Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The Economist article + GOP report on lab leak

https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started

There is an 84-page report by GOP officials arguing for the lab leak theory, cited by The Economist; the link to it is here. It is discussed to some extent in The Hill. Tl;dr, so I leave it here to be added to the article. Also, apparently the Biden team should release results by Aug 24, so keep track of news. Yours, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The Republican party arguing against science (against climate change; against COVID-19 mitigation measures; ...) is so cliché its almost not noteworthy. We're certainly not going to link to it (it is not a reliable source; except for the opinion of its authors, who are not subject matter experts or an otherwise acceptable of WP:RSOPINION). I see that the Republican party is also already mentioned in the lead as promoting this theory. We can maybe add a mention somewhere in the article, so long we avoid it becoming WP:PROSELINE. And, speaking of reliable sources, there's also a brand new review on the topic and I see they address many of the (same old rehashed a thousand times) arguments on the topic; we should cite that as an additional source. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, if it's actually the position of the Republican Party ('HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT MINORITY STAFF'), then it's maybe worth mentioning in the article. Not in wikivoice, but as the position of the Republican Party. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly the purpose for the report as I saw it, because so far we have it in the lead, but no significant expanding on its support by the Republicans in the body of the article (exec summary provided here in an op-ed by WaPo [1]. I did not mean for it to be overriding the scientific consensus, as they seem to cherry-pick evidence, without discussing contradictory information.

They say it's an "addendum [update?] to the Sep 2020 report" - the older one is here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The McCaul report can be cited as an (unnumbered) "staff document". See The Bluebook, Rule 13.4: LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS. Besides statutes, the legislative process generates bills and resolutions; committee hearings; reports, documents, and committee prints; … (c) Unnumbered federal documents and committee prints. To be specific, it's an unnumbered document by the Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, produced at the direction of Ranking Member McCaul.

McCaul, a Republican, is a ranking member of the Committee, not of the Party. Nothing in this staff report says or suggests that party leadership ("GOP officials") treat it as the party's position or view. (Cf. GOP Leadership.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• I would say we should use all significant sources, i.e. both the report by GOP minority (as a well sourced minority view) and of course the review in Cell.

1. Speaking on the first source, yes, many GOP members argue against science, however this particular report is not arguing against climate change, COVID-19 mitigation measures, or the science in general. As of note, they claim the virus was deliberately manipulated ("The virus, or the viral sequence that was genetically manipulated, was likely collected..."), not just leaked, so that needs to be explicitly attributed to the report (this is definitely not likely, but can not be excluded). One can argue this is a primary source, but it has been discussed in many strong secondary RS, so linking also' to the original report is fine.
2. Speaking on the 2nd source, the review in Cell is good, but I am not sure how to summarize it. This is a review on "The Origins of SARS-CoV-2", so what are the origins? They say: "No bat reservoir nor intermediate animal host for SARS-CoV-2 has been identified to date.", and it also follows no patient zero was identified. They also say "There is currently no [scientific] evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin." Translation: the origins are unknown. The authors are hell-bent on proving their view that the lab escape, even an accidental one, was unlikely. This is fine, and one can/should include their arguments to the page. Just be careful because they are mentioning a lot of indisputable info that actually does not prove anything. For example, they say: "these data demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that RaTG13 is not the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2". Yes, of course it is not, but it does not prove anything about the lab escape. Such subspecies just should have a common ancestor population, as usual. My very best wishes (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

   Ad 1. The general conclusion they post (p. 62 of the report) is that there was an accidental release of the virus before Sep 12, 2019 (that date being chosen due to a research letter from Italy about SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that could be traced to some cancer samples taken at that time see below). The quote you provide relates to their hypothesis, put forward in the introduction, that the virus collected from bat caves was deliberately manipulated, and that manipulated version (which we know as SARS-CoV-2) was accidentally leaked (read previous sentence). It's not that they intended to leak the changed virus, as can be read from your sentence (or at least I do).

   As for the source: it's certainly not primary, as it constitutes an analysis rather than a witness account. I'd rather say secondary or even tetriary (but unsure about which of these two). That said, it's inherently partisan, so it should be handled with care.

   I have no comments regarding the Cell review, though obviously it should be included as a peer-reviewed review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

   The GOP report cannot be used for any scientific information, since it was neither written, published or reviewed by scientists (it's written by congressional staffers, with expertise more likely in political science or law; it's effectively self-published (WP:SPS); and the claims it makes are dramatically at odds with the prevailing views of the relevant scientific community, making it a huge WP:REDFLAG, just as an example, their claims about deliberate engineering are not just "definitely not likely" - they've long been ruled out by scientists, who find that no known or plausible process could have pulled this off without leaving a trace). What we can do is mention it (briefly, in the course of the text about US political/media attention to this stuff), along with independent commentary on it.

   Strongly disagree with MVBW's assessment of the review paper. The conclusion is rather clear that "the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event", and describes how this is consistent with available data and evidence, having spent a whole section on this in the main body of the article. Of course it isn't a definitive statement, but it's rather clear that this is the most likely route given available evidence. Given how Holmes et al. seem to stress that there is no evidence for laboratory origin, and how all supposed "evidence" for it is really inconsistent with the claim, I don't see how or why we should turn this up on its head and plough ahead right into the territory of false equivalence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"the most parsimonious explanation" - yes, sure, the analysis of sequences can say how the viruses most likely have evolved (not how they have actually evolved), but this has nothing to do with any potential experimentation with a virus in a lab. Yes, this review say that lab leak is highly unlikely and explain why. This review also say there is no any evidence that it leaked from a lab. Well, that would probably worth a couple of "Pinocchio" because a large number of other sources (including the report cited by the Economist) claim there is actually significant circumstantial evidence/suspicious facts which I think should be included to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that journalists are simply not sufficient sources for a complex scientific topic, especially not when it has been tainted by the nasty stench of politics. The "significant circumstantial evidence" is not really "significant" - it basically sums up to "there's a virology lab in Wuhan". If journalists and politicians are saying one thing, and scientists another, then we give precedence to the scientists, as per long established practice which you surely know about. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Guys, let's better not quarrel about who is right and who is not, but rather let's simply include the opinion of GOP as an opinion, in a few sentences (on a compilation of the facts that mostly omit any evidence to the contrary, but still). That's what we have attribution for. The sentence in the lead already says that scientists (for now) do not generally consider the scenario likely, so that review might be added to a tally of reviews which say it is not likely. If we need additional emphasis to stress that fact (and we probably will need it), we can add sentences to that effect. But this opinion is certainly worthy of inclusion, regardless of its correctness and despite GOP congressmen not being scientists. We should not exclude opinions simply because the majority of the scientific community says they are bullshit (otherwise we wouldn't have had pseudoscience articles).

As for The Economist, add it, where appropriate as another source arguing for further investigation. Neither of the texts overturns what scientists have established so far.

Btw, where is Sen. Tom Cotton in the article? He was probably the first senior politician to publicly voice that theory in the US, back in February 2020. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

1. I think the position of a major political party in the United States which is the epicentre of the theory is worthy of inclusion. Now, what form that inclusion takes is a different matter. Above you said the Republican party making claims that contradict science is not exceptional. Well, to a reader in 100 years' time, will it be well known the nature of the Republican party in 2021? Personally I can't predict the future, but once upon a time Democrats were opposing Reconstruction reforms, so times can change. Exclusion of information because one believes it's 'obvious' is not always a good idea, although WP:SUMMARYSTYLE considerations can be relevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

   Well, as I said, the Republican position can be included/mentioned, in the relevant section (about politics and media attention). As for your question/example, I was exactly going to give it as an example of how we know the political stances of earlier times. And given how much the Trump-era (and the few decades leading up to it) Republican party is likely to attract scholarly attention, and already has, there's absolutely nothing to worry about. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

   We know some of the stances. That one is pretty well known, and Republicans are keen to remind people of it if forgotten. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: The general conclusion they post (p. 62 of the report) is that there was an accidental release of the virus before Sep 12, 2019 (that date being chosen due to a research letter from Italy about SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that could be traced to some cancer samples taken at that time). Wasn't that research letter found to be unsubstantiated? Particularly, the original researchers seem to have used an unvalidated test for antibodies with a high false-positive rate. Worth noting if we're including this in the article. I think it's probably notable enough to include, but with context relative to the scholarly sources we place more weight on (and I wouldn't consider a partisan position citing primary studies on equal footing as a secondary scientific study). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll add, it's hard to find info on replication of the serology study (the replication crisis is real). This is the most recent I can find, and seems to suggest the results will be published soon, but are unlikely to replicate the original results. [2] Bakkster Man (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry, I've messed up - that Sep 12 date was chosen because it was the day when the WIV database went offline, which, coupled with some tenders that ostensibly were trying to patch existent security flaws in WIV, they speculate was the beginning of the cover-up. Yeah, I actually had to read some fragments of it to get hold of their argument. The Italian study they use is different from the one that made headlines, and in that one, the earliest sample they detected was in Nov 2020. They don't cite the study claiming circulation in September 2019. Sorry for misinforming you. They do say, however, that the virus was circulating in public transport by late August/early September: "Late August/Early September 2019: One or more researchers become accidently infected with SARS-CoV-2, which was either collected in the Yunnan cave, or the result of gain-of-function research at the WIV. They travel by metro in central Wuhan, spreading the virus."

That research letter could be, of course, mentioned because it was an argument for lab leak proponents. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the correction. I'd generally disagree on the research letter being cited by itself, at least without caveats contextualizing it. There's a good reason we prefer secondary sources. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that the The Hill article isn't very good either as it appears to just echo the claims without putting them in context... —PaleoNeonate – 03:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

US intelligence summary as reported by news agencies

Here's how the two largest news agencies are reporting that intelligence summary.

AP:

According to an unclassified summary, four members of the U.S. intelligence community say with low confidence that the virus was initially transmitted from an animal to a human. A fifth intelligence agency believes with moderate confidence that the first human infection was linked to a lab.

Reuters:

Several organizations within the sprawling U.S. intelligence community thought the novel coronavirus emerged from "natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus," according to the summary.

But they had only "low confidence" in that conclusion, the summary said. Other groups were not able to come to any firm opinion at all on the origins.

One intelligence community segment, however, developed "moderate confidence" the first human infection with COVID-19 was likely due to a "laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology" in China.

References

Not sure whether AFP has reported it yet. –Dervorguilla (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC) 02:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian: "The report, issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ... said a satisfying answer to the question of how [the] virus ... started remained out of reach" & "the report concluded that analysts would not be able to provide "a more definitive explanation" without new information from China, such as clinical samples and epidemiological data about the earliest cases". The article also includes near identical quotes to AP/Reuters, provided by one of them as it's partly attributed to agencies. Jr8825 • Talk 03:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll also draw attention to their conclusions that the virus probably wasn't genetically engineered, nor did the Chinese government appear to have any forewarning before the initial outbreak. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: Just in case they're reading this, here's the Intelligence Community's statement verbatim:

Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way.

–Dervorguilla (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, who is "they"? ––FormalDude talk 23:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Two of these agencies, reportedly. –Dervorguilla (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

you can't be serious? ––FormalDude talk 03:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I may have said too much... –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I am reading the summary as an admission there was no any lab leak. "[Only] One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident... These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses." What? Merely an "inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses"? This is all they found? OK. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, all they released unclassified so far. Thought even this does seem to lean more on the "a researcher got infected while collecting bat samples in the wild" being among the possibilities. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yikes, AP used the word consensus: The scientific consensus remains that the virus most likely migrated from animals in what’s known as a zoonotic transmission.. This makes my own resistance to using the term in past discussions age bad. Forich (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Everything on this topic ages poorly, lol. All we can do is adapt and roll with the changes, the only wrong move is to ignore when things shift. Bakkster Man (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Brief Review for Improvements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emmettaking/Evaluate_an_Article

Emmettaking (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Emmettaking

That's your opinion. The only opinion that matters in determining whether this is biased or not (we have a pro-science bias) is that of the high-quality reliable sources, such as scientists writing in peer-reviewed journals, etc... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Emmettaking, this review has a big glaring hole in logic. Many editors here don't consider this a "scientific" theory, but instead a "casual" theory. Also there are plenty of theories which are not supported by the majority of the scientific community. See: anti-gravity, Qi, Flat earth, etc. I would call these "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific theories." But they are still theories. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Emmettaking: "A C-class article from Wikipedia." The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. Some helpful background: Ryan, "Wikipedia Is at War over the Coronavirus Lab Leak Theory," CNET. [I]t's practically impossible to figure out where Wikipedia actually stands on the lab leak theory. The impenetrable walls of text that make up each [COVID-19 talk] page are "intimidating" to both experienced editors and newcomers.... Wales has weighed in, stating that the consensus in the mainstream media ... seems to have shifted ... to "this is one of the plausible hypotheses." Try to spend time editing rather than arguing, please. –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

They can't edit, since this talk page comment was only their second ever edit, far short of ECP. Input is welcome, but it needs to be clear and actionable, which the linked 'evaluation' isn't. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Emmettaking: Your review suggests one (inferrable) action, and it furnishes a legitimate reason.

The final paragraph of background also brings mention to conspiracy theories surrounding HIV, Ebola, and SARS... [T]ying conspiracy theories related to other disease outbreaks does not credit or discredit the plausible idea of COVID lab origins.

Apparently you want this sentence removed:

Previous novel disease outbreaks, such as HIV, H1N1, SARS, and the Ebola virus have also been the subject of conspiracy theories and allegations that the causative agent was created or escaped from a laboratory.

The policy applying here is WP:BALASP (about overall significance to the article topic). –Dervorguilla (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Task complete. –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that this should have been removed. It is of significance that this kind of theory isn't particularly new nor unique to COVID, and there have been reliable sources which point this out. "Overall significance" - this is an article about specifically the lab leak theory, so we're allowed to go to some more depth about it... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's valuable context, in the same way that the paragraph mentions previous leaks of SARS-CoV-1 from Chinese labs. If there's a change to be made, I'd suggest it's in being more precise with our use of the word 'conspiracy' and ensuring it's applied narrowly. Not in completely removing any mention of the conspiracy theories which have at various points tried to attach themselves to this theory. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: I concur. To some readers, lines like "Previous novel disease outbreaks ... have also been the subject of conspiracy theories" would come across as natural and reasonable; to others, as uncamouflaged question-begging. –Dervorguilla (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, Yes I think we should be specific about "conspiracies about nefarious origins" or similar, but I agree this sentence should remain in.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Theory or hypothesis?

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

---

COVID-19 lab leak theory or COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis? In science, the word theory means something that has not been proven, but generally is accepted as the 'best explanation until proven otherwise'. I don't think wee are at this stage yet. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, you may have missed the RM from a month ago. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Proximity of the Chinese CDC and Wet Market

Can we add to the article that there is a very short distance between 中国疾病预防控制中心 ( Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention ) and 武汉华南海鲜批发市场 (Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market). This source tells about 300 yards: https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-and-the-laboratories-in-wuhan-11587486996 Google maps shows a bit more: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/%E6%AD%A6%E6%B1%89%E9%93%81%E8%B7%AF%E7%96%BE%E7%97%85%E9%A2%84%E9%98%B2%E6%8E%A7%E5%88%B6%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83+China,+Hubei,+Wuhan,+Jianghan+District,+%E9%93%B6%E5%A2%A9%E8%B7%AF/Wuhan+South+China+Seafood+Wholesale+Market,+Jianghan+Qu,+Wuhan+Shi,+Hubei+Sheng,+China/@30.6165951,114.2498213,18z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x342eaead9401f3a9:0x4cb66b62e4dfa018!2m2!1d114.249637!2d30.615771!1m5!1m1!1s0x342ea94ab99e2bfd:0x5ba9b4b6604c943d!2m2!1d114.2616875!2d30.6177919!3e2?hl=en Can anyone help find more reliable sources? Cambr5 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The answer here is as true as the answer at the other article. The WSJ piece is an opinion editorial, and therefore not suitable for sourcing this fact on wikipedia. See WP:RS. The Google Maps link is a WP:PRIMARY source, and thus doubly so. We already have 2 versions of this sentence: The idea developed from the circumstantial evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is close in proximity to the pandemic's early outbreak. I do not think the specific distance measurement is WP:DUE. Especially when asking, as the crow flies? As the dog walks? What about timing? In rush hour? etc etc. It is just unnecessary and undue. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

How to represent Chan's specific views

Alina Chan apparently never made this partly paraphrased assertion:

Chan has said that the experiments did not meet the definition of "gain-of-function" as they involved "naturally-occurring viruses"...

Chan said those experiments didn't meet the moratorium's definition — not hers. Further, she specifically attacked the moratorium's definition for having no teeth (check the cited source).

As used in context, this confusingly paraphrased claim might inadvertently hinder Chan's rise to prominence among those opposing the moratorium's definition for its alleged fecklessness. –Dervorguilla (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

We should say "did not meet the NIH's definition of 'gain-of-function' research..."....etc etc. Adding that the moratorium had "no teeth". This is how we've covered it in the gain-of-function research article.-- — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: That's how it's been covered there, yes.

I've now tagged some of the material in that passage as having likewise failed verification. –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

If we deem Chan's views worthy of inclusion in the article, I think we should also add some additional context from the FactCheck article—namely, that Chan has published research about the possibility of a lab leak, and said, "But we need to separate this fight about whether a particular project is GOF vs whether it has risk of lab accident + causing an outbreak." Stonkaments (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The original text seems like an accurate paraphrase of Chan's comments. But as a compromise, it'd be simple enough to add the word NIH to the sentence to make it pass verification. did not meet the NIH's definition of 'gain-of-function' research. I do also believe the current text to be WP:DUE and not needing additional explanation, as her thoughts about this are mentioned in several articles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: No, Chan's "thoughts" are mentioned in just one other article: Gain-of-function research.

We misquote her there, too. The cited source says:

Chan … said … that the … subgrant wouldn’t fall under the … moratorium because the definition didn’t include testing on naturally occurring viruses “unless the tests are reasonably anticipated to increase….” But the … grant “was testing naturally occurring SARS viruses, without a reasonable expectation that the tests would increase….”

We say:

Chan has argued that these experiments would not have been affected by the … moratorium, because the experiments involved "naturally-occurring viruses" and could not be "reasonably anticipated to increase…."

Chan's apparent point was that these experiments involved naturally occurring "SARS viruses" — and that the definition was accordingly ineffectual.

Chan herself has said (Twitter, May 11, 2021): Not just because there was a loophole in a footnote, but that the GOF definition literally excluded SARS or MERS viruses found in nature. –Dervorguilla (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, I think you may be misunderstanding what Novem Linguae wrote above. I'm pretty sure "Article" in that context meant "news article" AKA RS. As an aside, your interpretation of Chan's tweets is WP:OR and does not change what secondary sources gleaned from her statements. It is the secondary sources we rely on, not Chan herself.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: Your understanding of Novem Linguae's comment does surpass mine. But it looks like my "interpretation of Chan's tweets" may be in accord with WP:OR policy: The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words... –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to fix failed verification tag

Okay, I edited to reflect the discussion above; now here's the most up-to-date direct comparison:

Our article text:

Molecular biologist Alina Chan has said that the research did not meet the NIH's definition of "gain-of-function" under a 2014 moratorium as the experiments involved "naturally-occurring SARS viruses" and were not "reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity." Chan added that the NIH's moratorium had "no teeth."

The source: (emphasis mine)

Alina Chan, a molecular biologist and postdoctoral researcher at the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, said in a lengthy Twitter thread that the Wuhan subgrant wouldn’t fall under the gain-of-function moratorium because the definition didn’t include testing on naturally occurring viruses “unless the tests are reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity.” She said the moratorium had “no teeth.” But the EcoHealth/Wuhan grant “was testing naturally occurring SARS viruses, without a reasonable expectation that the tests would increase transmissibility or pathogenicity. Therefore, it is reasonable that they would have been excluded from the moratorium.”

Is that an accurate paraphrase? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging every editor of this page and GoFR from the last 50 edits:
ProcrastinatingReader, Mottezen, Forich, NonReproBlue, Guest2625, Bakkster Man, BasileusAutokratorPL, Firefangledfeathers, SacrificialPawn, Apokrif, X-Editor, Jr8825, Tim333, RandomCanadian, PaleoNeonate, Sangdeboeuf, My very best wishes, Nascence411, Banedon, Animalparty. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Almost! This minor revision is nearly 0.3% more accurate, though:

...involved "naturally-occurring SARS viruses" and were... ->

...involved "naturally occurring" SARS viruses and were...

(It also may be a bit easier for lay readers to understand.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks more like scare quotes around naturally-occurring than an improvement. I don't see the need for such a change, though; "naturally-occurring" isn't a particularly obscure expression. The only concern I have about the highlighted bit is maybe that this should be re-worded into "naturally-occurring viruses similar to SARS". And this isn't really an issue of failed verification, its just that there seems to be disagreement over how closely we need to follow the wording of the source. IMHO, less is more, here; if we're doing it well then we should be able to succinctly summarise the main points without having to quote it verbatim. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, agreed. I was annoyed at that particular confusion in the source as well. It makes clear in several places that these are not actually SARS, but bat viruses. Our paraphrase should perhaps say, without quotes: naturally-occurring SARS-like viruses.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "SARS-related" with a wl to Severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, oooh yeah this is good. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: See Chicago Manual of Style, Compounds and Hyphenation: Adverbs ending in “ly.” Compounds formed by an adverb ending in ly plus an adjective or participle are not hyphenated... –Dervorguilla (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• Do not include any personal opinions by Alina Chan in WP pages. She is not a well known expert on the subject. Someone tried to create a page about her, but it appears she is not notable enough for a WP page. There are enough biologists who are experts, and we have pages about them. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this strategy. We'd end up not being able to use a significant number of other verifiable, attributable quotes from actual experts, and there's a number of characters with articles not because they're reliable experts but because they're the subject of controversy (see: Li-Meng Yan). I think it makes more sense to use the most notable reference we can find, and make sure we're not citing unreliable sources which aren't representative of a commons viewpoint. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Li-Meng Yan is a subject of the controversy, and we have a page about her. Therefore, the info about her must be included to this page, yes, absolutely. However, Alina Chan is not really a subject of this controversy, just a commentator, arguably not an expert, and we do not have a page about her. "Molecular biologist Alina Chan has said that the research did not meet the NIH's definition of ...". What Fauci or Collins said? That would need to be cited, and it is cited. Ralph S. Baric - yes, sure, and he is cited. And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

So, once again, "Alina Chan, a molecular biologist and postdoctoral researcher ... said in a lengthy Twitter thread" (as the cited source say) is definitely undue on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, Where is the rule which says DUE is directly connected to whether someone has a wikipedia page? And that we should not ever quote people who do not have a WP page? An extremely high number of quotes on technical subject articles would like to have a word...  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

What is the advantage to including Chan's views? We have another, more authoritative source that makes the same point about the NIH moratorium having no teeth and Baric's research being allowed to move forward[3], so why don't we just use that instead of debating the nuances of DUE? Stonkaments (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Stonkaments, we're not debating the nuances of due. It appears you would like to remove a voice that is on one side, without replacing it (correct me if I'm wrong). That would make the coverage in that section UNDUE, as it would not cover the opinions of experts in due proportion to their weight in secondary sources. Debating the nuances would be discussing how to include it. We are debating whether to follow DUE at all. I think we should follow it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh? I literally said we should replace Chan's argument with the very similar point made by the more authoritative MIT Technology Review. I haven't seen anyone argue that we shouldn't follow DUE, but rather debating how DUE applies in this case (hence "debating the nuances"). Stonkaments (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Stonkaments, Are you saying we should quote the MIT Technology Review as if it were an expert? Or the journalist as if they were an expert? Neither has a PhD in a relevant subject.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the actual wording, but this just seems like a good compromise. Something like: According to the MIT Technology Review, the 2014 NIH moratorium on gain-of-function research was rather toothless, and Baric's research was allowed to move forward under an exception for research deemed "urgently necessary to protect public health or national security". Are you suggesting Technology Review is not a reliable source? Stonkaments (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Stonkaments, I'm suggesting we should quote scientists about scientific controversies, in due proportion to what they actually say about the topic. Journalists help us understand the DUE nature of those quotes, but they themselves are not experts and should not be quoted like this in opposition to experts.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

But the issue is that multiple editors have objected to the characterization of Chan as an expert on this subject. If Chan were a recognizable expert in the field, I would be in full agreement with you. But we shouldn't place more importance on the views of a post-doc sourced from a Twitter thread than other reliable sources on the topic. Stonkaments (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Stonkaments, 2 editors have said she should not be quoted. Versus 5 saying she should be. And as I said above, it does not matter what the primary source is, what matters is if the secondary source (Factcheck.org) is reliable. And WP:RSN says it is.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• Here, a personal opinion by a postdoc, which was originally posted on Twitter, serves to "support" views/comments by Ralph S. Baric, who is indeed a recognized expert. Well, this is just ridiculous. If anything, the opinion/explanations by Ralph S. Baric can/should be cited in more detail[4]:

Studies focused on understanding the cross-species transmission potential of bat coronaviruses like SHC014 have been reviewed by the NIH and by the UNC Institutional Biosafety Committee for potential of gain-of-function research and were deemed not to be gain of function. ... We never introduced mutations into the SHC014 [horseshoe bat coronavirus] spike to enhance growth in human cells, though the work demonstrated that bat SARS-like viruses were intrinsically poised to emerge in the future ... These recombinant clones and viruses were never sent to China. Importantly, independent studies carried out by Italian scientists and others from around the world have confirmed that none of the bat SARS-like viruses studied at UNC were related to SARS-CoV-2, the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Let's include it. Why on the Earth do you need an opinion by postdoc Alina Chan? Why should we advertise whatever she said? My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, Why on the Earth do you need an opinion by postdoc Alina Chan: because it's important to present the views of experts in proportion to their coverage in RSes about this topic. And Chan's opinion is covered a fair amount: [5] [6] [7] [8]. What does DUE mean, if it doesn't mean this? This is quickly becoming a rehash of the above section, where consensus was also in favor of including this material. No one is saying we shouldn't include more opinions, the question is whether we should include Chan. You appear to say "no," but most editors who have responded here (and above) appear to say "yes." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• No, this is just a repetitive content, an excessive citation/quotation of the same view, one that was formulated more precisely by Baric (see above). We do not need to cite every non-expert just because he/she was cited in newspapers. We need to cite only well recognized experts, and only if they tell something of substance/nonredundant.My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I have one other major concern. Have you read Chan's actual Twitter thread?[9] Because I believe FactCheck is misrepresenting Chan's views rather significantly. Chan highlights multiple issues with the language of the moratorium, including quotes such as it is difficult to determine how much mutation deliberately created by scientists might be “reasonably anticipated” to make a virus more dangerous — the point at which the White House states research must stop... and ...government says that this point will be determined for individual grants in discussions between funding officers and researchers. She also says, Basically it had no teeth regarding research that was happening anywhere, including in the US, even if it was funded by federal $. You only needed to get around "reasonably anticipated" and "voluntary" and If you were in a grey area of not knowing if your work could reasonably be anticipated to be GOF, you just needed to confer with your funders. Overall Chan comes across as fairly skeptical of the whole matter, so I don't really think it's fair to say that she uncritically endorsed the view that the experiments were not "reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity."

All told, we have three sources discussing this[10][11][12], and the three sources share a common conclusion: The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium. I believe that is what we should say, and remove the rest. Stonkaments (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Stonkaments, we don't say that Chan uncritically endorsed the opinion. We say she thinks the moratorium "had no teeth."— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Let me be more precise: the current text is a grossly inaccurate paraphrase of the view Chan espoused in her Twitter thread. The only conclusion she endorsed was: "The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium." She made no claims about whether the research was "reasonably anticipated" to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity, whether it was a naturally-occurring SARS-related virus, etc. Stonkaments (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: Thank you for doing this needed research, per OR policy. (Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic...) You've researched that FactCheck.org work itself (per WP:SOURCE) and found it a comparatively poor source for the purpose of accurately representing Chan's opinions on this topic. (Also, I see that the work's author cites personal correspondence or interviews with seven other subjects, but not Chan.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Shall we ask Chan to confirm and approve if our wording accurately represents what she meant to say? She is very accesible on twitter and answers most queries. Forich (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No, we should not. This is much ado about nothing. As one of experts said [13] "“the work reported in this specific paper definitely did NOT lead to the creation of SARS-CoV-2,” because of differences between the virus studied and SARS-CoV-2." Yes, absolutely. No one ever disputed this. Therefore, if it was a gain of function research (I agree with Richard Ebright) is not so much relevant for this page (COVID-19 lab leak theory), and the opinion by Chan is even less relevant (undue). My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, That is undoubtedly WP:OR, because our sources about SARS-CoV-2 also mention Alina Chan. I don't think it was GoFR. I don't think it has anything to do with SARS-CoV-2. But we must report what our sources say. It is not our job to decide when things are or are not connected or relevant to our readers. Our sources do that for us. We just interpret and summarize them.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: You should go ahead and communicate with the subject, in your individual capacity as a "Journeyman Editor Level 4" (or the like)! You'll need to mention WP's policy against removing appropriate material simply because the subject objects to it - see BLP. But you may ask her whether the wording in question seems to fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. (See POV.) Can she furnish other secondary sources that represent her views more accurately? –Dervorguilla (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC) 00:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid her views are indeed distorted (or selectively cited) because she is mostly known for supporting the "theory" [14], so that would need to be described on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I just added "(a proponent of the natural virus lab leak theory)" to our mention of her views.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Alina Chan's clarification

I asked her to confirm whether the Wikipedia text was an acurate representation of her position. The query and complete response can be found here.

Transcript of Chan's tweets:

Thanks for clarifying with my directly. First, I'm not a proponent of the natural virus lab leak theory. I'm a proponent for an investigation into both natural and lab origin hypotheses. I have not ruled out an engineered origin because there's an absence of data to disprove it and we know that coronaviruses are being engineered quite frequently, including in Wuhan labs. NIH's reviewers and review process judged that the WIV-EHA work did not fall under the 2014 NIH GOFROC moratorium. The moratorium wording allowed for reviewers to decide what was or was not reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity. In fact, the same type of work continues to be funded by the US because the reviewers/review process continue not to see this type of work as GOFROC. The 2014 moratorium and 2017 framework have "no teeth" because their definition of GOFROC is deliberately narrow to avoid suppressing useful research, and the words "reasonably anticipated" and "voluntary" leave room for interpretation by reviewers. Nonetheless, it's important we acknowledge we are judging the work at the WIV using today's knowledge. Many top experts who call for more regulation of pathogen research continue to say that the term GOF is confusing and not meaningful for assessing risk. If you had asked anti-GOFROC people before 2019 if they thought the US-funded work at the WIV was GOFROC or not, I think you would've gotten a very mixed bag because many didn't see bat coronaviruses as particularly dangerous pathogens back then. However, the work was certainly not banned in the US or being secretly outsourced to China. It was proudly published online, and similar projects still continue to be judged as not GOFROC, funded, and proudly published online. For a much more in-depth discussion, I highly recommend linking from the Wikipedia page to my thread here

(the last link is this one: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1403704344009191431?s=20). Pinging @Stonkaments:, @Dervorguilla:, @Shibbolethink:, @Bakkster Man:, @My very best wishes:. Forich (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The moratorium wording allowed for reviewers to decide what was or was not reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity. Yes, exactly. If it was covered by the moratorium and if it was a GOF research has been decided subjectively by 3 reviewers with potentially a conflict of interest. That's why we have the controversy. Some say the research was legit because it was approved by reviewers. Yes, it was. Other say that it was a GOF research. Yes, it arguably was GOF research. But I simply think there no need to cite Alina Chan on this page.My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I just think this overall view is way too complex/intricate to fairly represent at this point. I've kind of changed my view in that I think unfairly representing or reducing her opinion and connecting her opinion in the secondary RS to this statement is probably more work than it's worth. I suggest we remove her entirely, and just wait for someone else to comment on it or go find a quote from someone like Angela Rasmussen who we havent' quoted on this yet in this article AFAIK.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Including it just does not improve the page. And a lot of this is just making a mountain out of a molehill. My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Her book's getting published by a respected publishing house (HarperCollins). Under WP:V policy, postdoc Chan might be regarded as 'outranking' Representative McCaul, in that she's a creator of a (forthcoming) reliable non-academic source on this topic...

(And for what it's worth, Friday's Vice World News story gives her more than twice as much space as Rasmussen.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

So, this Vice News story say: "Alina Chan, a biologist at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who has promoted the lab leak hypothesis". If you want to describe how exactly she "has promoted the lab leak hypothesis", that's fine, except that she denied she did it in the message just above (and by looking at her other comments I do not really see she promoted it). My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

And now this [15], but I do not have subscription, so whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Speaking on the virus being "preadapted" to humans (last NYT article), it seems it is indeed well adapted to migrate between different species (as was proven by transmission of the virus from humans to other species like dogs, etc.), which is just another argument it has the zoonotic origin. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, Yeah I think we actually address this "pre-adaptation" thing quite well in the body of the article. There are many zoonotic reasons for why this could be the case.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the A2A. The question on the definition of GOF is debatable, but the main concern of scientists is the possibility that GOF experiments were conducted on SARS-like viruses at the WIV in BSL2 level conditions, where two or more specimines may have recombined and infected a lab worker. I consider it inaccurate to characterise Chan as non expert in this subject, as she has clearly contributed a lot in this debate. Pre-adaption of SARS-COV-2 to humans is a claim she made in contrast to the evolution of SARS-COV-1 and them mutations that virus gained for human transmissibility in the seven jumps it made between civets and humans, which is well cited in her paper (non peer reviewed). Presumed pre-adaption of SARS2 is also discussed in peer reviewed papers, such as DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-92388-5 and DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-19818-2 and discussed in related terms, such as single point entry, in other papers. I think Chan can be credited with this claim, and her arguments are more nuanced than those in Petrovsky's paper, which rely on computer modelling. SacrificialPawn (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand we simply do not know how many times SARS-COV-2 has jumped and between which species prior to infecting humans. Hence that point (by Alina Chan?) can be entirely wrong, unless some research proves otherwise. That one [16] does not (using computer modelling to predict the ability of the virus to infect various species is an extremely unreliable and unproved approach at best for a number of reasons, such as lack of reliable methods for protein docking). Yes, the virus is adapted right know, but we do not know how did it happen. My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, Yeah...there is a reason we don't cite Petrovsky anymore. I don't think we should cite Chan on this either. If Chan is really saying it made "7 jumps" then both are making pretty expansive claims without extensive evidence. I don't see that in any of the things I've read from her, as an aside.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Chan et al contrasted the early evolutionary history of SARS-COV-2 with SARS-COV-1, where seven jumps occurred, which is a matter of record. Chan and Petrovsky may be wrong in their methods and reasoning, but sources have cited them as experts on the subject of this article and given their publications extensive coverage on the subject of this article, so I do think they should be cited here. If China opens up and Chan and Petrovsky are proven wrong, I am sure reliable sources will ask for their opinions, which we would cite here as well. SacrificialPawn (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

When reading this whole thread my impression is that there's some gradual convergence that it's unnecessary and undue, and I tend to agree with this, —PaleoNeonate – 03:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: The easier question here is whether it's UNDUE. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, and such. Here's an imperfect compromise answer: we can simply rewrite that proposed 100-word restatement (to improve its usefulness) and shorten it to 40 or 50 words. Also, we can add another reliable mainstream source. –Dervorguilla (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Compromise text re Chan's point about GOFR definition

Proposed placement: in the subsection on "Release of a genetically modified virus". –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC) 08:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Alina Chan, a postdoctoral biologist at the Broad Institute, has said that a 2014 federal funding moratorium wouldn't have stopped funding of a research project that didn't intend to or wasn't "reasonably anticipated to" produce a gain of function, although that could be its end result.

References

46 words; 2 independent sources, with ref-quotes. (The first ref-quote may not be too helpful and could easily be omitted.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, I do not think this encapsulates the full breadth of Chan's position. For example, it does not cover the fact that Chan doesn't think GoFR is what caused the pandemic. Because her position is so nuanced, it's between a rock and a hard place re: UNDUE and NPOV, and I do not think we can represent it fairly, especially not with fewer words.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: Here's what Chan told Forich: I have not ruled out an engineered origin. Happily, we needn't represent an opinion she's told us she doesn't have!

It also looks like we can sail past that hard place (NPOV#UNDUE) fairly easily, by placing a longer (60-word?) direct quote down in the references.

Also, should we consider changing Chan has said... to Chan has emphasized... (or highlighted...), per the BBC News Reality Check source? –Dervorguilla (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

What is with the mass ping? Can't you start an RfC if you want comments from uninvolved editors? Aasim (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Awesome Aasim, I think the editor is just trying to respect the bounds of WP:CANVAS. But yes I would agree, 500 edits was an unnecessarily broad net to cast. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: As Shibbolethink points out, I'm trying to respect the WP:CANVAS guideline. See above (about Pinging every editor of this page and GoFR from the last 50 edits: — Shibbolethink). He found 20 of those editors but missed 2. So we needed to get those 2 pinged anyway. Also, it looks like he went back to July 27 at GOFR and August 15 here. As a compromise, I've gone back to July 27 there and August 2 (rather than July 27) here. –Dervorguilla (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• All due respect, anybody can have an opinion. WP:ARSEHOLES is rather in agreement with my own thoughts, that writing of the form $SOURCE offered $OPINION on $THING is a terrible idea, and is a terrible way to write an article. I also don't think this is relevant in this article. Whether something qualifies as GoFR or not, some people are arguing that this was the origin of SARS-CoV-2. We should succinctly describe the main claims of this, and put them in context with the views of relevant experts (amongst which, "laboratory engineering (of any kind) isn't likely at all" is a far more common theme than the WP:COATRACK about the GoFR debate). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

References

@Shibbolethink: @RandomCanadian: That essay concludes: Wikipedia's sourcing trifecta comes to the rescue. Reliable. Independent. Secondary.

FactCheck.org and the BBC News Reality Check are reliable, independent, secondary sources for Chan's opinion. In our References, we cite them as the $SOURCEs, not her. That's really what the essay is advising us to do. –Dervorguilla (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC) 17:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, You are responding to RandomCanadian, please tag them in your replies. Thanks.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't address any of the rest of my argument (how the debate about GoFR is COATRACK and misses the forest for the trees regarding what needs to be included here). And still, writing in the form "X has opinion Y on Z" is not particularly helpful if we're going to give an encyclopedic summary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Rabin's "Caught in the Crossfire" article in the NYTimes runs to ~1700 words, mostly about Chan's hypothesis.

Chan's particular patch in our topic's "forest" has clearly expanded. It's now larger than many other of our 22 cited scientists'. We don't overlook their opinions on this topic. We needn't overlook hers. –Dervorguilla (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's "now larger than many others", maybe that's a sign that she actually isn't being overlooked, but, quite to the contrary, over-emphasised? As I said, the debate over whether some research at the WIV was or was not GoFR is not relevant to the question at hand, which is that some people have used this previous research to support claims that the virus was created as a result of such experiments. Focusing on the correct thing also nicely entirely avoids the controversy about the closely-related-but-off-topic one. Less controversy and opinions, and more facts = better article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(←) @RandomCanadian: OK, she may be getting "over-emphasised" by the mainstream press in its treatment of the lab leak theory. Maybe these reporters really like interviewing her and getting promoted on Twitter, or something. But we don't even mention her name. –Dervorguilla (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to the article. Anyways, as I was talking about the specific example of the controversy over GoFR - which IMHO doesn't belong in this article - my point that there's no need to include Chan's (or anybody else's) viewpoint on that stands. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed paper by Segreto and Deigin's reliability has been challenged at "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19"

Please read the discussion on WP:RSN about the reliability for this topic, of the source:

Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.

Feel free to participate with your opinion on its reliability, the discussion is not new but I think it needs to be cemented it that avenue.Forich (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2021

 Fully implemented: with wording furnished in original request

 – Dervorguilla (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

About these sentences: “The probe determined, with low confidence, that the Chinese government likely did not have foreknowledge of the outbreak.” and “That same month, an intelligence probe on the origins of COVID-19 requested by President Biden determined, with low confidence, that the Chinese government likely did not have foreknowledge of the outbreak.”

Because the original report by the Office of the DNI doesn’t use the words “low confidence” or “likely” about the above assessment, I request to remove “with low confidence” and “likely”, and request to change “determined” to “assessed”, in these sentences. NCRC543 (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The report may not state it in one sentence as is done in the article, but it does outline that the assessments given were made in low confidence then goes on the expound what those assessments are. So it appears to be an accurate representation of the report. — IVORK _Talk 06:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, I think it is a fair encyclopedic summary of the content in question. "likely" is just an element of this confidence. However, they do give various different confidences, and I think the "low confidence" does not appear to apply to the question of whether the government had foreknowledge. I'm going to remove this particular part of the sentence, but keep the "likely." Because they do not state it with any formal certainty, either. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki beat me to it. But I think his edits are good and I don't mind missing the "likely" all that much. I also concur having the primary source in external links is probably a good idea. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Note: The report does not outline that this assessment was made in low confidence. I've accordingly tagged the erroneous statements as having Failed verification. –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@IVORK: All this information is directly found in the source. –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)