Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Minority/Fringe Opinions & Citation Needed Tag

I agree with @Adoring nanny

that the inclusion of paragraph-length editorializing by a single writer such as this minority— or arguably Fringe— view from a book review in the New Republic was totally inappropriate in the form in which it was included- mostly stated in Wikivoice. Even as amended now with inclusion of language indicating that it is an opinion, I don’t think it should remain in its present form/location/length. It is the second paragraph in “Lab Leak Theory” section. Maybe we could move it somewhere out of the way.

More importantly, @Bon courage objects to such things as any mention of FBI Director Wray’s reiteration of FBI’s position.

He also just deleted my “citation needed” tag for a Chinese government funded primary source journal article, all of whose authors, if I understand correctly, work for the Chinese govt for the purpose of discrediting a fairly random vaccine skeptic’s quite low profile journal article, whose opinion on Lab Leak he doesn’t like. It seems to me having made such an enormous quantity of edits, you know that this type of primary sourcing to discuss an obscure primary source isn’t best practice, to put it very mildly.

I would rather the type of lengthy editorializing from a single source not be included, but if it is, it should be put out of the way. And realize that that opens the door for inclusion of similar low quality source opinions that you DONT agree with to be added.

Mnority/ Fringe View Text:

”ln The New Republic, Lindsay Beyerstein argues that the lab leak theory is not a single coherent proposed scenario, but a collection of different possible scenarios which have as a common theme Chinese carelessness or Chinese malicious intent. She posits that the lab leak hypothesis has accumulated an “ever-growing arsenal of seemingly suspicious facts, each pointing in a slightly different direction,” rendering itself “completely unfalsifiable.” Beyerstein contends that its "very flimsiness makes the lab leak conspiracy theory so hard to eradicate."

“Citation Needed” Tag was at the end of this paragraph under:

“Lab Leak Theories”/ “Fringe Views on Genetic Engineering”

I would like to add the “citation needed” tag back. @Bon courage, Please let me know why it was deleted. Others, chime in w your thoughts, pls.

“Further claims were promulgated by several anti-vaccine activists, such as Judy Mikovits and James Lyons-Weiler, who claimed that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a laboratory, with Mikovits going further and stating that the virus was both deliberately engineered and deliberately released.Weiler's analysis, where he argued that a long sequence in the middle of the spike protein of the virus was not found in other coronaviruses and was evidence for laboratory recombination, was dismissed by scientists, who found that the sequence in question was also found in many other coronaviruses, suggesting that it was "widely spread" in nature.”

JustinReilly (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are built on secondary sources in reputable publications, and this is one such. It provides some useful knowledge about the umbrella nature of LL (which we don't mention othwerwise, but is kind of basic) and offers some important context on how the conspiracy theory evades rebuttal. This is excellent for contextualizing the subsections which follow. Good stuff. Bon courage (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Anything that describes something as "Terrible" is an opinion piece, not News. Furthermore, the claim that LL is "non-falsifiable" is just not true; see multiple other diseases where non-LL origins have been verified. And The New Republic is not a particularly strong source. So this content fails on multiple levels. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I have not seen anything in wp:rs or wp:sps that says anything of the kind. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a book review. Books get bad reviews all the time. The New Republic is a WP:GREL per consensus FWIW. Bon courage (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The ostensible lab-leak hypothesis is not a single identifiable theory but a loose constellation of diverse possibilities held together by the common theme that Chinese science institutions—be it the WIV or some other arm of the Chinese government—are to blame for the pandemic.[1] from Stuart Neil for additional citation. fiveby(zero) 14:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yup, it's not disputed. Bon courage (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It does actually appear to be disputed to some sense, note that our current page covers both what Neil describes and the competing constellation held together by the common theme that American science/military institutions are to blame for the pandemic. Perhaps we should separate those two out? Early coverage doesn't differentiate but current coverage seems to treat them separately. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose the "loose constellation" thing is not disputed but you're right there is a a fringe-upon-fringe contingent supporting the made-in-Fort-Detrick scenario. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

'Use science sources for science, and other sources for other things. But not crap sources like "Politifact" or WSJ for science.'

So which is it to be? Is New Republic really any more relevant in science topics than the Wall Street Journal is? 219.88.179.61 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we're giving too much weight to this book review. I would similarly oppose such a lengthy treatment of other reviews of the Chan/Ridley book. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the value is that it diverts into a general discussion of LL (which is why it is relevant here). Anyway, I have reduced the para; see what you think! Bon courage (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Still way WP:UNDUE. The book has received other reviews in stronger sources. We don't include those either.[2][3]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If they divert into general discussion of LL they may be useful. On the book itself, not so much. Bon courage (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I am going to revert (edit out) @Bon courage’s reversion. We are far from consensus in favor. JustinReilly (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

What about (1) my citation tag and (2) the passage I wanted to take out about Lyons-Weiler? JustinReilly (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I added a {{better source needed}} tag to the same effect of my earlier reverted {{citation needed}} tag, with the date and below text in the “reason” field, but for some reason when I click on the tag, it just goes to [[WP:NOTRS]] instead of displaying the date and reason. When I go into visual editing it also doesn’t display or link to date and reason. Only in wikitext editing does the date and reason appear. Any advice on how to correct this? JustinReilly (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI, {{better source needed}} tag text:

June 2023;

Pls see Talk topic: Minority/Fringe Opinions & Citation Needed Tag (June 6, 2023): current cite is a Chinese government funded primary source journal article, all of whose authors, if I understand correctly, work for the Chinese govt; cite for purpose of discrediting fairly random vaccine skeptic’s quite low profile journal article. So better source needed- probably a WP:MEDRS. But also think Lyons-Weiler’s article probably isn’t notable enough to be included. Certainly open to other views on its notability. JustinReilly (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

My reverted edit on "Proposed scenarios"

I attempted to change the intro sentence to the proposed scenarios section, "The lab leak theory is not a single discreet proposed scenario, but a collection of various possible scenarios involving carelessness or malicious intent on the part of the Chinese government," to insert "of scientists or". I didn't think this would be a controversial change. The purpose of this sentence is to introduce and summarize the following section on "proposed scenarios" and the first two scenarios described in the article, "Accidental release of a natural virus" and "Accidental release of a genetically modified virus" concern mainly (hypothetical) behavior by scientists and not by the Chinese government. My edit was just to make this summary sentence better reflect the material that is already present in the section it introduces. --skeptical scientist (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think this edit is fine. I reverted when it got caught up in the much larger 4k edit which I find objectionable for many reasons stated above. I have reinstated the smaller 17 byte edit with minor modifications for style. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. skeptical scientist (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

What's the source for the claim - "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis"

I couldn't find any document that supports this claim. I might have missed it. Could someone please provide the source? Thank you. 2601:602:8200:4A10:2D3E:3045:4133:8F56 (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It's the very first two references. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I have searched for the term "scientists" in those articles but could not find that claim. Could you please point me to the relevant section of those sources that support this claim? 2601:602:8200:4A10:2D3E:3045:4133:8F56 (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The scientists are the authors of those studies. Both conclude the emergence likely resulted from natural zoonosis. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

But how does that establish that "most scientists" believe their conclusions? 2601:602:8200:4A10:2D3E:3045:4133:8F56 (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

we're not here to educate you on how peer acceptance of papers published in scientific journals works. ValarianB (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

They have a valid point, per wp:v we can't say most unless we have a source that says so. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a valid summary of the content per WP:MEDSCI and WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Two papers a majority does not make. It needs rewriting. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot not to like about the phrase, but i think it is actually watering down what could be said. If it were put in terms of evidence instead of belief we could probably state outright rather than attributing to "most scientists". If the text went directly to the scope of the article "lab related" vs "wildlife trade" instead of the fuzzy obscuring "natural zoonosis" it would probably be clearer for the reader. Anyway we shouldn't count papers to determine some kind of scientific consensus, but look to the best. fiveby(zero) 15:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Then do so, lets reflect what our article says. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Say "the theory is highly controversial; the scientific consensus is that the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis, similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history.". Remove the cites (as they are not needed, this is the lede). Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

there is no merit at all to this watering-down and catering to conspiracy theorists. ValarianB (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not about catering to anyone, it's about potraying information correctly. There is no scientific consensus on the origins of Covid and the article's claim is untrue. The right thing would be to fix it. 2601:602:8200:4A10:D0C:2207:53A3:55BB (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Change "scientific consensus" to "assumption" and it's perfect. Sennalen (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no scientific consensus apart from "we don't know what happened yet". As the WHO says, "all theories remain on the table". PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Only if the total number of scientists anywhere is approximately 4. Sennalen (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh God, give it a break. There's plenty of sources that say "most scientists". [4] [5] They're secondary sources that reference studies like the ones we use in the article. I expect better from you, Slatersteven. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree there are lots of sources that say this.

However, they almost all say something like "whilst most scientists believe the virus most likely spilled over naturally from animals, others believe it's more likely the virus leaked from a lab". I think we should use language along these lines, rather than excluding the second part for no good reason. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

We do say the second part, in various places throughout the article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, yes sorry, it is indeed stated that way later in the lead. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The objection was the sources we were using did not say it (they did not), so I suggested rewording it. That would include putting in sources that say it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Okay, that's what OP was asking for. Sennalen (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I would support adding these sources to the content, especially if it resolves this whole section's underlying disagreement. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no scientific consensus on when exactly the virus first infected humans, hence, there is no consensus among the scientific community that they agree with the conclusions of Pekar et al since these authors make particularly strong claims about when Sars2 entered humans.

Jesse Bloom, Sudhir Kumar, Sergei Pond are credible scientists who have published peer review articles that disagree with those conclusions. Hence, the claim that there is a scientific consensus is not correct.

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/38/12/5211/6353034?login=false

https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/38/10/2719/6553661 2601:602:8200:4A10:3DE6:F1C5:C284:307E (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

If you think the peer review process means any published article has majority recognition or support, you yourself have very little understanding of the process. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

No one is asserting that here, as far as I can tell. Instead, we are following what WP:MEDSCI tells us. Multiple independent peer-reviewed secondary review papers published in high impact prominent journals from recognized experts in the field, shows there is widespread agreement. The particular "majority" wording is from a variety of other sources described in this section. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

2601:602:8200:4A10:3DE6:F1C5:C284:307E (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:MEDSCI also points to WHO for determining scientific consensus and WHO have been very clear that all possibilities are on the table. This clearly shows that a respectable body like WHO doesn't believe there is a consensus so the article is in disagreement with WP:MEDSCI

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/03/03/all-covid-origin-theories-including-lab-leak-on-the-table-who-director-says/?sh=119739a66f70 2601:602:8200:4A10:3DE6:F1C5:C284:307E (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually the most authoritative statement from the WHO so far is that the lab leak is "extremely unlikely" and that zoonosis is the most likely origin scenario. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. That's not the official position of the WHO. That was the conclusion of a study convened jointly by China and WHO. WHO's position immediately after the report was to thank the team for their work but as far as WHO was concerned all scenarios remain on the table which means that there is no scientific consensus that Sars2 has a natural origin.

https://www.who.int/news/item/30-03-2021-who-calls-for-further-studies-data-on-origin-of-sars-cov-2-virus-reiterates-that-all-hypotheses-remain-open 2601:602:8200:4A10:3DE6:F1C5:C284:307E (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

all scenarios remain on the table which means that there is no scientific consensus that Sars2 has a natural origin.
The second part of this sentence is not an immediate conclusion from the first part.

"All scenarios are possible" is not mutually exclusive with "There is a scientific consensus that zoonosis is the most likely origin"
(the underlined part is extremely important to understanding this point.)

If you disagree on that fundamental point, then I honestly truly have no idea what to tell you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You are confusing the wordings of the report to be the official stance of the WHO. It's not. WHO has never said that the scientific consensus is natural origin.

There's no scientific consensus even on when the virus first infected humans, hence, there is no consensus among the scientific community that they agree with the conclusions of Pekar et al since these authors make particularly strong claims about when Sars2 entered humans.

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/38/12/5211/6353034?login=false

https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/38/10/2719/6553661

These are peer reviewed articles by highly cited authors that differ in conclusion to the article you are claiming is the scientific consensus. This is simply not true. Hence, I request those in charge to please change the wording. 2601:602:8200:4A10:D0C:2207:53A3:55BB (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• On the specific point of whether it's ok to say "most scientists believe the virus spilled over through zoonosis", I think it's fine. Wikipedia:RS/AC says you need an RS to directly state this, which we have. Whether or not they're justified in saying this is irrelevant for the purposes of this article, unless another RS disputes it.
• However, the IP editor is correct that there is no consensus on the origin of the virus. A consensus means 'broad agreement' which quite obviously does not exist. There is, in fact, widespread disagreement. A majority-minority split is not automatically a consensus. The only consensus, as per the WHO, is that "we don't know". More generally, our article should reflect this. At the moment it does not, it treats the hypothesis as a fringe conspiracy theory.

PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The article's claim that most scientists believe that has no source to back it and hence should be removed. 2601:602:8200:4A10:3DE6:F1C5:C284:307E (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

As I remember, that wording came from a discussion between me and Shibbolethink. This was a couple of years ago, and the source was something pretty strong, possibly a news article in Nature. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think that's right, from Amy Maxmen. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whose opinion it was. To establish "most" and state it matter of factly you would have to have a survey proving as much. Otherwise, the language you're looking for would be something to the effect of "according to some person named Amy Maxmen, most scientists..."--2600:1700:B020:1490:5D2:3A79:23F9:E614 (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:ASSERT. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

We have zero sources which say a majority of scientists do not believe the zoonosis is the most likely explanation, and quite a few which say that a majority believe it is. Why would we attribute this?

When even people like Jesse Bloom haven't disputed that they're an outlier? When no RSes are saying anything to the contrary? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

But it violates WP:NPOV - "Avoid stating opinions as facts." 2601:602:8200:4A10:D0C:2207:53A3:55BB (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Here are some sources stating otherwise. I hope these would convince the editors that there is no scientific consensus on the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

"There is no consensus on the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2"

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2215826119

"The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. Commissioners held diverse views about the relative probabilities of the two explanations, and both possibilities require further scientific investigation."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01585-9/fulltext 2601:602:8200:4A10:D0C:2207:53A3:55BB (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This thread reminds me of the controversy about spinach being a high source of iron when in fact it is high in beta carotene. The mix up happened precisely in a misquote. Therefore, I think "most" ideally should be a quantifiable number in reliable sources, for example, polls. Otherwise, how do they reach the conclusion that most think that way? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

By looking at the published literature. If 99 papers say X and 98 papers say Y the scientific consensus is X. In this case it is not even slightly that close (more like 100 to 1). Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That could also reflect simply the editorial decisions to exclude other studies. Besides, that may count as original research. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

the editorial decisions to exclude other studies are part of what causes this to be an accurate reflection of scientific consensus per WP:RS/AC. Editorial boards and editorial judgment are part of why these sources are considered the best available WP:RSes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSes: "Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."

Doesn't the current version violate this since the claim is not backed by any source? 2601:602:8200:4A10:48B9:9523:61E9:57C5 (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

As has been described multiple times above, there indeed are many multiple sources which support the statement:

• most scientists suspect a zoonotic spillover in which the virus transferred from bats, or through an intermediate animal, to humans — the same way the SARS and MERS coronaviruses originated. FactCheck.org
• The zoonotic hypothesis hinges on the idea that the virus spilled over from animals to humans, either directly through a bat, or through some other intermediary animal. Most scientists say that this is the likely origin, given that 75% of all emerging diseases have jumped from animals into humans. CNN
• Individuals may learn about the origins of COVID-19 through exposure to stories that communicate either what most scientists believe (i.e., zoonotic transmission) or through exposure to conspiratorial claims (e.g., the virus was created in a research laboratory in China). "Framing the Origins of COVID-19" published in Science Communication and published as part of the SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection.
• The default answer for most scientists has been that the virus, SARS-CoV-2, probably made the jump to humans from bats, if it was a direct spillover — or, more likely, through one or more intermediate mammals. NBC
• The most controversial hypothesis for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is also the one that most scientists agree is the least likely: that the virus somehow leaked out of a laboratory in Wuhan where researchers study bat coronaviruses. National Geographic
• The leading theory now backed by most scientists is that the virus arose in wild bats and found its way into animals (perhaps via a pangolin or a civet cat) sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan. Prospect Magazine
• Most scientists studying the origins of COVID-19 have concluded that the SARS-CoV-2 virus probably evolved naturally and infected humans via incidental contact with a wild or domesticated animal. GenEng News
• Questions have been raised about whether the virus could have leaked from a laboratory studying related viruses in Wuhan – a scenario most scientists...feel is less likely than a natural spillover. SCMP
• There continues to be no evidence at all for the conspiracy theory that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was developed as some kind of bioweapon, and most scientists believe that the majority of available evidence indicates the virus jumped from animal to human. New York magazine

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

All of these are opinions and I can easily provide opinions that differ from this point of view. If you are sharing opinions WP:NPOV clearly states - "Avoid stating opinions as facts."

Here are alternate opinions from WP:RS which contradict that.

"Prof van der Merwe believes that scientists had used articles in The Lancet and Nature Medicine to create a “false impression” that a natural spillover origin was scientific consensus." The Telegraph

"There is no consensus on the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

"The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. Commissioners held diverse views about the relative probabilities of the two explanations, and both possibilities require further scientific investigation." The Lancet

"There is no scientific consensus on how the virus originated, but researchers believe it could have originated naturally or from an accident in a lab." Politifact

"While Worobey et al. (and their companion paper by Pekar et al. [41]) may dispute these findings, no scientific consensus can yet be presumed." Commentary in ASM mBio

"To be clear, while some circumstantial evidence supports the lab leak theory, there is still no scientific consensus on whether COVID-19 emerged from a research facility, a wet market, or somewhere else." Reason

If you are stating opinions, please say so in the article as it is violating both WP:NOPV ("Avoid stating opinions as facts.") and WP:RS ("Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.") 2601:602:8200:4A10:48B9:9523:61E9:57C5 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

These are assessments made by WP:RSes. Not opinions. None of the sources you have provided disagree with the sources I provided, as I stated above. A lack of an absolute scientific consensus and the majority of scientists believing x is the most likely are not mutually exclusive.

At this point, I don't think this conversation is very productive, so I'm gonna stop replying. Have a nice day. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you please cite exactly what methodology is used to make the assessment and why is it not an opinion? 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

If you are claiming to say "majority of scientists believe x", it should be fairly easy to provide a primary source that confirms this statement. I have yet to see anything close to this. Whatever you have linked are opinions/assessments based on absolutely no primary source to verify that statement. So it makes no sense to mention unverifiable statements in the article. 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

You have been given nine reliable sources that confirm what our article says. The correct way to counter those is to collect about as many reliable sources that say the opposite, not to claim that those nine are all "just opinions". You are clearly grasping at straws and wasting everybody's time, and it is obvious that you will never be satisfied with any amount of evidence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Then at least cite the correct sources in the article? The current citation points to two articles none of which back the claim. Please point it to one or multiple of the nince sources instead. 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 08:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks 2601:602:8200:4A10:B091:6793:4010:A50D (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The synthesis of the discussion above, and specifically Shibbolethink's comment "None of the sources you have provided disagree with the sources I provided, as I stated above. A lack of an absolute scientific consensus and the majority of scientists believing x is the most likely are not mutually exclusive." suggest that the proper NPOV thing to do is include both statements - that a majority of scientists believe in natural origins and that there is no scientific consensus ruling out the lab leak - in the lede, properly cited. So I went ahead and made a bold edit to this effect. --skeptical scientist (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagree with your bold edit. It goes much farther beyond what this discussion was about, and introduces more content and sources in a way that is not compatible with any consensus I could find here. For several reasons, this edit is objectionable:

1. It foregoes consensus building and inserts 4k of material that others had already reverted to restore your preferred version. Don't do that.
2. it doesn't appropriately summarize the sources, instead using synthesizing (WP:SYNTH) your own interpretation from what several sources say.
3. This is also visible in WP:HOWEVER. It puts several statements in conjunction with one another that draw a conclusion based on something not present in the reliable sources.
4. It cites several unreliable sources (e.g. the Lancet commission) which experts in these fields don't find credible or reliable. We have had many talk page discussions about this. Ditto with relying heavily on news sources and other opinions instead of secondary review articles. Don't reinvent the wheel, read the archives. Read WP:MEDASSESS.

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Skeptical scientist: If you want to make changes in this area, it is going to need to be baby steps. The article is far too contentious for anything so large to succeed. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

One sentence with a footnote is "so large"? Yes, the edit was 4k, but the bulk of that was citation.

Let's start with the sentence I added, "However, there is no scientific consensus that rules out a lab leak, with multiple scientists saying that both theories are credible and should be investigated." The sources I provided mostly match the ones provided by 2601:602:8200:... above, with the addition of Monday's WSJ article that said "The scientific community is divided over the possibility that the virus emerged from a lab leak or was transmitted to humans from an infected animal". I believe this sentence is accurate, reliably sourced, and helps establish a neutral point of view in this article. WDYT? skeptical scientist (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You're right about the size of the change. I had misunderstood the diff. As a matter of reality, I do agree that there is no scientific consensus. But I'm not sure what are the sourcing rules from that one. It may be one of those cases where Wikipedia-reality, per Wikipedia rules, does not allow us to state reality-reality. We definitely can't say there is a scientific consensus, because for one thing there isn't. But I'm not sure we can say there isn't one, either. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

My understanding of WP rules is if there are multiple reliable sources making a claim, WP can say so, if appropriately cited (and I included the citations). Shibbolethink brought up WP:MEDASSESS, but I don't think that's relevant, per current consensus that "2. There is consensus against defining 'disease and pandemic origins' (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS." More relevant is Shibbolethink's specific objections to the Lancet commission report: "That Lancet piece is from an independent commission that was not headed by recognized experts on viruses, biosafety, or incident investigation." and mBio note: "The commentary from mBio was not peer reviewed, and is a PRIMARY source. It is only reliable for that person's opinion." I can agree with that objection to the mBio source, but I find the objection to The Lancet Commission surprising. It was organized by the editors of a leading scientific journal to capture a scientific-consensus view on various matters pertaining to covid, but it is considered unreliable compared to a random peer-reviewed journal article? --skeptical scientist (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The Lancet commission is considered unreliable when compared to expert-authored, edited, and peer-reviewed secondary journal review articles published in very well-regarded topic-relevant journals (such as Cell). It isn't just WP:MEDASSESS, WP:SOURCETYPES tells us that peer-reviewed scholarship always trumps stuff like this.

The Lancet Commission Final Report was not peer-reviewed or expert-reviewed, as far as I can ascertain. It only has a publication date. It does not count among its members any of the "usual suspects" you would expect to find. E.g. there is no overlap with any of the seminal papers in the field, or the joint WHO-China report, or major virological association's leadership. These are all major red flags that a source is not very reliable. Add to that the fact that the report (and its head, Dr. Sachs) have been trashed in numerous venues by prominent virologists: [6][7][8][9][10] and you end up with an assessment that this is not likely to be very reliable on these questions.

It certainly doesn't help that Dr. Sachs is a fan of peddling conspiracy theories about the US Government and Dr. Fauci "concocting" a narrative to hide the origins. [11] He says this despite his various biochemical theories being disproved by actual biochemists (e.g. he believed the furin cleavage site "had to be engineered" - I think he still says this. Multiple multiple virologists have proven him wrong, pointing at the direct genetic evidence in similarly related coronaviruses). We live in an age when economists like Sachs (and other non-experts in these things) try to extend their expertise far beyond where it is accredited. But Wikipedia doesn't care about whatever people say they're an expert in, or whatever they try and publish about. Wikipedia cares about what the actual experts think about these things. And those experts almost universally say there is no actual evidence in favor of a lab leak. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, after re-reviewing the membership of the lancet covid commission, I see your point. While it does have a few infectious disease, public health, and virology experts, it is definitely light on the public health side and heavy on the interdisciplinary side. It is still a reliable source per WP:RS; it's just not at that highest tier of peer-reviewed journal.

That said, it's still the case that there is no scientific consensus to rule out lab leak, and I provided multiple reliable sources that establish this (including the Lancet commission and the Wall Street Journal, which are both solid reliable sources even if not peer-reviewed journal articles). All of the examples you have provided show that this is still a highly-debated area between scientists; they don't show a scientific consensus.

In general a peer-reviewed journal article claiming X is reliable evidence 1) for X (in the absence of similar-quality evidence saying not-X or we don't know) and 2) that some scientists (including the author of the article) believe X. It is not reliable evidence of a scientific consensus for X. --skeptical scientist (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think where you're getting confused here is wrt WP:RS/AC.

any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus

So what we should say is what is present in those highest quality academic reviews. E.g. "The most likely scenario is zoonosis". It's incorrect to say "There's no consensus on the origin" because there is a consensus. That one is more likely. There isn't a consensus that defnitively places one scenario as what happened, but there is a consensus on what is the more likely situation that led to the pandemic, based on the available evidence.

It's what all our best available sources say, that nothing is confirmed, but that one scenario is more likely. I wouldn't be opposed to saying something slightly more similar to that, but my guess is that we'd need to run an RFC with multiple options, rather than just boldly inserting what we individually think is the correct form of the text. I think my preference would be to change " The theory is highly controversial; most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis, similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history"

to: "The theory remains highly controversial and no definitive conclusions have been drawn. Most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis, similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be a definite improvement to the article to say that no definitive conclusions have been drawn. I'd be happy with either 1) you making an edit like you suggest, or 2) we have an RFC about what the article should say about the scientific consensus. If we do have an RFC, I think the question should be "what should the article say about the scientific consensus on the origin of covid" and options should include 1) both natural and lab leak origins are possible and should be investigated, 2) natural origins is most likely but lab leak origin is also possible and should be investigated, 3) natural origin (lab leak can be ruled out), 4) no scientific consensus exists on this question. Personally, if we have such an RFC, I would support 4 (no scientific consensus exists on this question), because I think that is closest to the truth, and I don't think it will be hard to find reliable sources backing that up (including e.g. the WSJ journal article saying "the scientific community is divided").

If we do have an RFC, possibly we could also address the newly added comment "item 1 of consensus needs to be re-evaluated" at the same time. --skeptical scientist (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think it's necessary to have an RFC. This topic is controversial, but that doesn't mean all changes need an RFC. If someone reverts the edit, we can always bring them into the discussion, and if there seem to be unresolvable disagreements, then we can have an RFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeptical scientist (talk • contribs) 17:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I saw an illustration of the problem with reliable sources that is kind of difficult to tackle. Many times they are not really independent but use some circular referencing that form a giant loop. The video may have a conspiratorial theme but it illustrates the issue nevertheless. Elon Musk published the video in his timeline. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Oooh, you found a big problem with reliable sources. Let's change the rules, let's only use unreliable sources instead.</sarcasm>

Your fallacy is called special pleading. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, news media attacked the lab leak theory after a letter was published in The Lancet by scientists who had worked in some capacity with the Wuhan Lab and failed to disclose it, among other conflicts of interest.

Filippa Lentzos, codirector of the Centre for Science and Security Studies at King’s College, London, "“Some of the scientists in this area very quickly closed ranks.” She added, “There were people that did not talk about this, because they feared for their careers. They feared for their grants.”"

"“It’s very clear at this time that the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is a useful term for defaming an idea you disagree with,” says Ebright [professor of molecular biology at Rutgers University ], referring to scientists and journalists who have wielded the term."

"The Lancet letter ultimately helped to guide almost a year of reporting, as journalists helped to amplify Daszak’s message and to silence scientific and public debate."

"By the end of 2020, just a handful of journalists had dared to seriously discuss the possibility of a lab leak."

So again, how reliable are the reliable sources in this case is an open question.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge as published in reliable sources. It is not interested in The Truth™. If you want that, there are other bits of the Web that are suitable. Bon courage (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

If you analyze my comment it is about how reliable are those sources. Are they truly independent from each other. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Paul Thacker's reporting on this (and other topics) has been widely criticized as unreliable:

• For background, Thacker was fired from the journal Environmental Science & Technology for showing an anti-industry bias....Thacker has also promoted 5g conspiracy theories....Steven Novella
• I was reluctant to write any more about The BMJ and its descent into bad journalism, one of its editors amplifying antivaccine misinformation, and its publishing of outright conspiracy theories by a hack journalist, but unfortunately its editors leave me little choice...The article follows a familiar format for disinformation. Very definitive and serious accusations are leveled very early in the article, followed much later in the article by “facts” that do not actually substantiate such definitive and serious allegations. David Gorski and reposted further by Genetic Literacy Project
• The article was by investigative journalist turned anti-GMO muckraking crank Paul Thacker and was titled “Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial“. It’s an article that, since its publication last Tuesday, has been widely cited and shared by a wide variety of antivaxxers in order to portray the clinical trial of the Pfizer vaccine that led to its emergency use authorization (EUA) in the US as hopelessly corrupt. Science Based Medicine
• Community blog PLOS Biologue has pulled a post by journalists Charles Seife and Paul Thacker that argued in favor of public scrutiny of scientists’ behavior (including emails), following heavy criticism, including from a group and scientist mentioned in the post. Their reasoning: The post was “not consistent with at least the spirit and intent of our community guidelines.” Retraction Watch
• That canine breed comes up frequently in descriptions of Thacker, a former investigative reporter. His tenaciousness, however, hasn't always been well received. Three years ago, Thacker was fired from Environmental Science & Technology, a publication of the American Chemical Society (ACS), based in Washington DC, which represents academic and industrial chemists. He had written a series of exposés that a senior ACS official claimed showed an anti-industry bias. Nature
• As Thacker later revealed in SEJournal (PDF), the piece got him summarily canned. A.C.S.'s editor-in-chief, Rudy Baum, would go on to call the Weinberg piece a "hatchet job" Vanity Fair
• However, several vaccine experts familiar with COVID vaccine clinical trials questioned the article's accuracy, and advised people not to believe it outright. "It's all this sort of vague kind of hand waving; I have no idea whether any of this is true, nor do you," Paul Offit, MD, of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and a member of the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, told MedPage Today. "That The BMJ published it doesn't make it any more true," Offit, who formerly sat on CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, added. "If this whistleblower believes that they have a whistle to blow, then blow it. And then let's have the company respond." MedPageToday

Not exactly the prime example of a person we want to rely on for matters of fact. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I was not aware of such criticism but certainly it's not surprising. A gadfly making waves criticizing an industry probably will face backlash. I notice we go back to the conspiracy theory attack theme in some of the sources. If the lab leak was considered a conspiracy theory and now even government organizations back it, I am skeptical of sources with new claims of something being a conspiracy theory.

Also, "anti-industry bias". Should we just accept pro-industry bias? Getting fired for such bias seems to be like the actions taken against whistleblowers. Muckracking crank? A blog removal?

The Vanity Fair source is dated 2008, even before Thacker was writing for Scientific American and listed a Fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University.

Thacker is listed as one of the winners of the 2021 British Journalism Awards, with work on for instance, "Covid-19: How independent were the US and British vaccine advisory committees?". The judges said: “This was expertly researched and written journalism on a subject of huge national importance.”

The Guardian states in it also receiving the awards, they are "celebration of the best public interest journalism produced for a UK audience, recognising great journalism that is revelatory and has an impact."

I think he has detractors as expected from a critic exposing wrongdoing but he also has solid credentials. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"solid credentials" is an exaggeration. On wikipedia, we prefer scientific/scholarly sources and assessments to journalistic ones. The alternative is WikiNews — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

And yet your reference is Vanity Fair. Are you joking? Besides, the issue about wrongdoing in scientific circles is more relevant to journalistic investigations not scientific journals. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You are given seven sources, six of which are scientists in various venues and one of which is Vanity Fair. Your response is And yet your reference is Vanity Fair. Why should anybody take you seriously? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If an editor is arguing for scientific/scholarly sources, why provide Vanity Fair as one of the sources? And again, the issue about wrongdoing in scientific circles is more relevant to journalistic investigations not scientific journals. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources

What scientists think (again)

In almost all the points in this article, I see a bias towards zoonosis theory. This is despite WP:RS conflicting with those arguments. So when two WP:RS conflict with each other, why is only one view mentioned and not the other?

Just as an example, some reliable sources say "most scientists believe natural origin" whereas though not a direct disagreement but still there are reliable sources that offer a more balanced view like "There is no scientific consensus". So how is it decided that one of these statements ends up in the article and the other doesn't? Doesn't WP:NPOV explicitly state: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means 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." So isn't the lack of scientific consensus a significant view that should be mentioned? 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia doesn't balance relevant scientists against conspiracy theorists, pundits and cranks. In my understanding even the LL's are now saying it was zoonosis, but "in the lab". Bon courage (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Even the reliable sources aren't as biased as some editors around here.

The claim "There is no scientific consensus" is from reliable sources and should be added to the article.

"Prof van der Merwe believes that scientists had used articles in The Lancet and Nature Medicine to create a “false impression” that a natural spillover origin was scientific consensus." The Telegraph

"There is no consensus on the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

"The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. Commissioners held diverse views about the relative probabilities of the two explanations, and both possibilities require further scientific investigation." The Lancet

"There is no scientific consensus on how the virus originated, but researchers believe it could have originated naturally or from an accident in a lab." Politifact

"While Worobey et al. (and their companion paper by Pekar et al. [41]) may dispute these findings, no scientific consensus can yet be presumed." Commentary in ASM mBio

"To be clear, while some circumstantial evidence supports the lab leak theory, there is still no scientific consensus on whether COVID-19 emerged from a research facility, a wet market, or somewhere else." Reason

Why cherry pick? Are you here to portray the actual info or spread your own one-sided propaganda? 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

See thread above on this exact question. Bon courage (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

You are ignoring my point. The thread above was for inclusion of the claim "Most scientists believe in natural origin".

This thread is about the non-inclusion of the claim "There is no scientific consensus".

Both statements are from multiple reliable sources but clearly you are picking only one of them. Why not mention the fact that there is no scientific consensus as it is a significant point? 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It's the same point: what the article says about "what scientists think". Terrible sources like the Telegraph or Sachs' stuff in the Lancet report aren't useful either. Bon courage (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not the same point though. Scientific consensus and what most scientists think are two separate but significant topics in their own right. Telegraph and The Lancet are both in WP:RS, aren't they? Wikipedia should convey what RS say without editorializing. This is basic WP:NPOV.

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means 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." 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

As an FYI, the sources you've posted are not reliable for this claim. The Telegraph is not considered reliable for scientific/political claims like this (see WP:RSP). That Lancet piece is from an independent commission that was not headed by recognized experts on viruses, biosafety, or incident investigation. It is not recognized as an authority on any of these things. The statement was not peer reviewed, or editorially reviewed. PolitiFact is not considered particularly reliable for scientific claims. Scientific journal articles are more reliable, especially those that are peer reviewed and published in topic-relevant journals edited by recognized experts. The commentary from mBio was not peer reviewed, and is a PRIMARY source. It is only reliable for that person's opinion, not useful for determining something in wiki-voice. Reason is not considered reliable for matters of science. We prefer secondary, peer-reviewed, independent scholarly reviews from experts in the field, published in topic-relevant journals (e.g. The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage Sounds like you favor the zoonosis theory. The ip is talking about reliable sources and you start talking about unmentioned conspiracy theories and cranks. Even if you hate it, the lab leak theory is no longer considered a conspiracy theory nor fringe, therefore it needs to be properly balanced according to Wikipedia guidance. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe try WP:NOTYOU? I'm not a virologist so I have no idea, and even if I were it wouldn't matter. We follow what the WP:BESTSOURCES say and no, they don't say it was a Chinese bioweapon, made in Fort Detrick, or whatever. The most RS allows is that some kind of LL is possible, if unlikely, and that there is no evidence for it whereas there is some for zoonosis. Anything beyond that is into the WP:FRINGE. When/if RS changes, this article can. Bon courage (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

There you go again. Who mentioned Chinese bioweapons? Can you quote and tell me the name of the editor who said that? Because I can't find it. We are talking about the lab leak theory which even some US government agencies say is more likely than zoonosis. I haven't done a meta-analysis to see what's the proportion of reliable sources that lean towards zoonosis or towards a lab accident. Because according to the reliable sources I have read, both scenarios are possible.

The debate was politicized and such is reflected in this talk page as well. Some editors are vociferously against the lab leak theory because of Trump or Republicans in America, reliable sources or NPOV out the window. Others may have undisclosed conflicts of interest. Others for some reason or another simply prefer one theory over the other. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

In fact on another article an editor has been arguing[12] that the Chinese bioweapon thing is an 'accepted theory', and it's a topic we discuss in this very article, so an intrinsic part of LL for many LL proponents (see also e.g. PMID:34345925). It is absolutely not your job to a "meta-analysis" of sources. We have WP:RS for that, and they tell us what most scientists think and what the scientific consensus is (i.e. probably zoonosis). You are going personal again and if that continues this may need admin attention. The assumption that editors here are pursuing a political agenda is particularly insulting and wrong (hint: not everybody is American; I know I'm not). Editors are here to reflect accepted knowledge as published in reliable sources and not to push their ideas. Assuming that is basic to Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree completely. To say in the same contribution The debate was politicized and such is reflected in this talk page as well and the lab leak theory which even some US government agencies say is more likely than zoonosis is hypocritical. Why would anybody care about the government of one specific country? Only if one wants to politicize the question. Lab leak is the dernier cri among politicians of the United States and China because they are accusing each other of conspiracies; in most other places in the world nobody gives a shit about it. As Bon courage says, this is about what scientists think. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the statement "There is no scientific consensus" would be a valuable addition to the article. Many readers will be coming to the article with that exact question in mind, and a simple, concise statement in the lede of the article should be available. 219.88.179.61 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Sourced to a review such as this one perhaps, or something more recent. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9420317/ 219.88.179.61 (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Collapse WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that there is no scientific consensus and multiple reliable sources are reporting it (despite your flawed assessment that they are all not reliable). I agree that there are some papers that present evidence for zoonosis but that doesn't make it a consensus. When multiple reliable sources are saying there's no scientific consensus why are you not reporting that as is Wikipedia's policy to report what reliable sources say? Your claim of "most scientists believe zoonosis" is also not based on primary source but on the "assessments" made by reliable sources. Then why can't you apply the same yardstick when reliable sources are making the assessment that there is no scientific consensus? Regarding your comments about the reliability of the sources, the Lancet Commission includes multiple reliable scientists with differing views, so your opinion about the reliability of who heads it is purely subjective. I am sure had they arrived at zoonosis you would be more than happy to include them in the article. Labelling anyone who doesn't parrot your propaganda as unreliable and using that to censor the opposing viewpoints is not official Wikipedia policy. The letter in mBio is also a reliable source because not anyone can publish a commentary. Although not peer reviewed, it still needs to be approved by the editorial team. When similar pieces say "most scientists believe" it becomes 'assessment' but when they say "no scientific consensus" you are labelling them as 'opinions'. You routinely cite political sources as reliable sources when it suits your agenda but bring up the "they aren't reliable for scientific claims" card whenever the claim doesn't suit your agenda. You are an extremely biased editor here and I am surprised others are oblivious to your blatant bias in this topic. To me your actions are not a surprise because of your background in virology, work with BSL3 pathogens and funding from NIH. Since the outcome of Covid origins investigation directly impacts your professional life and since you have received fundings from the same institute that was funding gain of function research at the Wuhan lab, you have a massive and relatively less talked about conflict of interest in this debate. I urge the editors of Wikipedia to strongly reconsider @Shibbolethink's editorial power over this article. 2601:602:8200:4A10:7AD8:FAAD:4F75:D61B (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Please do not make personal comments about other users on article talk pages, where they are off-topic. What you've done here is cast WP:ASPERSIONS, again, a blockable offense. My professional career, which now has nothing to do with virology (I work on brain tumors), will be completely unaffected by the outcome of the origins investigations. Please remember to assume good faith of other editors in discussions like this, or you risk being blocked. I don't believe I advocated here for saying there was a scientific consensus on this, only that most scientists believe the zoonosis is most likely. A statement for which we have excellent scholarly sources to support. As a general FYI, wikipedia is not a logic competition where we can argue our way into what we want. You have to convince others of your position, not argue them into submission. I don't believe you have consensus in favor of your views here, so continued posting of the same arguments over and over will very likely be perceived as WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Please stop adding multiple talk page sections about very similar ideas and requests. Users regularly get blocked for this sort of thing (WP:BLUDGEON). If others aren't responding to your concerns or taking up their arguments, the best action is to wait and see. If a consensus fails to form, the best advice is available at WP:1AM. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 07:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

As stated before this is a different topic.

"The thread above was for inclusion of the claim "Most scientists believe in natural origin".

This thread is about the non-inclusion of the claim "There is no scientific consensus"."

Please feel free to edit the title of this topic if you feel it would better represent the thread. 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This review says The analysis of the available publications until July 2021 did not allow drawing definitive conclusions and the most important publications on this topic (Pekar and Worobey) were published after July 2021.

So here are some reviews which actually incorporate that evidence:

• Rochman, Nash D; Wolf, Yuri I; Koonin, Eugene V (18 July 2022). "Molecular adaptations during viral epidemics". EMBO reports. 23 (8). EMBO. doi:10.15252/embr.202255393. ISSN 1469-221X.:
  • SARS-CoV-2 began circulating among human hosts in Hunan (China) by December 2019, likely following at least two independent zoonotic events. Like the other epidemic Betacoronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 likely originated among bats with at least one, still unidentified, intermediate host mediating zoonosis.
• Bronzwaer, Stef; Catchpole, Mike; de Coen, Wim; Dingwall, Zoe; Fabbri, Karen; Foltz, Clémence; Ganzleben, Catherine; van Gorcom, Robert; Humphreys, Anthony; Jokelainen, Pikka; Liebana, Ernesto; Rizzi, Valentina; Url, Bernhard (2022). "One Health collaboration with and among EU Agencies – Bridging research and policy". One Health. 15. Elsevier BV: 100464. doi:10.1016/j.onehlt.2022.100464. ISSN 2352-7714.:
  • The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2 – a zoonotic virus, impacting society in all levels, reminded us that silo approaches will not work
• Li, Qian; Shah, Taif; Wang, Binghui; Qu, Linyu; Wang, Rui; Hou, Yutong; Baloch, Zulqarnain; Xia, Xueshan (6 January 2023). "Cross-species transmission, evolution and zoonotic potential of coronaviruses". Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 12. Frontiers Media SA. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2022.1081370. ISSN 2235-2988.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link):
  • Many of the first COVID-19 patients claimed to have visited an animal market in Wuhan, implying that the virus may have been transmitted to them by animals at the market (Zhou et al., 2020). Although the exact route of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from bat reservoirs to humans is unknown (Lu et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020), recent evidence points to raccoons as the intermediate mammalian host between bats and humans

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said on the other thread, it's pretty clear that there is no consensus on the virus origins, other than "we don't know". There are numerous RSes (not least the WHO) that back this up. Putting a clear statement in the lead that there isn't consensus would be a good first step towards remedying this article's NPOV issues. For example, something like "WHO director-general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has called for a new investigation into the virus's origins, saying: "All hypotheses remain open and require further study." PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Except it would be howling WP:PROFRINGE without mentioning the likelihood assigned to the various possibilities. Bon courage (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with also saying 'most scientists believe that the lab leak is the more likely of the two scenarios', because that's what the sources say. What I object to is portraying this as a settled matter or portraying the lab leak hypothesis as a racist conspiracy theory. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It mostly is though. Most people are not "scientists". Follow the sources. Bon courage (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Pie is correct that there are two different questions. One relates to whether or not there is a consensus. The other to what most scientists think. The sourcing for what most scientists think remains, I think, in favor of saying that most scientists think it was zoonosis. I recently ran across an NYT article that supports "some" instead of "most" [13], but I think the overall picture continues to support "most".

On the question of whether or not there is a "consensus", I don't think the sourcing supports saying that there is. The FBI and the Energy department, for example, both have their own scientists (see [14], for example), and came to varying levels of support for LL. If there were a "consensus" for Z, that would not have happened. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Follow the sources. Unless the sources mention there is no consensus. In which case, follow your propaganda. 2601:602:8200:4A10:B091:6793:4010:A50D (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Do we say anywhere that there is a consensus? Adoring nanny (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You choose not to say there is no consensus. 2601:602:8200:4A10:7AD8:FAAD:4F75:D61B (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In direct violation of WP:NPOV.

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means 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."

"This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." 2601:602:8200:4A10:7AD8:FAAD:4F75:D61B (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

If we leave all the crappo sources to one side and go for some WP:BESTSOURCES-level WP:SCHOLARSHIP (PMID:34897750) we could say that the consensus view is that the pandemic probably started from a natural source. I'd support that. Bon courage (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

There was an RfP which concluded that mainstream reliable sources could be used for the COVID origins topic (apart from for the biomedical aspects). I don't think that consensus can be circumvented by simply calling these sources 'crappo'. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

WTF is a "RFP"? And when it comes to mainstream reliable sources, then peer-reviewed, secondary, MEDLINE-indexed, on-point prestige journal articles are just that ("Politifact", not so much). So just to be clear: we're not going to be talking about origin "consensus" because it's off-topic. But if we do, it'll be to say that the origin consensus is natural zoonosis. Bon courage (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing out the typo. You are of course correct that I did indeed mean to say RfC.
• I never said that Politifact . I said mainstream sources meaning the Wall Street Journal, NYT, Telegraph, BBC, Washington Post etc etc. 'Mainstream' obviously doesn't mean scientific journal articles.
• How is origin consensus off topic? That is precisely the purpose of this thread and a very important question for the purposes of editing this article.

PieLover3141592654 (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Those are just newspapers of varying quality (WSJ? for science? seriously?). Irrelevant when we have secondary peer-reviewed scientific ones. The "consensus" about "origin" is something for Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, it's not relevant to the LL "theory" itself. Bon courage (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Most non-scientists are just not aware of how abysmal many newspapers' coverage of scientific subjects is, especially the WSJ. This is a WP:CIR problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

As I've said again and again and again, there's been an RfC on whether mainstream news sources are valid sources for COVID origins topics and the consensus was that they are. As Jimmy Wales has pointed out, this is a social/historical topic, not a purely scientific one. If you disagree with the RfC, feel free to launch another one. And this is not the appropriate place to discuss the reliability of the WSJ and other mainstream newspapers either - try the reliable sources noticeboard. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Use science sources for science, and other sources for other things. But not crap sources like "Politifact" or WSJ for science. And in any, event peer-reviewed, scholarly, secondary, reputable sources trump lay ones in all topics. Bon courage (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a now infamous debate about the reliability of the peer review system, which was made famous by a Lancet editor. I agree that we don’t know the origin of Covid 19 but the majority believe argument is absolutely deficient for the simple reason that the systems in place to claim objectivity have not ever been proven to be robust. Science is also susceptible to scientists following beliefs because they are majority beliefs, and a means to furthering careers, rather than based on conclusive evidence 2A00:23EE:2420:58AB:D493:5A8F:A9CC:3561 (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

From "there is a debate about X", you conclude that "we should not use X"? That is rather thin sauce. You probably don't leave your house because "it has not been proven" that you will not be devoured by zombies if you do.

Please concentrate on improving the articles using reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)