.
User:Shibbolethink What's the rationale for closing this discussion? I don't think Atop is the appropriate template as this is only when editors don't object. Besides, talk pages are not only to submit edit requests. Sincerely, --Thinker78 (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, do you object? Feel free to revert the closure. We rely on reliable sources, not sites like rootclaim and Twitter. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

An open question if I may

Pardon me for possibly butting in, and my further apologies if I am stepping over the line, but why exactly is there such an extremely dedicated relentless willingness here to take the word of the Chinese Communist Party at face value, and sweepingly accuse all people who find the situation suspicious for somehow being racist conspiracy theorists, or worse, when it is well known that the CCP wiped all evidence from the Wuhan laboratory completely clean before any inspections were allowed, it has turned China into an Orwellian surveillance-state tyranny that, among many other things, completely controls the allowed contents of absolutely all scientific reports that are published within the country, and the New York Times has revealed that it has very efficiently managed to heavily influence what was released about Covid-19 in many scientific publications outside of the Chinese borders?

In addition, the CCP allegedly has several hundred Nazi-level gulags where it places millions of members of religious minorities, as well as political dissidents and their families, and either completely enslaves and brainwashes them, tortures and rapes them, or murders them to confiscate their body organs, or all of the above in combination.

And yet The New York Times and western intelligence agencies and governments are somehow treated as completely unreliable in comparison, and any scientists with contrarian discoveries are automatically discredited and distrusted. It doesn't make any sense to me, as this subject is not a partisan political issue anymore as far as I am aware. Is this about preventing the CCP's army of hackers from systematically destroying Wikipedia? I suppose that would be understandable, but in that case wouldn't it be better to just be open about that the CCP is simply far too powerful to challenge in any way via some kind of controversy disclaimer at the top of the page? David A (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't' we do not use (as far as I know) one Chinese government source. Please correct me if I am wrong, and link to it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
We don't use Chinese Gov't sources, but we do use plenty of scientific journal articles with authorship by people who are subject to Chinese law. This is a curious choice, as there is by now a lot of sourcing saying that such "research" can't be trusted. One example is the Anywhere But Here article mentioned elsewhere on this page. Others include [30](NYT) and [31](AP). Adoring nanny (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
OK, let's remove all "Chinese" based sources. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Was that sarcasm or seriousness? I will be clear. I believe "academic" research on this subject from people subject to Chinese law is not reliable. The issue is not ethnicity. It's the law the author is subject to. The three sources I mention above all support this point of view. However, to date I've found myself in a minority on that question, so I have not pressed the issue. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
And I did not say Chinese people I said Chines sources, sources subject to Chinese law. Let's remove all sources published by sources based in China. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could answer the question as to whether or not you are being serious, and if so what scope of removal you are proposing. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
What I said (no its not a joke) we remove all sources based in China, and thus subject to Chinese law. What is the problem, how is this not clear cut? Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll make a small start by removing one such source and see where it goes. My gut is there will be a lot of pushback. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Removing sourced content because the authors "sound Chinese" is just racist fuckwittedness unwise and not in accord with Wikipedia's aims. I have no idea what Slatersteven is doing egging this on. Last time I looked, work at Liverpool University is not "subject to Chinese law". Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC); amended 19:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC); 02:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
You started by removing an editorial published in Science about work done in England and elsewhere by Worobey et al. solely because the two authors who wrote the commentary are based in China. Lots of moving parts in there that are not subject to the Chinese Government. Not an auspicious start, and not based in any talk page consensus that I can see. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Please don't do this again. While this isn't a very important source it's value is it's accessibility for a general audience. There are some important and well cited papers you shouldn't be removing. The takeaway here should be to exercise care in using journal sources, but your approach is the opposite of that. fiveby(zero) 18:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Please, User:Slatersteven suggested removing all such sources. I felt that would have been reckless, so I chose to remove one instead, based on the impression that another user was suggesting a less cautious course of action. I am not going to WP:EW about it. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
A fair move per WP:BOLD but I am glad you chose to WP:BRD it. I don't think we have consensus to remove that particular one, I wasn't sure of any others that really meet the criteria. Some of these are verifying attributed statements from Shi Zhengli for example, and that would be absurd to remove solely because she lives in China. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, there was already a failed RfC[32] about this (from a now-banned editor admittedly). We simply cannot make and implement what is effectively a sourcing policy like this "on the hoof". As the close of that RfC said: "a much narrower question must be designed to resolve the underlying content dispute". That hasn't happened and instead there seems to be an attempt to end-run around that instruction. Until and unless we have clarity from a RfC about this, I think it is disruptive to remove any China/COVID source on the basis that it is Chinese. Bon courage (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I said to remove all sources subject to Chinese law. The problem we have here is that Western scientific journals are not subject to Chinese law, and are peer-reviewed, outside China. This (by the way) was what I wanted to see demonstrated, what they meant by "sources subject to Chinese law". Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: LOL, ok, that's why you and I were misunderstanding each other earlier. You were referring to sources where the publisher is operating under Chinese law. I agree we shouldn't use those, and I don't think we do. But I also think we shouldn't use sources where the author is subject to Chinese law. That latter opinion is a minority opinion, which is why I hadn't been pushing it in article space. I thought I heard you agreeing with the author version of this, which you weren't. Things now make more sense. That said, what I don't get is this -- the three sources I mention above (NYT, AP, and Science) all discuss research with authors subject to Chinese law. Given that, why limit the removal to China-based publishers? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Because (even if) those "authors" are subject to Chinese law, the publishers (who fact-check them) are not. They are RS because it is assumed that is what they do, have a reputation for fact-checking. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The NYT says explicitly Journals that want to sell subscriptions in China or publish Chinese research often bend to the government’s demands. “Scientific publishers have really gone out of their way to placate the censorship requests,” he said. Science is less explicit, but they still support the gist. The idea of a pandemic origin outside China is preposterous to many scientists . . . . Yet Chinese researchers have published a flurry of papers supporting their government’s “anywhere-but-here” position. But I get it that you may think that's not sufficient evidence to adopt my point of view. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
If you genuinely think Wikipedia (and specifically this page) is somehow too buddy buddy with China, you're living in another reality. The "just asking questions" nature of your assertion of NAZI GULAGS where RAPE and ORGAN HARVESTING happens 24/7 isn't helping your case. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The CCP line is "Anywhere But Here", and no one is taking their word at face value. fiveby(zero) 17:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
That Anywhere But Here article is actually pretty good. Might be worth working that into this article or Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 somewhere. Looks like China possibly engaged in a major campaign to forge scientific evidence about the origins of coronavirus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Because the discussion about covid origins got highly politicized in the USA. Those supporting the zoonosis theory were generally in the camp of the Democrats and those supporting the lab leak theory were generally in the camp of Republicans. Also, a lot of money was dedicated to research virus and there are many powerful interests at play. So I wouldn't be surprised if some editors have undisclosed conflicts of interest. After all, researchers directly linked with the Wuhan lab that started the conspiracy theory narrative regarding the lab leak didn't disclose at the time their conflict of interests as they should have. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

To attempt to clarify my initial comment here: I was not strictly referring to information that comes directly from the CCP itself, but rather from all of the scientists that it extremely strongly controls.

Basically, according to my experience, most scientists, Chinese or otherwise, tend to be decent ethical people who are trying to improve the wellbeing of this world to the best of their abilities through their research.

However, given that I have read that the CCP has now adopted the North Korean policy to place not just political dissidents(/freedom fighters) in its gulags, but also all of their family members up to three generations removed, it doesn't matter how heroic and altrustic somebody is, if it is not just their life on the line, but rather the guaranteed incarceration, torture, rape, experimentation on, murder, and dissection of all of their family members that still reside in China, they will almost always fold and do exactly what they are told, including provide any requested research results.

And yes, globally stating that carelessness in official Chinese government research projects caused the deaths of almost seven millions of citizens worldwide via Covid-19 alone, along with all the other negative effects from a global severe recession to depression combined with widespread starvation, would certainly count as being a political dissident in the eyes of the CCP. It certainly wouldn't go well with the free people of India, and as such cause serious problems for the CCP's current economic BRIC alliance project, for example, even though I strongly doubt that the world as a whole would sue China for all of the financial damages to the world economy.

As such, I think that any research results that confirm any version of the official CCP narratives over the years, including zoonosis, produced by any researchers who still have family members in China, should logically be viewed with an extremely sceptical lens, and preferably not be presented as reliable in this Wikipedia page.

And just in case somebody somehow tries to (offensively) accuse me of racism or xenophobia because of this conclusion: That makes just as little sense as accusing somebody of being a racist because they strongly disapprove of the slavers in the pre-civil war USA. I greatly empathise with the Chinese people for living in an extremely ruthless surveillance state tyranny, and would greatly prefer them to be freed from their enslavement. David A (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, so give an example of one source we use where this applies, to both the authors, the power-reviewers, and the publisher. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I do not have such specific information available, and do not want to make targeted accusations towards individuals, but I do not think that this invalidates my concerns regarding the bigger picture here. David A (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Then we can't act upon it, as we do not have specific examples. Thus this is now well into wp:forum territory and thus should be closed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Christopher Wray

In regard to the recent reverts about Wray's public statement regarding the FBI's assessment. It seems to me that this should be included. But I also think the FBI's assessment should be in one place in the Intelligence agencies subsection. The reverted version[33] had it split between the beginning and the end. That's a bit strange. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. David A (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Undue. One guy from one-eighth of one country's spook agencies goes on a silly TV news show to reiterate a long-known position (which Wikipedia already relays). So what? And if it were to be mentioned we'd need secondary sourcing to make sense of it and put the fringe view in context. So, for example here's[34] an actual virologist saying that Wray's comments are only significant in that they get LL stans excitedly offering them as 'proof' of a lab leak, and that this amounts to a 'circus'. Bon courage (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
It’s not a fringe theory. JustinReilly (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Angela Rasmussen has a strong opinion on the origin question, so she is not independent when putting Wray's comments in context. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Errm, we don't want sources which are "independent" of expertise. Virologists are experts on ... viruses. It's the kind of knowledge Wikipedia likes to reflect, especially in a topic beset by nonsense and conspiracy theories like this! Bon courage (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Read the Telegraph article "Revealed: How scientists who dismissed Wuhan lab theory are linked to Chinese researchers".[1] Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/10/revealed-scientists-dismissed-wuhan-lab-theory-linked-chinese/
Yeah we have a whole article on that. All a big nothingburger being bigged up in some of the sillier British newspapers (Daily Mail, Telegraph) and elsewhere. Don't know how it's relevant to Angela Rasmussen's expertise as a virologist (except through a conspiracist framing). Bon courage (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Of course not independent of expertise, I never said that. I meant independent in the sense of neutral, not having a strong published opinion that they are defending. Rasmussen is on many of the zoonosis papers, so it's not unreasonable that she might have a biased view, overstating the evidence to confirm her beliefs. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Scientist follows science, and publications will reflect that (with the normal scientific process of peer-review etc).. Your attributing it to a "belief" and making the allegation that she "overstate evidence" is just a random opinion with zero evidence. This is not reddit or Parler; Wikipedia values expertise and knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I think the relevant question here is whether or not Wray's remark got a lot of coverage. The answer is that it did.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] Adoring nanny (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Journalism loves readers, and conspiracy theories really big the numbers up. As our secondary source expert says, it's a "circus". Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Its enough to warrant one line. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The secondary source is not independent, potentially not neutral so I wouldn't give this particular source much weight for this discussion, see my comments above. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
We note the position of the FBI already, so restating it in Wray's voice is unhelpful. The part about China could reasonably included in §China–US relations, along with the Chinese official response. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
So we already have that one line we need. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
yup. Bon courage (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Partly, I think. We have the FBI, but not Wray. There were at least two rounds of coverage -- the one I noted above with respect to Wray, and a previous one with respect to the intel community generally. I'll try to find a way to work him in that has a smaller footprint that what was done previously. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Looks great. Thanks! JustinReilly (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Now done[44]. One sentence about Wray, not two. Also keeping it all in one place, so it's not repeated. I checked several sources, and all the ones I looked at had the quote about China trying to "thwart and obfuscate", so I shortened that to "thwart" and included it. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Is there a reason why we need his views, as we have those of the FBI, what does this add? Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
It's common on Wikipedia, when a high-ranking Gov't official makes a statement like that, we mention it. The part about China trying to thwart is also relevant, I think, as it lets the reader know the FBI's reasoning, which would otherwise be unexplained. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
We also do notal ways do it, so its not much of an argument. Also other government agencies disagree, so we should not give undie weight to one of them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE is in relation to coverage. As I note above, Wray got quite a lot. If there is coverage of what the heads of other agencies said, that could well also be worthy of inclusion. But so far I haven't seen such coverage. Have you? If it doesn't exist, then giving more space to Wray simply reflects the coverage, which is how it should be. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
UNDUE. It isn't covered much by our WP:BESTSOURCES, just a lot of random drive-by news stories. We already mention the FBI's position, I'm not sure what this adds. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Really? None of the BBC, Washington Post, NPR, Guardian, WSJ, ABC, CBS or NBC (linked to above) is a high quality source? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
That's not how one conducts a high quality source review. The process is to search for something very neutral and third-hand to the overall section like "COVID-19 lab leak government assessment" and then see how often the HQRSes that come up mention Wray's view. Not to go cherry-picking for articles mentioning Wray, which presupposes his importance. When I did the former, none of the HQRSes on the first 10 hits in a Gale OneFile search mentioned Wray. That seems pretty concerning if we're asserting his assessment is just as DUE as the entirety of the FBI or the DoE… — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not massively bothered either way, but to me it does seem notable and due given the comments seem to have been reported prominently in, not just some, but the majority of, high quality English speaking national newspapers. This Wikipedia page is very long and contains all kinds of trivial comments and facts, so the bar is low... PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Show your work. The standard is based on a search of reliable search engines which don't reproduce material (e.g. GALE OneFile) on a targeted unbiased query like "COVID-19 lab leak government assessment", not the number of newspapers which mention Christopher Wray's name.
A majority of major national newspapers also covered the fact that Donald Trump got indicted, but it doesn't mean it's DUE for this article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 07:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Can you please point me to the Wikipedia policy which says this? I don't have access to GALE OneFile and neither do the majority of Wikipedia editors.
  • Was this standard applied to every other fact or comment in this article?
  • A cursory Google confirms that there are articles about the Wray comments in: the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Independent, Channel 4, ITV, France 24, Le Monde, Euronews, CNN, NPR, Reuters, Associated Press, NBC, NPR, Washington Post, WSJ, Sky News, USA Today, Vanity Fair etc. I'm sure I could find many more if I looked.
PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you please point me to the Wikipedia policy which says this?
WP:DUE and WP:BESTSOURCES. To see a description of what happens when we don't do this, WP:CHERRY and WP:Cherrypicking.
I don't have access to GALE OneFile
Try any of these: List of academic databases and search engines. I personally like Semantic Scholar, Internet Archive Scholar, and CORE.
Was this standard applied to every other fact or comment in this article?
For controversial ones, yes.
A cursory Google confirms that there are articles about the Wray comments in: the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Independent, Channel 4, ITV, France 24, Le Monde, Euronews, CNN, NPR, Reuters, Associated Press, NBC, NPR, Washington Post, WSJ, Sky News, USA Today, Vanity Fair etc. I'm sure I could find many more if I looked.
It's also about how prominent the mention is. If it's mentioned once in 5 words in a 5,000 word article, then we don't usually cover it very prominently. And we definitely don't cover it in the lead or multiple times in the body. If anything, we replace what's already in the article with his most recent statement. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_24&oldid=1162448624"