Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

New article of the Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic

This article contains important statements about the research of the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic! Here is the link to it: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01585-9/fulltext 2A02:8071:B81:DA80:24E2:C1B8:E4C5:4461 (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for linking. Got a summary of the parts that are relevant to "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19"? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Their key finding up top pretty well sums it up: 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. Identification of the origin of the virus will help to prevent future pandemics and strengthen public trust in science and public authorities.

Also of note were a concurrence with the May 2021 Science letter[1], and the October 2021 Lancet letter[2]. They concluded with a reiteration that In brief, there are many potential proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2, but there is still a shortfall of independent, scientific, and collaborative work on the issue. The search for the origins of the virus requires unbiased, independent, transparent, and rigorous work by international teams in the fields of virology, epidemiology, bioinformatics, and other related fields, and supported by all governments. They noted a lack of transparency from both WIV and NIH on providing information which could help come to a more definitive conclusion, and this plays into their concern about an erosion of public trust in science as a result.

One other notable topic addressed was the furin cleavage site, mentioning that the FCS has multiple plausible pathways into the genome. The presence of the furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 therefore does not by itself identify the proximal origin of the virus, whether natural or laboratory. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Nice summary, I fully endorse. On a sidenote, we could do a better job describing the Lancet Commission purpose, scope (is it as important as the WHO Probe?) and structure: for instance, I find it confusing that some documents are signed by a Comission, others by Commissions, and others, by a "Taks Force", or a "Secretariat". Forich (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The article lede is a substantial deviation from the findings published in the lancet. The article lede says it was zoonotic or something related to conspiracy theories. This sounds like an NPOV issue. Any proposed changes? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• The report is not a reliable source for anything other than its own view, which would be undue without secondary commentatry. The "commission" (which was not commissioned by anybody) is a PR activity by the Lancet, seemingly generating publicity through producing maverick outputs and having maverick figures signed-up. Decent sources are necessary to give context, and for biomedical content they would need to be WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  When is any report a source for something other than its own view? Reports draw conclusions based on interpretations of evidence and then assert those conclusions -- obviously. This is a rather bizarre objection to what is quite clearly a relevant report from the Lancet. 2603:9001:50F0:420:BCDD:6572:14E0:4686 (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  When is any report a source for something other than its own view? ← When it's a report from a source recognized as authoritative enough that the content is suitable for assertions about the real world (for biomedical claims, that would be e.g. reports containing the position statements of major national or international expert bodies). Bon courage (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Also WP:SECONDARY sources like meta analyses and literature reviews. Even the best primary study can be wrong, which is why studies that look at the totality of evidence are preferred. I haven't dug far enough into the authors and structures for this commission to have a strong opinion how reliable they should be considered. To wit: is this a secondary study, or a group viewpoint? There's a few things indicating the latter. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  1. Jeffrey Sachs is a respected mainstream economist, not a "maverick".
  2. The Lancet is a top tier medical journal, not some sensationalist ad-supported tabloid. They do not have a reputation for manufacturing controversy and you can take a look at the other commissions they have established. The Lancet letter gets its own article. But a statement from The Lancet COVID-19 Commission can't even be mentioned in article space...
  3. As stated at the top of this page and others,
     There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. [...] (RfC, May 2021)

  Everybody knows this is about POV and the RS stuff is just gaming, but Wikipedia has a long history of failure on this subject and shows no sign of improvement.

  Ironically, while the proximal origin content is the reason "Bon Courage" wants to bury this report, that's not its primary concern. Most of the report is about the fatal consequences of exactly this kind of failure: they argue that ham-fisted attempts to suppress the lab leak hypothesis have contributed to low vaccination rates.

  In the absence of an unbiased, independent, and rigorous search for a natural origin by a multidisciplinary team of experts alongside an unbiased, independent, and rigorous investigation of the research-related hypotheses, the public's trust in science will be imperilled, with potentially grave long-term repercussions.

  - Palpable (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  From what I see most of the report, which is irrelevant here, has gone down uncontroversially; it's just the lab leak conspiracy stuff which has raised eyebrows (see secondary sources below). Presumably even the lab leakers are getting their knickers in a twist about Sachs appearing on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s not-so-respectable podcast to push a US/China bioweapon line, as the Foreign Policy piece describes. Bon courage (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

How are secondary science reporting sources covering this? I'll note that this Lancet report did not cite either of the critical papers in Science from this year (Worobey (2022) and Pekar (2022)), which seems like a vast editorial oversight. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

For secondary sourcing, here[3] is some BMJ News; here[4] is some reaction from virologists. Bon courage (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

If there doubts about the reliability of the Lancet Comission, editors have to provide the weight of the evidence at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Until and if there is no consensus on Lancet and its commissions being unreliable, the results of the report should be i) summarized in the talk page, as Bakkster and others did; ii) used in the body of the entry with due weight; iii) considered to impact the lede if the deviation mentioned by Jtbobwaysf is too big. Forich (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I am an economist and Jeffrey Sachs is very reputable mainstream well-published economist. Also, very liberal ideologically, so good luck to anyone trying the smear him by uncovering conections with fringe people or ideas.Forich (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not economics, this is medicine and in medicine Sachs is knows for spreading disinformation/pseudoscience such as the claims that COVID came from an American laboratory[5]. Someone can be an expert in one field and a fringe figure in another, see for example James Watson. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That article quotes Sachs saying the virus "quite likely emerged from a U.S.-backed laboratory research program ... A natural spillover is also possible, of course. Both hypotheses are viable at this stage."

That's going out on a limb, but it's not even close to "claims that COVID came from an American laboratory". Maybe you meant to link a different article? - Palpable (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

"A special adviser to the EU’s foreign policy chief has been parroting what the EU considers to be Chinese disinformation on the origin of the coronavirus. Jeffrey Sachs, a professor of sustainable development at Columbia University, said he’s “pretty convinced” the virus came out of a “U.S. lab biotechnology,” although he added that “we don’t know for sure.” The latest effort by Sachs — a long-time advocate of dismantling American hegemony and embracing the rise of China — to put blame on U.S. labs has been circulated on Chinese social media, including by the Chinese embassy to France this week." yep, pretty sure thats the right article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

He seems to be talking about US financial backing (e.g. EcoHealth Alliance) or US technology transfer (techniques developed by Baric). I don't know how you get from that to "COVID came from an American laboratory".

And there are two quotes saying "both hypotheses are viable" and "we don't know for sure" which don't support your accusation that he is making a strong claim. - Palpable (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The European Union considers that to be Chinese disinformation on the origin of the coronavirus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Editors can verify that the article says nothing about COVID coming from an American lab. - Palpable (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sachs is not subtle about this, among the featured press on his personal website is this Tehran Times excerpt from "Covid possibly came out of a U.S. biotechnology lab, says Columbia professor"[6] so its hard not to say that the more extreme reading of his position is accurate when he endorses it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Once again, all Sachs says is that the US was sponsoring work that may have led to COVID. He says nothing about it coming from a US lab, and while he thinks research involvement is likely he acknowledges it is only a possibility. But if you want to believe a Tehran Times headline that isn't supported by the accompanying article, it's a waste of time to argue further. - Palpable (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

If he thought the title wasn't supported by the accompanying article he would have demanded a retraction or correction. Instead he posted it to his personal website. Are you not asking yourself what in the world a "mainstream economist" is doing giving an interview about biotechnology and COVID to the Voice of the Islamic Revolution? Can you name another economist who has? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The whole thing is hilarious, how the lab leakers are pissed-off it's the wrong type of conspiracy theory. Here's[7][8] Steven W. Mosher - a colourful character - on the "huge disappointment" of the Lancet report and attendant attacks on Sachs for being "a well-known China apologist". The lab leak cult (what remains of it) is eating itself, while the actual science marches ahead unconcernedly. Maybe in time there will be some decent sourcing on this so we can relay the knowledge of this debacle. But for now, I'm not seeing decent sourcing (New York Post is a no-no). Bon courage (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's[9] a Chinese govt. official (approvingly?) tweeting a clip of Sachs saying he's pretty convinced the virus came out of the US. So enough of the "Sachs doesn't really say this". We're clearly taking a ride of the WP:FRINGE train when it comes to Sach's view. Bon courage (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Except the actual quote is "pretty convinced it came out of US lab biotechnology", not "pretty convinced the virus came out of the US". - Palpable (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems to be a distinction without a difference. Nobody is suggesting (are they?) That the pandemic started in the US after the virus physically escaped from a facility located there ... Although Sachs has said[10] that the virus "came out of a US lab of biotechnology, not out of nature", whatever that's supposed to mean! Bon courage (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

If you don't see a difference, we should prefer the actual quote to a politicized synthesis.

The broken grammar in the Telegraph should tell you that this is a misquote of Sachs. All they say is that the statement was made at a conference in Madrid. Voice of America debunks the misquote you are trying to insert in Wikipedia, attributing it to Russian and Chinese propagandists: Russia, China Hype Speculation About Coronavirus Lab Origin in U.S.. And the transcript contains the text of what Sachs actually said in Madrid:

Sachs‘ Madrid speech included what he called a “provocative statement” concerning the origins of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. He said: “I’m pretty convinced it [the COVID-19 virus] came out of U.S. lab biotechnology, not out of nature. [...]”

BLPN is a probably a better place for the discussion at this point. - Palpable (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I generally think a mainstream British newspaper is a more reliable source than a tweet by a Chinese propaganda minister, but YMMV and I note your preference. That "transcript" looks wrong. Anyway, it's moot since this material does not appear in the article. Bon courage (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't you mean WP:RS? You've just called a number of WP:RS into question and suggested that a non-subject matter expert (Sachs) actually is a subject matter expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Attempts to smear living persons go to BLPN as I understand it, so I've opened a discussion there.

I've lost patience with the Gish gallop here but Sachs's Madrid talk is on YouTube so you can see the Telegraph's transcription error for yourself. - Palpable (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Why are we talking about this since the material doesn't appear in the article? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Forich: I concur, at a minimum it's a notable review to include with its conclusions attributed (same as we do with WHO's various reports), while we discuss how much weight to give it in the overall stature. Even if we conclude it's a mere minority view in complete opposition to the mainstream (which I don't think we will), it's still notable enough to summarize. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

What makes you say it's a "notable review" (at least insofar as it mentions virus origins .. which is not very much)? Doesn't seem to have got any scientific traction, but served mostly to annoy lab leakers for somehow implying this was a US bioweapon (when it was meant to be China's fault) ... see my comment above. Bon courage (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Mostly that it was The Lancet, and we rarely second guess the reliability of such a prestigious source (as we've done multiple times through the pandemic, if a respected journal's publication is in error, we wait for them to correct it as per WP:NOTLEAD); see also the Peter Daszak Lancet letter COI disclosure). Additionally, it's at least nominally a secondary review, rather than primary research on the topic.

That said, there's lots of latitude to suggest it's non-mainstream, only DUE for a sentence or two, and/or critique of the publication and authors is also necessary. I'd also suspect it may replace older primary sources discussing the same topics.

I'd suggest we may follow the Daszak route here. The Lancet saw fit to publish, and we should not second guess that. But that shouldn't preclude us from including notable critiques of the lead author's independence and neutrality to provide context for the publication. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Nearly everything published in The Lancet is unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes (i.e. it's research). While the bulk of the report may be useful elsewhere its idea about a US-origin lab leak are novel speculation and also WP:EXCEPTIONAL/WP:FRINGE. Do you think we need anything more than what we have from The Independent? Bon courage (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think what we have currently (i.e. what you added @User:Bon courage) is perfectly fine, but it does gather the broad strokes of the report. I also think it covers a lot of what @Bakkster Man has said is necessary. We may want to wait for other secondary sources to publish about the report and modify as we go. Bakkster is right that the report itself is a secondary source, but unless I'm missing something, it isn't peer reviewed, isn't MAINSTREAM, and doesn't represent any sort of scientific consensus, and therefore is mainly an RSOPINION. We currently mention the report's view, we mention the author, and we have some questioning of his expertise in the matter. We could maybe add something about how he's not an expert on this, but I haven't found a really good source on the particulars of that yet. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Well there was the Foreign Policy piece I linked above, in which the virologist authors observe "Jeffrey Sachs is a Columbia University economist with no expertise in virology, evolution, epidemiology, or public health". I'm not sure we need to labour the point ... his previously appearing with RFK Jr. (as we mention) pretty much says it all. Bon courage (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes I do think it would probably become UNDUE if we included that as well. It would need to be extremely short like "Jeffrey Sachs, an economist without any formal expertise in virology,..." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The Lancet is one of the top scientific journals, so it would be difficult to argue that a report published by it is not notable. I am surprised though, as it was the Lancet that happily published Daszak's letter that called any mention of Lab Leak a vile consipiracy theory. It is patently obvious that the Lab Leak is possible, and that there has been a cover up, and that the report's conclusion is notable. Some would say that any mention of Lab Leak is an attack on Virology, and thus on Science generally, but I would disagree. Tuntable (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Well it's not WP:NOTABLE, but a mention is surely due here, using appropriate sources. The secondary sources mostly focus on the report's suggestion that the virus had US origins. One we don't (yet) use is:

• Newey S (22 September 2022). "Major Covid report suggests virus could have leaked from a US lab". Daily Telegraph.

I shall add it since there seems to be some difficulty understanding the US lab aspect. Bon courage (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Lancet Commission Statment

I changed it to the following, which I would think is non-controvertial.

In September 2022 the Lancet group published a wide-ranging report on the pandemic, including commentary on the virus origin overseen by the group's chairman Jeffrey Sachs. This suggested that the virus may have an zootonic origin, but may also have originated from an laboratory.

The report does not say American lab, that was just Sachs. And if we want to publish reactions, that would require further discussion here, and Rasmussen is one of the least notable sources, just read her twitter posts.Tuntable (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You are taking Wikipedia away from the cited source, which we should follow (not editors' interpretations of the matter). I don't know what twitter has to do with it; WP:RS is what matters. Bon courage (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Huh? That is what the cited source (the commission report) says. Twitter is relevant to the reaction comment, which I think requires discussion here before being included, if at all. I think keep it simple, just report what the report says. Tuntable (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

We are citing The Independent. As discussion in the thread above, even lab leakers understand the Lancet document to be saying this was US originated. We should use secondary sources for interpretations of documents, not insert an editor's own hot take. Bon courage (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

POLL Does the Lancet Commission Report actually say that it might have leaked from an *American* lab, or does it just say that it is some Lab? One would expect this obvious, but some users seem to think it said American. Tuntable (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NOTDEM. We need to follow relevant sources. Bon courage (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• The Lancet document does not say that it might have leaked from an American laboratory. It only refers to "laboratory" throughout the article as a possible origin. So that means some laboratory somewhere.

The Lancet article also says, "Independent researchers have not yet investigated the US laboratories engaged in the laboratory manipulation of SARS-CoV-like viruses, nor have they investigated the details of the laboratory research that had been underway in Wuhan."

Also, "In brief, there are many potential proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2, but there is still a shortfall of independent, scientific, and collaborative work on the issue." It never indicated specifically an American lab and it doesn't implicate a Chinese lab either. They do not have enough information at this time.---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:CONSENSUS. No one is voting here so please stop with the WP:NOTDEM----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEM was in response to the call for a "POLL". When a document suggests the virus might have originated in a lab, and then mentions secret US research on SARS-CoV-2 that needs to be investigated, the suggestion is that it could have come out of US lab (work). That, anyway, is the reaction of the relevant experts (and non-experts) we cite. We should follow these sources to get the relevant knowledge on the matter. Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The only source that says this emanated from an American lab is Jeffery Sachs. And this what he thinks without proof. Even the Independent Article you cited says what I have said above - "independent researchers have not yet investigated” US labs." [11]. Please remove the misinformation about American labs. Also, this is obviously a complicated issue and a complicated report. Please stop trying to simplify to "American lab" or any other lab. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes this is apparently Sachs' view, as carried in the bit of the Lancet report he personally oversaw after sacking the relevant researchers. The expert and non-expert sources we cite understand what is being suggested (that it could be of US origin). We don't necessarily remove the Lancet's misinformation; but we do report on it following reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Please provide an exact quote from the Lancet report that says something close to what you are claiming that the report ""mentions secret US research on SARS-CoV-2 that needs to be investigated" as you stated above. I don't see it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It the bit about "the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has resisted disclosing details of the research on SARS-CoV-2 related viruses that it had been supporting" and "Independent researchers have not yet investigated the US laboratories engaged in the laboratory manipulation of SARS" and "both natural and laboratory spillovers are in play and need further investigation". This is what the virologist experts are picking up on, and whose interpretation and reaction we report (in comparison our inexpert takes are of course of no use for writing content). The invocation of US lab research in considering SARS-CoV-2 origin is of course completely crackers, which is no doubt why it prompted the reaction it did. Per WP:FRINGE/WP:PSCI Wikipedia reports it by putting the sane, mainstream context. Bon courage (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This blurb in a July 12, 2022 Politico article that quotes Sachs is pretty interesting. The article says, "Jeffrey Sachs, a professor of sustainable development at Columbia University, said he’s “pretty convinced” the virus came out of a “U.S. lab biotechnology,” although he added that “we don’t know for sure.” In this article Sachs himself says "we don't know for sure." [12] Hence, he is not a reliable source for adding that the virus may have come from an American lab to this article. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course he's not, and especially not citing Politico for it. But the "story" here is that the Lancet has suggested something daft, apparently as a result of Sachs' input, and relevant experts are dismayed. There are a load of sources. Hence, there is some content to be written. Bon courage (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a misquote of Sachs. The actual quote is "pretty convinced it came out of US lab biotechnology", not "a US lab".

The original source is on YouTube. See also the discussion at WP:BLPN#COVID-19 lab leak theory#Fringe views on genetic engineering. - Palpable (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

All of the WP:RS say thats what Sachs means, the argument "yeah but thats not what he said" has literally no bearing unless you can find a WP:RS which says that the other RS's interpretation of Sachs' statements is wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I think he wants to say that US labs told non-US labs how to do it, instead of doing it themselves. No idea why he would believe exactly that. Maybe some weird standard economist how-to-think recipe. But that nuance seems pretty unimportant, and the reliable sources didn't care about the exact flavor of his bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Prefacing the scope of the Commission

We are at risk of losing focus regarding the scope and structure of the Lancet Commission, in my opinion. We currently hierarchically place it as: investigations / lancet commission task force / paragraph about the commission's final report (which comprises 12 task forces). This is imprecise as the correct order should something like: expert commentary on public health policies of the Covid-19 pandemic and its origin / Lancet Commision of 12 task forces / The one task force dealing with origin is folded / the surviving 11 task forces end their work and issue a final report.

If it helps, let me cite here the disclosure of purpose and scope made by the report itself:

The Commission focuses on the public policy of pandemic preparedness, response, and recovery, specifically in the areas of public health, virology, social policy, macroeconomics, international finance, and geopolitics. The Commission is not an investigative group, nor a body of biomedical specialists in key fields such as virology, vaccine development, and medicine. The Commission’s focus is on science-based policy, global cooperation, and international finance.

.

What this means is that we have a consensus on the summary of the report and its reactions, but we have it weirdly placed in the article. This can be fixed, in my view, with a one-sentece preface to the purpose and scope of the Commission, or better yet, by reordering our structure and moving the paragraph appropiately (for example, so that the Overall-12-taskforce summary is hierarchically above the 1-taskforce summary).Forich (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Classic WP:SYNTH. Bon courage (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I still think this source is worthy of more people taking a deeper look into

https://project-evidence.github.io/

Obviously, quite a few people took the time to write that down and to me, it looks credible. Would be nice if a few people here read through it and may add something to the article from there. Elyos92 (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source by wikipedia standards.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

lead

I think my recently reverted change[13] to the lead was correct. It is a close paraphrase of the recent source [14]. In particular, the abstract talks about zoonosis and lab leak. It does not talk about conspiracy theories. Since the source does that, we should too. The abstract of the source is as follows:

Since the first reports of a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronavirus in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, there has been intense interest in understanding how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in the human population. Recent debate has coalesced around two competing ideas: a "laboratory escape" scenario and zoonotic emergence. Here, we critically review the current scientific evidence that may help clarify the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

Adoring nanny (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It's BRD, not "repeatedly try to slam through my preferred version". Status quo is superior. It's the lead; we summarize the body not focus on a single source. VQuakr (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't "trying to slam" anything. I assumed you must have missed the exact words of the source. As far as the body is concerned, I note that control-F "lab" gives 120 hits (many are in refs, and a few come from the word "collaborate"), while control-F "conspiracy" gives 10, again including refs. I'll WP:AGF there too, however, I'm sure the revert was based on a mistaken belief that the body is about conspiracy theories. Is that now cleared up? Adoring nanny (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with VQuakr, the recent edits are not an improvement. Many multiple versions of the lab leak and related theories circulate simultaneously, it is not simply "two" competing ideas. And we have many multiple other sources which support that. To instead preference this editor's interpretation of this one source would not be appropriate. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Why all the emphasis on conspiracy theories in the lead, when they play such a small role in the body? Adoring nanny (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

There isn't a bunch of emphasis in the lead, there is mention in the lead. As with the article. VQuakr (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You think 2/564 words is undue emphasis? That's around 0.3% of the lead. I count at least 4 sentences in the body (and a lot more citations) which reference conspiracy theories in the body. Seems pretty proportional to me. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It's wrong in multiple ways. First of all, this article is about investigations. Have there been investigations into conspiracy theories? Secondly, it's wrong that conspiracy theories are in the first paragraph. This is definitely an over-emphasis. Lastly, it's wrong because there have been investigations about the lab leak. Therefore, LL, which has been investigated, should come above conspiracy theories, which, to my knowledge, have not been investigated, at least not to my knowledge by any of the investigations described in the article. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on first paragraph

Which version of the first paragraph is preferable? (refs omitted here from both options):

Option A (status quo): There are several ongoing efforts by scientists, governments, international organisations, and others to determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Most scientists say that as with other pandemics in human history, the virus is likely of zoonotic origin in a natural setting, and ultimately originated from a bat-borne virus. Many other explanations, including several conspiracy theories, have been proposed about the origins of the virus. Some have speculated that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory, but there is no evidence for this, and it is considered much less likely than a natural origin.

Option A.1 (status quo + fixed ambiguity): [identical to A until]... Some scientists and politicians have speculated that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory, but this theory is considered much less likely than a natural origin due to a lack of supportive evidence.

Option B (example [15]): There are several ongoing efforts by scientists, governments, international organisations, and others to determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Debate centers on two ideas -- a zoonotic origin in a natural setting, ultimately originated from a bat-borne virus, or a lab leak. Scientists consider the zoonotic scenario more likely. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Option A.1 added by — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Option A. Option B commits the WP:GEVAL fallacy and is extremely WP:PROFRINGE since debate does not "center" on whether there's been a lab leak or not. That's just a fringe idea which, while scientists may allow is not rulable-outable, is mostly the province of cranks, grifters and racists. Bon courage (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option B is preferable because it is a more-focused opening that omits a lot of cruft. There have been conspiracy theories, and they have some mention in the article, but these theories are not the focus of investigations or of the article, and putting them anywhere in the lead, let alone the first paragraph, is WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, it is not correct to say that there is "no evidence" for LL. It is correct to say that most scientists favor Z, so we should say that, which option B does. Finally, option B is supported by the abstract of a source we cite heavily in the article[16], including the lead. The abstract is as follows. Like option B, it says that the debate centers on the two theories.

  Since the first reports of a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronavirus in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, there has been intense interest in understanding how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in the human population. Recent debate has coalesced around two competing ideas: a "laboratory escape" scenario and zoonotic emergence. Here, we critically review the current scientific evidence that may help clarify the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

  Adoring nanny (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A, because, as it should, it reflects the consensus and not an outsider opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A - It doesn't water down the scientific consensus, it doesn't ignore the many multiple "alternative" theories such as the "intentional bioweapon" idea, the "Fort Detrick" idea, or the "accidental release of an intentional weapon" theory. These have all been discussed in many multiple RSes, have space in our body, and deserve representation in the lead. I see no reason to believe the source landscape has changed on this, and therefore no reason to exclude these ideas as not notable. We have an entire article about the lab leak idea, and it's also the only idea referenced directly with a wikilink in the lead.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Viruses and FT/N have been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option A, as a stand-alone choice between those two options with no other article changes. The widespread prevalence of conspiratorial beliefs and politicization is something I would consider to be important context, per MOS:OPEN, for many of the topics covered in the article. I could see potential for splitting a paragraph on these confounding factors out of the first paragraph to somewhere else in the lead, but that's not what the RfC is asking about, and Option A is the better of the two until then. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A I think this one is pretty solid and well-phrased. Option B emphasizes a false balance in the phrasing. Since this is prone to conspiracy theories of many stripes, it's best to emphasize the scientific consensus, rather than entertain those theories with undue weight. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Procedural note. Can we WP:SNOW close this? It's a waste of time and maybe disruptive to the point the OP needs sanctioning. Bon courage (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A B gives a false balance. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A The paragraph is accurate, it reflects consensus of scientists, and it acknowledges that there are different views held by a minority, though often as pure speculation. NightHeron (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A quite obviously. Sanction proposer per WP:TEND as the totality of their edits make it clear they are here to promote a POV. VQuakr (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A, per FALSEBALANCE. JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option B. We don't mention flat earthers in the lede of the Earth article, why are we doing it here? Also, option A makes it seem like the accidental release from the laboratory hypothesis is one of the conspiracy theories. While it's unlikely, it's clearly not a conspiracy theory. Alaexis_¿question? 08:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  This is not like the Earth article, it is like an Investigations into the shape of the Earth article, where flat-earthers should be mentioned if they play a role in the investigations. Also, lab leak theories have conspiracy theory corollaries because they need to explain away the lack of evidence for a lab leak. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option A because it is a proper lede with wikilinks. Also per above concerns of a false balance. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A is better in every way, from policy compliance to prose style. XOR'easter (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Both are poor, and A has it's own false balance problem. If the conspiracy theories and speculation were rejected, we would (i hope) still be investigating the origins. I begin reading with the impression that "most scientist agree" and the "ongoing efforts" concern "conspiracy theories" and release from a "laboratory". Then where does that leave, for instance from WHO-China, identify the zoonotic source of the virus and the route of introduction to the human population, including the possible role of intermediate hosts. The aim is to prevent both reinfection with the virus in animals and humans and the establishment of new zoonotic reservoirs, thereby reducing further risks of the emergence and transmission of zoonotic diseases.; and we've been told "lab leaks" and "conspiracy theories" detract from those aims. How am i to evaluate calls for "more investigations", that we have screwed this up so badly that the original aims are no longer possible and remaining efforts to change that "most scientists" into "all scientist"? Stating the obvious first might help. fiveby(zero) 17:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option B. It must clear that the prevailing view of the scientific community is that the pandemic started from a natural source. However, Option A suggests that the lab leak hypothesis is a conspiracy theory, and this assessment is not supported by conclusive sources. Quoted RSs [17][18] say that there is substantial body of scientific evidence supporting a zoonotic origin but also acknowledge that the lab leak hypothesis is theoretically possible and don't qualify it as fringe, conspiracy theory, etc. This very recent article by Bloomberg opinion columnist in the area of sciences [19] says that The possibility that the Covid pandemic started with a lab accident isn't a conspiracy theory. In case of doubt, we'd better stick to WP:NPOV and describe disputes, but not engage in them. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that we should not call it a conspiracy theory, but as far as I can see the lead doesn't call it a conspiracy theory. In my reading, the lead implies that there's other conspiracy theories so fringe as to be not worth mentioning (e.g. Chinese bioweapon), but also there's the lab leak theory, which is extremely unlikely but doesn't fall into the same bin as those conspiracy theories not worth mentioning. Endwise (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Endwise: as David Quammen recently summarized in Breathless, which interviews most of the top scientists working on SARS-CoV-2 and its origins, all versions of the lab leak idea involve some aspect of conspiracy. The reason is that a lab leak must involve lying, and a cover-up, from somebody: namely, at a minimum, WIV scientists who collected a dangerous pathogen but didn't inform the world of its existence (in the most innocuous version of the theory), then destroyed all evidence of the virus in the lab, and lied to the world. Other more conspiratorial versions of this idea involve scientists secretly studying the virus, or accidentally or purposefully creating it, then also lying about those things. -Darouet (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option A This is one of those times when we have to be careful to avoid false equivalence. Right now, zoonotic origin is a scientific idea and release from a lab is a fringe theory or nearly so. While they should both be covered in the article, they should not be treated as if they are exactly the same kind of thing. If new evidence is published in reliable sources, we can update the article then. The idea that COVID-19 was released as a weapon has contributed to so much racist violence. It may not be Wikipedia's job to prevent such acts, but this time not promoting them is entirely in line with the site's policies. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option B The opening paragraph should be concise. Specifically, per wikipedia guideline MOS:BEGIN:

The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.

This means state the main theories being investigated. In this case, the zoonosis theory and the lab leak theory. To avoid false balance concisely state which theory is backed by the majority of scientists. Comments about conspiracy theories are undue weight for the lead paragraph. Also, with that sentence being before the lab leak theory, it can create the impression that the lab leak theory is one of those conspiracy theories. Also, it should be noted that option A is excessively redundant. There are three different clauses in it which state the zoonosis theory is the one backed by the majority of scientist. This only needs to be stated once in a clear and concise stand alone sentence as is done in Option B. Lastly, as Adoring nanny notes, follow what the reliable sources and leading review article on the topic states. In this case, the Cell review article

The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review.

It's abstract:

Summary: Since the first reports of a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronavirus in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, there has been intense interest in understanding how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in the human population. Recent debate has coalesced around two competing ideas: a “laboratory escape” scenario and zoonotic emergence. Here, we critically review the current scientific evidence that may help clarify the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

--Guest2625 (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC) (bolding added to quote for clarity 09:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC))

A paper with the full text available! Excellent! I will gladly read it, and it says "...there is no data to suggest that the WIV—or any other laboratory—was working on SARS-CoV-2, or any virus close enough to be the progenitor, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic," emphasis mine. I'm also seeing a lot of "negligible," some "no reported cases related to any laboratory staff at the WIV," a little "eports of illnesses would need to be confirmed as caused by SARS-CoV-2 to be relevant," and a "no evidence that the WIV sequenced a virus that is closer to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13." Yeah. These scientists took the question "Did SARS-COV-2 escape from a lab?" seriously, so they explored it, and they've answered it. Their answer is, verbatim: "There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin."

You could use this paper to say that the idea that it came from a lab is not a conspiracy theory: look, scientists took it seriously. But we could not use it to say that scientists believe it now or that the article should treat it the same way it treats the zoonosis hypothesis (which this article concludes is correct). Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Also WP:NOABSTRACT. Bon courage (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option A because B is a very clear case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Loki (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A. We can't say things like Debate centers on two ideas when the zoonotic theory has far, far, far more scientific backing. As others have pointed out, this is precisely what WP:FALSEBALANCE advises against. Endwise (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A, since this reflects scientific consensus on the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Option B would mislead readers: our task should be to inform them about the exciting developments in the scientific literature concerning the virus' origins, not delve into obsolete and somewhat conspiratorial theories. -Darouet (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A as per consensus.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A The lab leak theory has, and remains, a minority view. Wikipedia should reflect that and not give a false balance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A. Option B has clear WP:GEVAL, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:PROFRINGE issues in that it treats the lab leak as equivalent to the mainstream explanation, which it is clearly not based on the overall available sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• A. B gives the conspiracy theories the same weight as the medical consensus, which creates a false balance. — ^Clyde!_Franklin! 21:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option B is purely based on the science and evidence, since there has been no evidence proving any origin of covid-19, with U.S. intelligence and many scientists more recently determining that a plausible leak may have occurred, while most previous assessments determined that natural origins were more likely. Regardless I think the current wording is absurd, considering it babbles about how there is "no evidence" of a lab leak when that is provably false, since evidence has been presented, sources no longer call it "much less likely" than natural origins, and it isn't just "some have speculated" which is asinine weasel words when it's numerous reliable sources. Bill Williams 07:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  plausible leak may have occurred and natural origins more likely do not contradict each other, so that wording does not indicate a change. And no evidence short for "no evidence except the sort of evidence you would expect for a false conspiracy theory". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The science of this is at about my limit of understanding, and I don't claim to be "up to speed" on the latest reasearch, BUT both versions - especially A - seem to conflate two things, namely the biological origins of the virus - (which even an avid conspiracy theorist might think were ultimately 'natural' - prior to modification ?) and the point of and method of crossover of the virus into the human population (possibly via other species or via conscious or accidental human intervention). The 'lab leak' - or similar method of carrying the virus from a wild to a human setting - is not at all inconsistent with a wholly 'natural' origin and adaptation, but that possibility has tended to be conflated in some media coverage with lab/human 'creation/engineering' of the virus - which most reject as being fringe and conspiracist, and for which there is no evidence AFAIK. The determination not to give CTs credence is honourable, but should not supercede the fact that AFAI can see, most RSs think the origins are probably'natural' nevertheless the crossover point/means largely speculative at present. Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  This may have been true in late 2021, but the recent papers from Pekar et al and Worobey et al actually investigate and confirm the epidemiological evidence which supports the wet market as the most plausible cross-over point for the early infections we know about in Wuhan, using statistics and the most comprehensive set of sequences available from that time. They even identify early virus RNA sequences on surfaces of multiple wild animals' cages and abattoir instruments in the market. Compare this to the lab leak, which has no material supporting evidence, only speculation. Our most recent scholarly sources support this, and as a result, call the lab leak not very plausible and one expert even characterizes it as "dead." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option B out of two as there's no consensus to state that lab leak is a conspiracy theory (unless it changed recently?), but the Option A wording does exactly this, by juxtaposing sentences in a way that can be read as "Some [conspiracy theories] have speculated that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory". This is a choice of two evils as while Option B is better in terms of not overwhelming reader with specificity (MOS:OPEN), its balance can be improved, whereas Option A is misleadingly phrased, and it would be wrong if a consensus for an ambiguous statement in the beginning of the lead will be established as a result of this RfC. PaulT2022 (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think you're reading into that quite deeply in a selective way. I read it as "Some [scientists and others] have speculated that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory" — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Reading of it probably depends on familiarity with the area and/or the article.

  Note the order of the nouns too: Most scientists say... Many other explanations, including several conspiracy theories, have been proposed about the origins of the virus. Some have speculated that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory, but there is no evidence for this, and it is considered much less likely than a natural origin.

  This is a common style error and such ambiguous language should not be used in a lead. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I will happily fix the error, as I'm 99% sure I wrote that sentence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  [20] Better? I don't think this particular part of the lead is being disputed in this RFC. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, this is a lot better, and I like how the "due to lack" wording is much more neutral than the previous version! Do you think it's possible to swap the last two sentences or there are arguments against it? The current order (commonly accepted theory - conspiracy theories - a theory/speculation that was/is investigated but is believed by most scientists believe to be extremely unlikely) seems odd.

  I would support present option if the way sentences put together is changed to not imply that the lab leak theory is a subset of conspiracy theories (which you've corrected) or that the lab leak theory has such miniscule importance to investigations that it should be mentioned after conspiracy theories. From my point of view, changing the order of these two sentences will be sufficient to resolve neutrality issues that were raised. PaulT2022 (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I like where you're going with this, though outside natural zoonosis or an accidental lab leak, what would be "Many other explanations" that weren't all practically grouped together as conspiracy theories? Perhaps splitting the first of the final two sentences, instead, similar to the following: Other explanations have been proposed about the origins of the virus. Some scientists and politicians have speculated that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory, but this theory is considered much less likely than a natural origin due to the absence of supporting evidence. Some of these speculations contributed to conspiracy theories around aspects of the virus' origin. Latter sentence would probably need more wordsmithing. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think this is probably the best version of a switched order. And I wouldn't be opposed to it personally. But we would need to gain some consensus. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I like this approach! I think the "Other explanations" sentence is unnecessary editorialisation (does it add anything?) and would prefer to keep "lack" instead of changing it to "absence". And I agree that the last sentence needs improvement: may be reading it too deep, but it makes it sound like all conspiracy theories originated from the lab leak theory, whereas unrelated ones existed too. Otherwise, looks great to me. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  No I think there's probably no consensus on switching the order. I understand your argument, but I think there's a good reason to keep the present order, namely to frame: Broad -> Narrow. Accepted -> not accepted. "Many other explanations" includes both conspiracy theories and the lab leak. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option A is probably the best, but I do not like all these options because they incorrectly assume that the release of a virus from a lab (or even its selection or modification in a lab) and the zoonotic origin of the virus are mutually exclusive. Consider Marburg virus. This is obviously a natural virus (just as COVID-19), but it was originally leaked from a lab and it has been weaponized. My very best wishes (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A as a clear choice. Not sure why we would mention non experts like politicians to begin with.Moxy- 01:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A1. I think this option adequately addresses the rather large - largely unscientific - elephant in the room. Despite being a fringe belief, it represented a large debate central to the article topic. Therefore should be treated similarly to how we treat articles on fringe theories, “the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear.” Pabsoluterince (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option A status quo seems satisfactory for now and the lack of supportive evidence in it of itself makes A.1 and B difficult to support.BogLogs (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Have there been investigations into conspiracy theories?

Certainly DRASTIC/Guo Wengui have investigated the bioweapon idea [21], as have many experts, [22] the intelligence community [23][24], and the defense department [25]. As well, the Lancet Commission (and more specifically, Jeffrey Sachs [26][27]) investigated the conspiracy theory that Fauci, Daszak, and others are in a conspiracy to hide their involvement in constructing SARS-CoV-2 in a lab [28][29][30][31]. China has investigated the Fort Detrick idea [32][33][34][35][36] as have some republican political commissions and hearings [37],. We describe much of this already in the article body. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yet the article lead and body use the word "conspiracy" a combined five times. Compared with 10 appearances of the phrase "lab leak", 3 of "laboratory leak", 2 of "lab accident", and one of "laboratory escape". There is also one reference to "Detrick", which is both a lab leak theory and a conspiracy theory. Clearly lab leak is a greater focus of the article than conspiracies. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

"Conspiracy" only appears once in the lead. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and it's in the first paragraph, above the lab leak. That's part of the problem. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this the reasoning behind the "Broad-Narrow" framing you describe in this comment? The two last sentences in Option A are currently referenced to different sources and if change of their sequence changes their combined meaning (or perception), then that borders on WP:SYNTH. If there's a single source that makes analysis similar to the one you did here in the Discussion, then using it instead of several different sources could make the lead much less controversial. PaulT2022 (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The two last sentences in Option A are currently referenced to different sources and if change of their sequence changes their combined meaning (or perception), then that borders on WP:SYNTH.

Not synth. See: WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION. I was describing MOS:LEAD. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

People are using WP:FALSEBALANCE incorrectly. At least two sources we already use in the lead say, very prominently, that the two options are zoonosis and lab leak. This isn't a false balance; it is just following the sources. I've quoted one such source in my opinion above. Here is another that we already use in the lead.

• NYT[38] first paragraph -- A group of 18 scientists stated Thursday in a letter published in the journal Science that there is not enough evidence to decide whether a natural origin or an accidental laboratory leak caused the Covid-19 pandemic. The point is that this is a true balance, because two different sources are saying, very clearly, that the options are natural origin and lab leak. If one goes into further sources, it is clear that most scientists prefer the natural origin theory, and option B says exactly that. Therefore, option B is not a false balance. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  A newspaper piece from the height of the LL silly season last summer? Give us a break. Bon courage (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  The whole point of false balance is that just because there are two options doesn't mean we should cover both equally. It matters not at all that sources say there are two options, what matters is what weight is given of those options. The lab leak theory is very much the minority opinion, Wikipedia should reflect that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I think Option B may not be the best wording, but I definitely believe the current wording has substantial issues as I stated in my vote. Numerous reliable sources have covered the lab-leak theory and painting it as "some have speculated," "no evidence," and "much less likely" is a complete misrepresentation of reliable sources. Consensus has significantly shifted over the past year, and there is no longer widespread belief that lab-leak theory is a "conspiracy theory," even if most scientists state that natural origins are more likely. Numerous sources on this, even stating that it is "as credible" as natural origins, include [39][40][41][42] and that's just what took me one minute to find. Bill Williams 07:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't think any relevant scientists are left promoting LL (though they might note on the side it's not rulable-outable), it's just politicians, racists, grifters, and cranks these days. This is covered in the main LL article. Bon courage (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It's highly POV to imply that it's racist to quote reliable sources like CNN, Washington Post, or Politico in stating that the lab leak theory has merit to it. These sources don't state that it is the certain conclusion reached by anyone, only that it is a plausible theory covered by the U.S. intelligence community and certain scientists. The idea that it's just politicians is not accurate considering what reliable sources state, since most reliable sources that are actually recent (such as those in 2022) do not state that natural origins are "much, much more likely" as some editors have asserted. Bill Williams 07:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It's racism which underpins LL (those shifty Chinese!) as our sources say. Take an actual viroloist like Holmes (who used to entertain LL) - he now says LL is "dead". Anyway, LL is a WP:FRINGE view and any mention in this article should be brief and contextualized by mainstream expert sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

"It's racism" is just a personal attack against me for presenting what reliable sources state, unless you're claiming that CNN, WaPo, Politico, CBS etc. are all racist too? Bill Williams 23:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Huh? "It's racism which underpins LL ... as our sources say" is not a personal attack and you'd be wrong to take it personally. Bon courage (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You're trying to claim that what I proposed adding to the article is racist, as if a theory that CNN, WaPo, Politico etc. say has some merit is somehow "racist" as if lab workers or the government of China is a race. It's a personal attack if you're trying to paint me as racist for proposing an addition to the article. Bill Williams 02:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"It's a personal attack if you're trying to paint me as racist " ← It would be, but my intent is plain and you'd be wrong. Carefully read the last sentence of WP:AVOIDYOU and WP:BOOMERANG. Bon courage (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You said the only people who support the information I were adding included racists, grifters, and cranks (since I'm not obviously a politician) so how exactly is that not a personal attack? Anyway it's irrelevant, my point is that dozens of reliable sources are not all of those things, unless you can prove they somehow have no reliability on the matter. Bill Williams 05:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. I said people "promoting" LL. I sincerely hope you're not here to do that! Bon courage (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

since most reliable sources that are actually recent (such as those in 2022) do not state that natural origins are "much, much more likely" as some editors have asserted

Do you have scholarly sources in high quality journals which support claims like this? Because I truly have no idea what you're talking about. Our highest quality sources (e.g. "The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review.") absolutely continue to support this phrasing. Scholars set the tone on wikipedia, not journalists or politicians. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's basic foundations are not "one scientific journal outweighs every other reliable source" and CNN, Washington Post, Politico etc. are all reliable sources. Nobody is claiming that Covid-19 definitively originated in the WIV, the point is that multiple reliable sources state that it is a plausible theory. Bill Williams 23:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly sources do outrank journalism, especially in biomedical areas. Some further reading if you're interested: WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDPOP, WP:TIERS, WP:ABIAS –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Quite. The purpose of journalism is to get readers, which can be at odds with the scholarly quest for knowledge. Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge, not journalistic titillation. Bon courage (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I know that one scholarly source might "outrank" some different media article, but that one article annihilates everything else, my point is reliable sources still have merit and trying to claim that CNN, Washington Post, Politico etc. are not reliable is an absurd assertion. Calling the lab-leak theory a "conspiracy theory" when numerous reliable sources have stated there is some merit to the theory shows POV pushing. Bill Williams 02:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Why keep saying "one source" outranks others? We have many multiple peer-reviewed journal articles which support the phrasing in the current lead. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup, gotta go with expert consensus. Same with JFK shooting or bigfoot. All kind of "interesting" speculation in the news is of no relevance when we have the WP:BESTSOURCES to give us the state of human knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Dozens of reliable news sources do not continue to claim that bigfoot exists... I think option A.1 is fine because it uses less weasel words, but trying to paint the theory as some sort of conspiracy akin to bigfoot is absurd. Bill Williams 05:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Bigfoot is not a "conspiracy". It is however a topic where there a big difference in coverage between the popular media and academia, which is why it is relevant to this discussion. Wikipedia is a serious publication reflecting human knowledge, and isn't in it for the clicks. Bon courage (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you didn't read the links... JoelleJay (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Lab Leak Theory Racism

The section on the lab leak theory alleges that there is a racist undercurrent to such a theory. Having read through the four sources provided, only one made such a claim and did so to refute someone else's point,

"That’s evolutionary biologist Heather Heying on the podcast that she does with her husband, biologist Bret Weinstein, claiming that it’s a conspiracy to “definitely” show that it was “those people” who caused the pandemic, not a lab leak. In a massive exercise in projection, she calls claims that the pandemic started at the Huanan market “racist,” apparently ignoring the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak, whose proponents often ascribe a nefarious coverup to the Chinese government''

Though I agree that many avid proponents of the lab leak theory are xenophobic sinophobes, I do not think the sources provided are adequate in justifying such a claim. Only one source out of four given makes the claim, doing so in passing to criticise a viewpoint in what is a very long and multifaceted article. To include the comment without this source would be original research, and even with this source, I think it's verging on conformation bias.

I'm uncomfortable with such a pointed and serious statement slipping into this article because of a remark made tangentially to the thrust of the argument of one article. EcheveriaJ (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You can't have read very carefully, because the first source (Garry) says

Lab leak theories are often bolstered by racist tropes that suggest that epidemiological, genetic, or other scientific data have been purposefully withheld or altered to obscure the origin of the virus

As you say, this is kind of obvious; so super-strength sourcing is not needed. There is plenty more on this theme if necessary. It's part of the knowledge about the topic and Wikipedia should present it. Bon courage (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

See also these related discussions on other related talk pages: 1 2. Particularly in the second link there I point out quotes from 5 or 6 sources which directly verify the content. The only reason we don't have all 6 references on the page is WP:OVERCITE and MOS:LEAD. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Covid-19 likely resulted from lab leak

US Energy Department assesses Covid-19 likely resulted from lab leak, furthering US intel divide over virus origin - [43]. M.Karelin (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

See the appropriate centralized discussion for this at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

scientific background

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.

---

In publication (44) about taxonomy the scientists mention several times the zoonotic transmission of Sars Cov 2 ,while scientic evidence is lacking. They mention this zoonotic transmission within 3 months after the outbreak ,without sufficient research. EilertBorchert (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source describing the concern that we can cite? Also, do you need to disclose a WP:COI? Bakkster Man (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

In the Netherlands the LOWI decide about the Integrity of scientists. As a result of this a Dutch scientist (viroloog) mentioned on the Website of the Wageningen Research University: Sars Cov 2 was transferred from animals to human in Wuhan in 2019.But he also declares that the transmissie animal-human never has been proven.(see website LOWI-advice 2022-10)

Betrokkene stelt dat er brede wetenschappelijke consensus is over de conclusie dat SARS-CoV2 zijn oorsprong heeft in dieren en dat de locatie Wuhan en de periode eind 2019 van de transmissie dier-mens veelvuldig worden gehanteerd in de literatuur maar dat deze nooit met volledige zekerheid zijn vastgesteld en dat dit wellicht ook niet meer gaat gebeuren.

The procedure about Integrity was started by me. I declare no conflict of interest. EilertBorchert (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any WP:SECONDARY sources here which detail how or why we should change the text. This entire section appears to be original research. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I have boldly cut the entire "background" section. Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If scientists use the term zoonotic transfer of a disaese they should mention the transferring animal responsable for this disaese in 2019.

If no animal has been found there is no zoonotic disease.The scientists should simply not use the word zoonotic in this case.That is not a matter of original research but normal communication. EilertBorchert (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If you have an issue with what scientists do, you need to raise it with them. Wikipedia reflects what scientists publish in appropriate, quality publications. This is WP:NOTAFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Last 2 years I did raise the issue with some scientists.I asked for proven evidense about concluding overwhelming evidence of the wild life (zoonotic) origin of sars Cov 2 and mode of tranfer to human but got no answer.

First a scientist of the EUR said that in begin 2020 there was no evidence of a laboratory related evidence. In LOWI advice 2022-09 he admit there exist a possibility of a lab leak.

It is not possible for me to ask all authors of quality publications why they use the word zoonotic without proven evidence of the correct meaning

In 2021 I asked for an Integrity research .You can read the advices (result) on the website of the Dutch Integrity Organisation see website (LOWI) advices 2021-15 ,2022-09 and 2022-10. EilertBorchert (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You are making a WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Both possibility,s wildlife and labor related can cause a zoonotic disease (Sars Cov 2)

The use of the word zoonotic in this case is only correct in relation with an known animal.

This is reality EilertBorchert (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If authors mention likely or possibly in combination with zoonotic origin or zoonotic disease exist no problem. EilertBorchert (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

No, that's just a fringer perspective, popular among the lableak stans. It's like insisting that sources refer to the 'probable Holocaust' or the 'likely human origin of the Roswell debris'. Some scientists believe probability is high enough to call it, and if that is published in reliable sources Wikipedia reflects that. Bon courage (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The investigations into the origin of COVID-19 should be a methodological scientific discussion based on proven facts. Proven scientific evidence about the wildlife or lab related origin is till this moment not known. EilertBorchert (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

No point arguing here how you think science 'should be'. See WP:RGW. Get something published in The Lancet or something then it might be worthy of consideration. Editors' inexpert views count for nothing. Can somebody close please? Bon courage (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Weird how IPs are now allowed to make comments to the talkpage

NPR is also talking about the story. NPR 194.102.58.14 (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Most scientists agree ...

The citations do not support the "most" assertion. Has anyone done a formal poll of scientists to find out? I have replaced this with the NPOV "Some". Tuntable (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's sourced. So changing the text to break with the sourcing is POV. Bon courage (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the seventy-bajilionth time we've discussed this. The sources support a consensus of scientists (and several of our WP:BESTSOURCES actually use "most"), so we repeat that assertion here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree this is consistent with policy. Sennalen (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

WSJ report of lab leak origin

A new report from 26 February 2022 states that the lab leak origin theory, based on previously presented evidence, is now joined by the U.S. Department of Energy. How should this be addressed in the article vis-à-vis the previous consensus? Ppt91^talk 18:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I should clarify: there are still departments, as was previously stated, that do not share these views. What I meant was how should the addition of another department to FBI's previous conclusions be addressed. Ppt91^talk 18:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

See this relevant discussion at Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Heads_up_on_new_WSJ_story_re_DOE_assessment. This would be even less WP:DUE for this article than that one. But as more coverage appears, it may end up DUE for a short mention in both. No big changes, as single US govt agencies do not set the scientific consensus for wikipedia. But maybe a short mention next to that original sentence about the govt agency assessments. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink Thanks so much. This makes sense. While I don't edit in this area a lot, I thought the article warranted a reaction and wanted to check in about any progress in consensus. I know that those actively involved in the subject go through large amounts of new material almost every week and, as someone who works primarily with past events and pretty stable secondary sources, I can only imagine the amount of work that requires. Ppt91^talk 19:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Why should the opinion of the US Department of Energy on this subject be more relevant for the consensus than, say, the opinion of the chief janitor of the Town Hall of Ouagadougou? Even if consensus were a vote, medical laypeople would not have one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I am interested in the following quote:

"vis-à-vis the previous consensus"

Shouldn't the consensus change as new information emerges? Scientificaldan (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This DoE report is not actually based on new information. New information only skews the report if it upends, alters, supersedes, or in other ways invalidates the old data which determined that consensus. In this case, nothing new of any substantial importance was uncovered.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If DoE is listed as 'low confidence', the FBI should also explicitly be listed as 'moderate confidence' level for the lab-origin theory. 194.102.58.14 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)