Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m talkheader formatting
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skip to talk}}
{{skip to talk}}
{{Talkheader|archive_age=14 |archive_units=days}}
{{Talk page header}}
{{Ds/talk notice|covid|brief}}
{{Ds/talk notice|covid|brief}}
{{Template:CANVASWARNING}}
{{Template:CANVASWARNING}}

Revision as of 18:03, 18 January 2024


Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
  8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Last updated (diff) on 30 November 2024 by Shibbolethink (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

References


DOE

The DOE has a strange history. They formed from the previous AEC, Atomic Energy Commission, with ERDA in between. Formed not so long after the atomic bombs on Japan, one of the things the AEC did, was to monitor the effects of the bombs. Including genetics, through mutations from radioactivity. That got DOE out ahead when it came to the Human Genome Project. Except that NIH then decided that it really should be their project. The DNA sequence database, GenBank, started at Los Alamos National Laboratory. As part of the beginnings of the Human Genome Project, it was moved to NCBI, part of NIH. It is not so obvious, that the history gives DOE any special abilities regarding the origins of viruses. In any case, that is how they got into biology and genetics in the first place. Hopefully this will be useful in coverage of DOE in the article. Gah4 (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how it makes much difference. TarnishedPathtalk 11:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might not, but it might help find some useful WP:RS. Gah4 (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, see if you can find something useful and contribute it to the article if there is something legit.
Good luck! VoidHalo (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have this source[5] which is good for explaining what the DOE do, how to interpret their assessment, and how it has been misrepresented in certain press outlets. Bon courage (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hill: "Fauci met with Wuhan gain-of-function scientist in '17, admits lab leak not a conspiracy"

Very notable.

Highly reliable source.

I think this should be included.

https://thehill.com/video/fauci-met-with-wuhan-gain-of-function-scientist-in-17-admits-lab-leak-not-a-conspiracy-emily-kopp/9317732/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [6] for previous discussion of Rising, where there seems a consensus that it's only a reliable source for attributed opinions per WP:RSOPINION. I'd have thought that was somewhat obvious, given the host frames the whole piece with "could we finally be seeing some accountability and contrition from Dr Anthony Fauci". JaggedHamster (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:THEHILL, "The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources."
We can quickly identify that the segment mostly conveys the opinions of Emily Kopp. The appropriate guideline for opinion pieces is WP:RSEDITORIAL. Given that the Ms Kopp is not a subject matter expert in regards to the things that she's speaking about we can disregard everything she says as pure unmitigated bullshit. Did you have any further questions? TarnishedPathtalk 10:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reason also did an article on this. It starts out in a neutral and factual tone at first but gets opiniated pretty quickly. Not sure if and how it should be added. Don't think it deserves being dismissed entirely.
https://reason.com/2024/01/10/lab-leak-is-not-a-conspiracy-theory-anthony-fauci-concedes/ 88.243.142.20 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be WP:CIVIL please. Should strike "unmitigated bullshit" and stick to explaining policy. Rising seems like a political talk show, and WP:RSP describes political talk shows as Talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces at best. Definitely unreliable for citing facts about this controversial topic. Nothing more to do here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"we can disregard everything she says as pure unmitigated bullshit". No, that's not accurate. We can look for reliable sources about the relevant claim. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this doesn't have much of a place in the article. Emily Kopp doesn't have any recognized expertise in this field, and is not widely published or recognized by experts or other outlets as an expert. She is not regarded as particularly notable by other outlets for her covid opinions. That is our bar for utilizing opinion pieces. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But she was reporting on a quote from Fauci… is he not an expert in the field? 2600:1004:B292:5A8F:D0B2:294:BAB2:FD29 (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, she is saying this is what he said, any other sources for this claim, other than a headline? Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So can we have an actual quote from HIM and not people saying he said this? Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patent for Covid-19 vaccine in February 2020

A patent for a COVID-19 vaccine was filed in February 2020: https://patents.google.com/patent/CN111333704B/en Check also this page where I added some links and more context: Zhou Yusen LucasFR.pr (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or we wait for RS to mention this. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How's it even relevant? Bon courage (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, hence the request for RS discussing any links. Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fauci admits Lab Leak not conspiracy in private hearings.

Should probably update after the latest hearings where Fauci himself admitted that the lab leak was not a conspiracy theory. MSM reported on it yesterday. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lawmakers-questioned-fauci-about-lab-leak-covid-theory-in-marathon-interview/ar-AA1n5d6R

I doubt anyone is going to update based on this, but figured I’d give wiki a shot to be unbiased for once. 2600:1004:B292:5A8F:D0B2:294:BAB2:FD29 (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THis seems to be being discussed above.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1196849957"