Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Misinformation regarding near to zero contamination via outdoors crowds, manifestations, festivals Suggestion

cf COVID-19_misinformation#Large_gatherings, 1. the correct information is missing and meagre, 2. springtime has come. Many seem to have forgotten why outdoor festivals were cancelled last year. Anybody can help expand the paragraph, find and add correct information and references? Thy, --SvenAERTS (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC to fix this once and for all

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.

---

Two questions:

Primo Should the "lab leak" theory be treated and described as a:

• Minority, but scientific viewpoint; or
• A (political) conspiracy theory?

Secundo Should the "lab leak" theory have a section/sub-section separate from the other theories related to the WIV? 14:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Conspiracy theory and No The vast majority of actually MEDRS sources do not support this as anything more than an extremely unlikely hypothesis, and per WP:FALSEBALANCE we shouldn't give undue weight to a small minority by presenting "both sides" as being equal. As to a separate subsection, that is not necessary as everything that can be said without going into excessive WP:NOTNEWS-style details is already so described. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Conspiracy theory and no, per the !vote above. Short sections make for choppy reading, and there isn't enough to say to fill up a long one (without going into blow-by-blow notes of news reports and lengthy quotes of unremarkable public statements in a way that's unbecoming of an encyclopedia article). XOR'easter (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• For WP:NPOV, of the two, conspiracy theory is preferable as it better aligns with high-quality sources. PMID 33586302, says:

There are also rumours that SARS‐CoV‐2 ‘leaked’ from a famous laboratory in Wuhan working on bat CoVs, the ancestral virus of SARSCoV‐2.

and references PMID 32102621, which says:

Currently, there are speculations, rumours and conspiracy theories that SARS-CoV-2 is of laboratory origin. Some people have alleged that the human SARS-CoV-2 was leaked directly from a laboratory in Wuhan ...

Of course this is not wholly incompatible with it also being a minority scientific view, but (as with - say - cold fusion) Wikipedia needs to align with the scientific mainstream, which is particularly important in this fringe area per WP:PSCI which tells us to ensure the mainstream scientific view has to be prominently given. A subsection is not necessary. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: The article you're citing is literally called "No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2". Do you know the difference between engineering a virus like using CRISPR and serial passage mate? Feynstein (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: And I found this quote in the first article you cited."However, an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation.". Confirmation bias much? Feynstein (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Ironically, if you actually read this Wikipedia article, you'll see that point is already covered: "In reality, definitively proving or disproving these narratives is a difficult and lengthy process, and it is likely closure of the topic will only be achieved by a thorough forensic investigation." Alexbrn (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: It's ironic because it's not misinformation. The sentence pretty much sums it up. Feynstein (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Conspiracy theory and No Not enough uncrappy sources that say the opposite. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Conspiracy theory and no Its pretty clear that the main proponents of the "lab leak" supposition have no actual expertise in virology, and engage in motivated reasoning, attempting to find "evidence" that proves their opinion correct and ignore that that doesn't. It's also clear that it has a conspiratorial and sinophobic aspect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Minority, but scientific viewpoint and Yes. MEDRS are being clearly cherry-picked to bury the lab leak hypothesis. These are the reasons:

First we agreed on 6 MEDRS with the resulting analysis that: i) Most of them are very outdated (down to using April 30 2020 as a cutpoint for the review in one case); ii) The two that are not as outdated are: WHO (2020) and Hu et al (2020). Several RS sources point that WHO has contradicted itself when referring to the lab leak hypothesis, for example, when they rule it out one day, to be corrected the next day by Tedros, or two days later by the Embarek interview to Sciencemag. The one thing clear from WHO's treatment of the lab leak is that they are not willing to touch it even with a 10-feet pole, perhaps because of Chinese intimidation. Regarding Hu et al (2020), it has Shi Zheng-Li as a coauthor, which is a clear COI to refer or omit references to the lab leak hypothesis.

Second, there is no consensus on which aspects of the origin hypothesis require MEDRS and which doesn't. In my opinion, by default we can go with MEDRS for most aspects, and still report on the lab leak hypothesis citing top RS like Reuters, BBC, or NY Times.

Finally, there is no consensus on whether the distinction between man-made virus vs natural-origin virus that accidentally escaped the lab requires to be sourced by a MEDRS in order to exist. The distinction is very easy to understand by common sense, and MEDRS usually start mentioning in tandem whether viruses that originate in nature are naturally evolved vs evolved in serial passage or cell culture. You simply are not going to find a MEDRS that says "Well, this virus went through serial passage, so dang, I guess we can not call it a natural-origin virus anymore", because it is taken for granted that they are tandem notions. If you don't believe we can ask in Wikiproject virology. Forich (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: PMID 33586302 is very recent. Published on 14 February 2021, it is less than a week old. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I missed the Hakim reference in the previous discussion. It wasn't in the original list of 6 MEDRS. I apologize, and will look into it before commenting again, thanks for tipping me on the new source. Forich (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"Virus origin", broadly construed, probably requires MEDRS. If we're not sure, always better to require MEDRS as these are the WP:BESTSOURCES. Reporting on the lab leak is possible, as already done, without having an UNDUE section about it, or giving FALSEBALANCE to it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Conspiracy theory and no per the established high quality peer-reviewed sources in medical journals in this article. It's an o brainer, since nobody can point of sources giving even an inkling of evidence in support of the conspiracy. See WP:FALSEBALANCE: Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Minority, but scientific viewpoint and Yes. I am a historian rather than a virologist, but it took me a matter of minutes to find the lab leak theory advanced by leading virologists in a reputable medical journal published by the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2020123). As I have mentioned elsewhere, the lead author of this article is a virologist from the École Normale Supérieure de Paris who is working specifically on gene therapy for COVID-19. The other authors are a professor of molecular evolution at the Université de Paris, a professor of biophysics at the Université de Paris, an expert on genome analysis and bioinformatics at the Institut Français de Bioinformatique, and a virologist at CNRS (French National Centre for Scientific Research). The latter author - Étienne Decroly - recently gave an excellent interview on this very subject to the CNRS news site (https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/the-origin-of-sars-cov-2-is-being-seriously-questioned). As for reputable journalistic sources, there is this opinion piece from the Washington Post editorial board (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/05/coronavirus-origins-mystery-china/). Laboratory escape is a legitimate scientific hypothesis, not a conspiracy theory, yet the two are currently conflated at this poorly written section on COVID-19 misinformation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story. For reasons that entirely escape me, there seems to be a great deal of cherry-picking going on here, as well as a concerted effort to marginalise legitimate contributions rather than attempting to address their substance. Rosenkreutzer (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm reading through the original French language article, but I haven't found anything about the lab leak. If anything, this paper is debunking the lab manipulation theory, with statements such as "Dans le cas qui nous intéresse, le score supérieur à 1 indique que l’alignement obtenu est fortuit, et ne peut pas être considéré comme un indice d’homologie entre les séquences de VIH et de CoV." (the alignement between HIV and CoV is merely coincidental) or "Une seconde hypothèse, régulièrement formulée, est que ce virus pourrait résulter d’une recombinaison produite en laboratoire entre un virus de chauves-souris du type RaTG13 et un domaine RBD de haute affinité pour l’homme, cloné à partir du SARS-CoV. Cette hypothèse s’avère également incohérente avec les analyses phylogénétiques [...]" (the RaTG13/Sars-Cov lab manipulation theory is also incoherent). In short, this paper isn't even about the lab leak theory... What a disappointment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: French Canadian here... if you kept reading you would have found this quote: "D’autres pensent qu’il pourrait s’agir d’un virus de chiroptère qui se serait adapté à d’autres espèces dans des modèles animaux élevés en laboratoire, dont il se serait ensuite échappé. Il est également envisageable que ce virus provienne d’une souche virale cultivée sur des cellules au laboratoire afin d’étudier son potentiel infectieux. Ce virus cultivé se serait progressivement « humanisé » (adapté à l’hôte humain) par sélection des virus les plus aptes à se propager dans ces conditions." Which basically states that some authors think it could have been passed. Feynstein (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

[Oui je suis aussi québécois. Ceci-dit, back to the topic:] Except that half-paragraph is the sole in-depth mention of the lab leak hypothesis in the whole report (that, and a more pragmatic sentence: "La controverse s’est amplifiée, dans un contexte politique tendu où le président des États-Unis accusait la République populaire de Chine d’avoir laissé échapper le virus manipulé d’un laboratoire P4 à Wuhan…"; basically as I said at the WIV page: politics, not science). Note also how the language is rather speculative (unindentified others; ...), and no solid evidence is presented. This is the author doing his job as a scientist and explaining possible (however unlikely - there's no decision on the issue, at least from this author) hypothesis. Even if the lack of denial could be somehow misinterpreted as support for the theory, that would not override more recent sources such as the WHO investigation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I'm not using the lack of denial as a proof that it happened. I'm saying some articles are saying it's possible and the mainstream ones aren't dismissing it. By the way, I'm not up to date, did the WHO provide any evidence to dismiss it or are we supposed to take them to their word? Conflicts of interest would suggest a nuanced opinion is better. (P.S. please use a ping or a re next time. It's easier for me to answer that way. It's inconvenient to look at that wall of text in search for an answer, thanks) Feynstein (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Feynstein: No evidence against is not to be taken as evidence for something (see Russell's teapot) - no evidence is required to dismiss something; rather evidence is required to prove something. As for "did the WHO provide any evidence" - there's this interview with the WHO mission chief in Science. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Hahaha they're really saying that? "But they kept open the possibility that the virus arrived in Wuhan on frozen food, a route promoted aggressively by Chinese media to suggest the virus was imported from elsewhere in the world." Wow, way to ruin their credibility. If it came from "frozen food" there would have been large outbreaks elsewhere. Scientists already ruled that out. Feynstein (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup. 'Opinion pieces > academic sources' - this effectively makes the case for the "conspiracy theory" option. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it is really important not to misrepresent credentials, I want to point out: Sallard is a grad student, so definitely not an expert; Halloy does bioinformatics on zebrafish collective behavior, which is very interesting and very unrelated to viral evolution and genetics; Casañe researches the evolution of marine and subterranean vertebrates, so may have applicable skills for phylogenetic analysis but is not an expert in viruses; Decroly has legitimate research background in virology; van Helden publishes mainly on molecular/metabolic modeling and sequence analysis tools and on transcriptional profiling, so probably has relevant skills for handling large datasets and interpreting genome information. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Conspiracy theory and no as per WP:PSCI. --Moxy 22:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Conspiracy theory since reliable sources have not reported about investigations having discovered clear evidence of a lab leak in relation to COVID-19 yet it's been suggested and pushed (an RFC is unnecessary for this). I don't personally care about point 2 (depending on sources, some mention politics others not). —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Conspiracy theory and no. I have given this a lot of thought (here's an essay I wrote), and I agree with our experienced medical editors that the lab leak idea is WP:FRINGE among mainstream virologists and epidemiologists, who barely even mention the idea, and when they do they usually speak very negatively of it. Going off into opinion-land for a second, I suspect that USA wants an explanation that gives China maximum blame (lab leak), and China wants an explanation that gives China minimum blame (imported frozen food). But all trusted MEDRS sources point toward a less sensational and more boring explanation: a natural spillover from Chinese horseshoe bats, possibly via an intermediary animal. (That's according to these best sources.) I look forward to the WHO's official report regarding their visit to China to hopefully clarify things further. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• A lab leak is a plausible scientific hypothesis according to the scientific community which is demonstrated by the quotes and sources provided in the section above. Also note that a priori the lab leak cannot be a conspiracy theory. The definition logically does not allow it. Definition of conspiracy theory is "a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event." An accidental leak by definition says nothing about intentional covert action by a dark sinister organization. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Except that "plausible" is not the word used by the scientific community as evidenced by the best sources, rather wording like "extremely unlikely", "massive online speculation", "pseudoscientific" and "conspiracy theory" is used. Wikipedia is bound to follow these for NPOV. As to a "leak" itself not being a conspiracy theory, that's a truism and a banal strawman argument. The conspiracy theory is about a certain sequence of events which "they" don't want out there. Alexbrn (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The lab leak hypothesis is about a plausible mundane lab leak such as a maintenance worker not disposing of the lab waste correctly and then getting infected without him knowing. Or its about a lab researcher going to a bat cave in Yunnan province and collecting virus samples from bat feces and not realizing that they became infected. It is not about a nefarious organisation which is plotting and planning. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

We do not do original research and try to match to dictionary definitions ourselves. We look at the WP:BESTSOURCES. And the best sources say conspiracy theory. See MOS:LABEL ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that the best and most authoritative sources we have say that a lab leak is a plausible scientific hypothesis. See the section above which provides the best sources and the relevant quotes which reflect the position of scientists on this topic from the top universities in the world. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

In my experience when people say something is "clear", it's a sure sign it's not. Your cherried selection of lay sources are not the best. But Wikipedia does have established criteria which can be used to find the best sources (independent, scholarly, secondary, peer-reviewed, relevantly-published, well-reputed, etc.) By those criteria we have several truly excellent sources which give us the full picture. The recurrent problem with this topic is WP:PROFRINGE editors wanting to throw Wikipedia's established WP:PAGs out the window, so that weak sources can be used to undercut strong ones. It isn't going to happen. Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, just a thought - is it conceivable that the very few sources that you deem to consider allowable here could possibly be wrong? It could be that other more worldly and less narrowly specialised and less homogenised sources might be more reliable when it comes to analysing and evaluating these sort of general and not specifically medical or scientific hypotheses? Perhaps the overly specialised sources have too few shades of grey in their vocabulary between black and white to reasonably evaluate these sort of concepts. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} Many things are "possible", but the purpose of this encyclopedia is to reflect accepted knowledge as published in the highest-quality sources, not to WP:RGW. Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you'll have explain your "joke", but your link seems to shoot your arguments defending the cherry-picking of primary sources in the foot, if not the heart:

• we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion
• you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses
• Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them.

-- DeFacto (talk). 15:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Now just take into account that in the field of biomedicine Wikipedia wants WP:MEDRS and you'll be there. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, we're not talking about any biomedine here though, we're talking about a hypothesis that a lab might have had an accidental escape. That could be related to biology, chemistry, civil engineering, meteorology, road transport, ... If it had been a bat rather than a virus that was hypothesised to have escaped, would we have to got to WP:MAM and ask what sources they would give us permission to use? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat the points here, because this has been decided. Any assertions about the origin of the virus need a biomedical source. All these arguments that this is a "road transport" question (etc) are irrelevant. There are peripheral matters to the central topic which may not need MEDRS sourcing, but that is not the question at hand in this RfC. Alexbrn (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, the RfC arguments that assert that the accidental lab leak hypothesis discussion can only contain viewpoints and vocabulary supported by the MEDRS sanctioned subset of sources contravenes WP:BALANCE. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and since this is a WP:FRINGE area the balance we need is set out at WP:VALID. We describe the fringe views through the lens of mainstream, scientific sources. In time, there will likely be history-of-science books giving an overview of how the scientists were beset by the conspiracy theorists, which will be useful. Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, and there, I think, we have the root cause of the problem. Concluding from only what is found in those very specialised scientific academic sources that this is 'fringe' can only show it's 'fringe' as far as that niche of knowledge is concerned. That test would probably render a huge proportion of Wikipedia content as 'fringe'. We need to be more inclusive for a topic such as this, with massive worldwide interest and significance, and recognise that a wider range of disciplines also have a relevant contribution to make to this discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right about this being the root cause, but your prescription for a fix is wrong. In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Thus the "lab leak" ideas are fringe ones. The root cause of the problem is that the WP:PROFRINGE editors who have flocked here want to edit against the grain of Wikipedia's established WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I'd like to ask you what you think about Bismuth and how it is presented in this article. Should it require the same MEDRS standard? After 31 years the mechanism is still unknown and we're still talking about it like it's not a placebo effect. "Bismuth subsalicylate is used as an antidiarrheal;[5] it is the active ingredient in such "pink bismuth" preparations as Pepto-Bismol, as well as the 2004 reformulation of Kaopectate. It is also used to treat some other gastro-intestinal diseases like shigellosis[63] and cadmium poisoning.[5] The mechanism of action of this substance is still not well documented, although an oligodynamic effect (toxic effect of small doses of heavy metal ions on microbes) may be involved in at least some cases. Salicylic acid from hydrolysis of the compound is antimicrobial for toxogenic E. coli, an important pathogen in traveler's diarrhea.[64]". To me it seems in the same ballpark of credibility. 31 years is a long time though, we should be pretty sure at this point. On the other hand, covid is barely 1 year old. Maybe we shouldn't be so sure if no one has found definitive proof and we still didn't find the zoonotic agent. Feynstein (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd don't think anything about it. There are loads of shit articles on Wikipedia. Let's not add to the tally, eh? Alexbrn (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I'm quoting you here: "want to edit against the grain of Wikipedia's established WP:PAGs". If we're talking like that about Bismuth even if it has been shady for 30 years, I'm pretty sure the precedent tells us it's conceivable to draft at least a paragraph on a minority scientific view about a the origin of a virus that emerged a year ago. Moreover, I have a pretty good MEDRS article here[1] that says you're wrong. I quoted it elsewhere, it's the French one. If you want I can quote it again in this discussion so that you're up to speed. If you want me to find shady stuff here that would require MEDRS just ask, I worked in a pharmacy in college there's plenty of them over the counter. Feynstein (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: not ignoring your ping btw, just thinking. Generally, I feel like we're kinda going around in circles here, and that's probably because the differences of opinion between the two sides of this issue are more fundamental. I think crying policy, although it's often an irritating thing to be subject to, applies here somewhat, otherwise a resolution is impossible. Some smart folks came up with WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and related PAGs and I think our job is less deciding how we should write, but how the content matches up with policies. It's a pretty politicised topic. Now, personally I think there is room for non-MEDRS sources on this particular matter. For example, a quality piece of investigative reporting from The New York Times or some such which interviews people at the lab, or obtains a leak, and reaches some conclusions on the basis of evidence I think would be DUE to include (and it would likely also be covered in MEDRS with a delay anyway). But that doesn't exist yet. What we have is conjecture, speculation and theorising. Does the theory sound 'plausible'? Maybe. But so does saying Bin Laden isn't dead & the US govt has him locked up somewhere. A good conspiracy theory is impossible or difficult/expensive to disprove. I think that applies here. There's no evidence in favour of the theory other than speculation. Most RS discussing it don't even say there's any evidence in support, they just say it's not completely ruled out / is 'possible'. But their opinion is that it's highly unlikely. The scientific consensus, via various journal articles, is natural origin via bats. The article should portray that, in my view. It's possible this could be wrong as a matter of fact, but we can re-decide when there's something in MEDRS in support. We follow the sources, not decide the truth. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Minority, but scientific viewpoint and Yes The following are two MEDRS secondary sources (not primary!) from a reputable scientific journal [2]. Both are peer reviewed. If anyone wants to challenge the journals they need to advocate for that somewhere else like WP:RS, not just dismiss them because they don't match their POV.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000240

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000091

I'll also note that this RFC was canvassed at both an ANI and on the Fringe Notice Board in violation of WP:CANVASS.

Alexbrn canvassed with a link at an ANI Fringe Notice Board [3]

ProcrastinatingReader canvassed with a link on the Fringe Notice Board ANI.[4]

Shameful. Dinglelingy (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC) — Dinglelingy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Those sources are weak. We need review articles (or better) per WP:MEDRS. You're also telling fibs about AIN, which is naughty. Alexbrn (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Just as shameful. We need MEDRS which they are, you're telling fibs now.Dinglelingy (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification before making such accusations. As an aside, when one is worried about notification to the administrators' noticeboard, and/or to the fringe NB, you can be sure the editor is probably up to no good. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Canvassing#InAppropriate_notification, Vote-stacking, campaigning, biased. Nice try though. You are not an admin here, quit pretending you are. Dinglelingy (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If you sincerely think this is canvassing, this RfC is not the place for this. You can try your luck at WP:Dramaboard. Though, friendly reminder, you should also be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:35, 18 February 2021

I'm well aware of the rules. A little advice, you may want to refresh your understanding of WP:ForumShop,WP:Stonewalling,and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. [5]. Dinglelingy (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If you have any further accusations please start an ANI thread instead of venting heat at this RfC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You're still pushing those two primary non-MEDRS articles, even after so many people have explained why they are not appropriate for SCI/MED? It should be immediately apparent that those authors do not provide expert perspectives on viral evolution or genetics and therefore wouldn't be DUE even if they were otherwise MEDRS-compliant. How valid can your scientific opinion be if you can't find anyone with any credentials whatsoever to coauthor with you? Especially if 1) your coauthor is a dude with an MBA and zero science background rather than, you know, the scientist PI whose lab you're in? Or 2) you form a shell company to list as your "institutional affiliation" because you're retired and your only coauthor is your blogger insert applicable descriptor from link son who openly admits he hasn't studied biology since high school? JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• I’m not understanding why it can’t be both, the question asked appears to be a false dichotomy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Conspiracy theory and no. Novem Linguae and Alexbrn give a good recap here. I've opined substantially in other venues so won't repeat here. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Minority and yes. It's clearly stated in the main MEDRS paper that even though it's unlikely, serial passage could have happened in the lab. The littérature rightly dismisses any bioweapon claim, but not the lab incident theory. I'm sorry everyone it's not a conspiracy theory. I suggest editors read this article [6] by Michael Shermer in Scientific American to help them decide if it is or not. If you can use this article to debunk the hypothesis I'll be glad to discuss it under here. Feynstein (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Except it is not for us editors to decide whether the story is "true", "untrue" or whatever (that piece is 10 years old and naturally does not mention COVID once, so any inferences from it would be WP:SYNTH. What we do is reflect what reliable sources (in this case, even more stringently MEDRS) say. They say the theory came out of a context of politically motivated accusation, is extremely unlikely, that there is not a shred of evidence, ... So we say that, not the FALSEBALANCE option that it is an equally valid but minority view. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Except it's precisely what this RfC is about isn't it? Editors dismissing it as a conspiracy theory are precisely deciding it's not true. It's demonstrably not one with multiple RS sources. Shermer's article was only for rhetorical purposes, but it's still very handy to read, you should try it. Feynstein (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Feynstein: This RfC is about some users trying to legitimise this because it's not disproven, and then wanting to have a larger section to entertain their particular view about it (and other editors having to debunk the same debunked points multiple times all over again), as was formerly the case at WIV (where nearly half the article was taken up with that kind of thing), before that was trimmed for the same reasons. The fact that most high-quality medical sources dismiss this as extremely unlikely is telling all you need to know. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Yes, but then why is the question minority viewpoint vs political conspiracy theory? Extremely unlikely doesn't come across to me as anything close to a conspiracy theory. And there are primary RS that have positive arguments for it. We're really not into chemtrail territory here. I can understand anyone answering no to the second question tough, it is a minority view and I don't think it deserves anything else than a paragraph detailing the RS we have on the subject. Why did you answer conspiracy theory when you know that the difference between chemtrails and this is multiple orders of magnitude of credibility? There's absolutely no RS positive arguments for chemtrails or flat earth. And we also have RS saying the Chinese conspiracy theory of frozen food is false. Why would the WHO promote that? We also have tons on RS saying the Chinese government hid stuff like human to human transmission and prohibited scientists from releasing any paper, genome or samples to the rest of the world. It's really not that much a stretch of the mind to think they would have, and probably still would, be hiding evidence of a lab leak. The best answer in my opinion would then be minority and no? Having one paragraph or subsection on the subject would be the logical way to go. We can even reference two MEDRSs that talk about serial passage. Feynstein (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The WHO referencing the "all hypotheses are still on the table" is just sign that this is also [mostly] a political issue. We ought not to mix the political aspect with the scientific aspect - reporting on the politicians who promoted this misinformation can be done separately of reporting on evidence or lack thereof (simply because this is more likely than some of the wilder theories you mention does not, or at least should not influence our judgement). Two (or ten) "primary RS" are not enough per MEDRS, we need better sources (secondary reviews) which describe this as something more than unfounded speculation. Re. "frozen food": the scientist makes a very clear distinction that, in 2019 (when the outbreak started), there was no possible route of introduction:

But that’s happening in 2020, at a time where the virus is widely circulating in the world, where there are multiple outbreaks in food factories around the world. It is probably an extremely rare event; we can see that from only a few dozen positive findings in China, out of 1.4 million samples taken so far. It’s potentially possible, so it’s worth exploring. But we have to separate the situation in 2020 with imported goods in China, and the situation in 2019, where that was not a possible route of introduction. There were no widespread outbreaks of COVID-19 in food factories around the world.

So what is said is that it is an interesting thing to investigate, in the context of global transmission (2020), but not in the context of virus origin (2019). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I'll refer to my previous quote: "But they kept open the possibility that the virus arrived in Wuhan on frozen food, a route promoted aggressively by Chinese media to suggest the virus was imported from elsewhere in the world.". From the article you referenced yesterday that dismissed the lab leak hypothesis. They're specifically talking about Wuhan, don't try to slither away from it by talking about the global pandemic situation. It's the WHO that said that, ruining their credibility. If they want to find the zoonotic origin, fine, but don't play favoritism for other "political conspiracy theories" if they really are "conspiracy theories". This is MERDRS btw [7]. And they separate the theories about a synthetic virus and a serial passage virus "En l’absence d’éléments probants concernant le dernier intermédiaire animal avant la contamination humaine, certains auteurs suggèrent que ce virus pourrait avoir été fabriqué dans un laboratoire (origine synthétique). Mais ces assertions ont été réfutées par de nombreux spécialistes, notamment sur la base d’études phylogénétiques qui suggèrent deux scénarios prépondérants pour expliquer l’origine du SARS-CoV-2 : (1) l’adaptation chez un animal hôte avant le transfert zoonotique, ou (2) l’adaptation chez l’homme après le transfert zoonotique [11, 17, 18, 22]. D’autres pensent qu’il pourrait s’agir d’un virus de chiroptère qui se serait adapté à d’autres espèces dans des modèles animaux élevés en laboratoire, dont il se serait ensuite échappé. Il est également envisageable que ce virus provienne d’une souche virale cultivée sur des cellules au laboratoire afin d’étudier son potentiel infectieux. Ce virus cultivé se serait progressivement « humanisé » (adapté à l’hôte humain) par sélection des virus les plus aptes à se propager dans ces conditions. Quel que soit le mécanisme présidant à son apparition, il est important de comprendre comment ce virus a passé la barrière d’espèce et est devenu hautement transmissible d’homme à homme, cela afin de se prémunir de nouvelles émergences [23].". It can't be more clear. Feynstein (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Feynstein: We already discussed that source earlier, see my previous comments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Yeah and I think you missed it: "Il est également envisageable que ce virus provienne d’une souche virale cultivée sur des cellules au laboratoire afin d’étudier son potentiel infectieux. Ce virus cultivé se serait progressivement « humanisé » (adapté à l’hôte humain) par sélection des virus les plus aptes à se propager dans ces conditions.". This is positive proof, not a lack of negative proof. Feynstein (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Feynstein: For our English speaking friends: "Il est également envisageable" means "It is also possible to consider [the possibility that the virus originates from ...]" - id es, speculation, not "positive proof". I already addressed that report previously, see my comment beginning with "[Oui je suis aussi québécois. Ceci-dit, back to the topic:]". No point going in circles, if there's nothing new to add then it is probably time for us to let the debate continue with new interventions by other users. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I think you missed my point, I probably used the wrong language here. I'll try to make it clearer before we do that. I didn't mean "positive proof" as in proof the theory is true. I meant it as it is possible. This paper saying it's "envisageable" (Soft proof let's say) combined with the absence of hard proof that the theory is false and the absence of an intermediate host a year later means it should get at least consideration. And since there are now multiple RS talking about it I could certainly see a subsection about this theory. Put in the right context (i.e. as a minority view) it's absolutely "envisageable" ;-) Feynstein (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Minority, abstain. [8] is enough for me to say it's not entirely a conspiracy theory. I don't have enough of a clue to know if it's reasonable to have a section on this. If we did have one, it should be a fairly short paragraph--the sourcing is too thin to do more. Hobit (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• conspiracy theory and no (until there is something solid to the contrary) Minority, abstain--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, is this solid?

• https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/health/coronavirus-lab-leak-who.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/04/07/science/virus-inquiries-pandemic-origins.html

Tinybubi (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC) — Tinybubi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

it is getting interesting...time will tell--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Ignore the SPA, but those sources are not MEDRS. The letter referred to in the NYT is from Jamie Metzl. Maybe an expert about geopolitics, but he has no relevant expertise here (except for highlighting the political aspect, which is already obvious). And the deliberate misinterpretation of "requires more investigation" by lab leak proponents flies in the face of statements like "He said that over all, on the question of viral origins, “I’m really not convinced that it came from a lab, but there’s not enough investigation.”" In fact, much of the NYT article is giving the opinion of scientists who generally agree with the report's conclusions, with some limitations, but nothing of the political nonsense about the WHO seen in places like the RSN post or further below here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Minority viewpoint, and this RfC is silly. There have been several discussions about this over a variety of noticeboards, talk pages, MfDs, et cetera over the course of months, and I'd say most reasonable people have gotten sick of it by now (I certainly have); the only people left are people who care to an extreme degree about this. I (and others) certainly do not feel up to the task of copy-pasting the exact same posts into a dozen different discussions about the exact same thing for weeks on end, so I guess the consensus is probably going to be that every fact that reliable sources don't consense on is automatically a conspiracy theory; I will say again, for the record, that this is a dangerous oversimplification of how scientific consensus works. Wikipedia's job is not to be an authoritative decisionmaker on controversies where reliable sources have not reached consensus. jp×g 22:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Minority viewpoint, concur with JPxG that this RfC is a poor idea. The lab leak perspective does not deserve undue weight or recognition in the article -- hence I abstain from the question of whether it should have a section, which would potentially be undue weight -- but similarly does not deserve a hardline position on whether it's a conspiracy theory at this point in the process. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• conspiracy theory and no. There is a minority for the lab leak theory, but it is so minor that any mention would be undue and a false balance. The conspiracy theory around the idea is notable, which give the false idea that the minority view is notable. In time this conspiracy theory will just be remembered as one amongst many, and the minority view will be completely forgotten. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Minority, but scientific viewpoint and Yes. I also agree with DeFacto and Slatersteven that this RFC doesn't address the issue. Politico published an article yesterday explaining the Covid lab origin hypothesis in great detail. RebeccaofLondon (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC) — RebeccaofLondon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• No and no. This is simply something unknown. A lot of things are unknown. One might argue this is a "minority view" based on recent publications [9], i.e. a letter sent by a group of scientists to WHO, etc. But there is a problem: these scientists do NOT claim that it was leaked from the lab. They only say it should be independently investigated becuase WHO investigators failed their mission, obviously due to the information blockout by the Chinese government. My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Not conspiracy theory - Echoing My very best wishes here; "conspiracy theory" is often taken to mean an explanation of thing/event that is contrary to the commonly accepted explanation. I don't believe there is a well-defined and widely accepted origin story for COVID, thus it's hard to call this a "conspiracy theory". Probably best to just use some WP:WEASEL language and say "a small number of sources have suggested....". NickCT (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  Conspiracy theories can be "well-defined and widely accepted". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Hob Gadling: Granted that "conspiracy theory" can have different definitions, but a lot of those definitions include some kind of rejection of the common narrative (e.g. this one). Hence, once something is "widely accepted", it by definition can't be a conspiracy theory. NickCT (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  I actually misread what you wrote. I thought you had written that the lab leak idea was a "well-defined and widely accepted origin story for COVID", so my response did not fit. Nevertheless, a claim that people conspired to hide a lab leak is a conspiracy theory. There does not need to be one widely accepted exact explanation in order for some weird story to be a CT, it can be a general idea too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Hob Gadling: - Ok. Well maybe we need to define the "lab leak theory" a little better. My understanding is that theory largely pertains to the purported origin of the virus. Not necessarily any subsequent conspiracy to hide the origin. NickCT (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  I do not think this is a conspiracy theory for a couple of reasons. First of all, an accidental leakage of a pathogen from a lab does not imply conspiracy or any evil intention. A conspiracy to hide the fact? There is no doubt that the Chinese government is hiding something (simply based on their information blockades, disinformation campaign, preventing access to WHO team, etc.). We just do not know what they hide exactly. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  Largely agree w/ My very best wishes's comments. Even if members of the Chinese government are "conspiring" to hide a lab leak, I still don't think I'd call that a "conspiracy theory". Governments conspire to hide things all the time. Saying something like "I think the Air Force is covering up details of a new jet fighter", isn't really a conspiracy theory. NickCT (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• neither and Yes. It's not really a conspiracy theory or a minority scientific opinion. It's a hypothesis mostly based on the outbreak being near a lab which was studying similar viruses and considering it is more common sense than a conspiracy or science. Given the WHO have looked into it and said probably not and also that the US government have also commented on it, both the Trump and Biden administrations, I think it would be reasonable to have a section on the 'the possibility of a laboratory-related incident' with the information that the WHO had said it was unlikely rather than regarding all discussion as to be censored. The term 'the possibility of a laboratory-related incident" is from the WHO press conference where they list it as one of four hypotheses considered. (https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-virtual-press-conference-transcript---9-february-2021)

I think calling the lab hypothesis a conspiracy theory may deviate from 'neutral point of view (NPOV)' given both the WHO and State Department consider it as a real possibility rather than conspiracy theory. A recent update on the State Dept stuff was

>“There wasn’t significant or meaningful disagreement regarding the information presented in the fact sheet,” the senior State Department official said. “No one is disputing the information, the fact that these data points exist, the fact that they are accurate. Where there was some discomfort was that [the Trump administration] put spin on the ball.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/09/biden-administration-confirms-some-trump-wuhan-lab-claims/)

Tim333 (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Political conspiracy theory and no we should not have sections on this theory and/or the WIV on articles related to COVID, except in articles that are specifically dedicated to misinformation, disinformation, or conspiracies. I've dozens on scientific journal articles on coronavirus biology — published either before or after this most recent outbreak — and all discuss high coronavirus lineage diversity, frequent spillovers, and the likelihood of another epidemic occurring for natural reasons as a result. Papers published in the last year consider the virus to have a natural origin. -Darouet (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  Darouet, you seem to be confusing the lab-leak hypothesis being discussed here (which is one of only four hypotheses, all only concerned with a virus of natural origin, still on the WHO's table) with the long since refuted theory that the virus was engineered by humans. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a serious misunderstanding here. The accidental leak hypothesis assumes that the virus is of natural origin. It just was leaked from a lab, just as in many other pathogen leakage accidents that did did happen as a matter of fact. This can not be proven or disproven by analysing the evolutionary history or biology of the virus. If it could, this question would be already closed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not misunderstanding this at all, and if you think so, you're confused about what most people are voting about on this RfC. When I write coronavirus lineage diversity, frequent spillovers, and the likelihood of another epidemic occurring for natural reasons as a result, that should indicate to you that I mean the "lab leak" (not engineering) idea is also misinformation. -Darouet (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• But then this is just an invalid RfC. What all these people are voting for? RfC asks: "Should the "lab leak" theory be treated and described as a...". But what is the "lab leak"? This seems to be understood differently. For example, this ref say: Some people have alleged that SARS‐CoV‐2 is of laboratory origin and the result of deliberate genetic manipulation. According to these conspiracy theories, a novel virus is a human‐made biological weapon, not the result of natural evolution and selection. OK, this is one of claims. Then it say: SARS‐CoV‐2 is said to be engineered by the Chinese government with economic or political background and agenda. This is different. Then it say There are also rumours that SARS‐CoV‐2 ‘leaked’ from a famous laboratory in Wuhan working on bat CoVs, the ancestral virus of SARS‐CoV‐2". This is something else. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: personally, I would assume that the "lab leak" idea does not imply engineering at all. The idea proposes that the the WIV had SARS-CoV-2 in its lab. It might have been sampled from a natural population and unchanged. But then the virus leaked, perhaps by infecting a researcher. What I'm telling you is that most scientists view this idea - that involves no engineering at all - as a politically motivated conspiracy theory that's wholly at odds with available evidence. -Darouet (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What evidence? There is no any scientific evidence it did not leak from a lab, just as there is no evidence it leaked from the lab. Science can not answer if something was or was not physically present in a lab. This is a question for a police-style investigation. The souce population of bats is unknown. The intermediate host (if any) is unknown. The patien zero is unknown. Hence there are many recent publications, such as this arricle in WaPo [10]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The evidence is the close genetic proximity of SARS-CoV-2 to wild coronaviruses in the region; the dozens or hundreds of CoV strains that have been characterized; the extraordinary number of bats that live throughout SE Asia and carry CoVs with them; the high CoV seroprevalence among people living near the bats; the high rate of zoonosis by CoVs in SE Asia and throughout the rest of the world; the two other SARS epidemics that have occurred recently; warnings by many CoV scientists that another outbreak was bound to happen again soon. Add to these the absence of the SARS-CoV-2 strain in the WIV or other institutes before the outbreak. All these facts are known to virologists and epidemiologists, the vast majority of whom would agree with virologist Vincent Racaniello in describing the lab leak conspiracy theory as "science fiction."

Sure, it's possible for anyone to propose a series of highly unlikely events — a "lab leak" is a more likely source for SARS-CoV-2 than a meteorite origin, but both are highly implausible compared to zoonisis — and to declare that no evidence exists to contradict them. However, there are a truly infinite number of false hypotheses to explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2, if your only criteria is that the hypotheses cannot be falsified. Understanding the ecology of coronaviruses in nature — and this involves plenty of data and evidence — will help you understand why scientists consider this idea to be science fiction. -Darouet (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Conspiracy theory and no. I saw a note about this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApproximateLand (talk • contribs)
• Minority, but scientific viewpoint since it’s scientifically possible and has been hypothesized or not escluded by serious scientists. Conspiracy theory is instead something impossible and that no serious expert would consider. Even experts who disagree call it “unlikely”, but that’s very different from a conspiracy theory. It’s still a valid scientific hypothesis, even if it turns out to be wrong. It cannot by definition be called a conspiracy theory Eccekevin (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Minority viewpoint and yes. As of yesterday (after the official report was released), the Director General of the WHO has come out on record saying: “Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation,”. Nothing about it being a conspiracy theory or even misinformation. If the head of the world organization responsible for investigating the origins has deemed it worthy of a follow-up, and if the WHO is considered a reliable source (which has been repeatedly stated in this talk page), this should be an open and shut case.CommercialB (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Minority viewpoint that is significant enough that yes, it should have a dedicated subsection. Given that the evidence is only pointing in another direction, but has not conclusively proved this isn't the case, it is not a conspiracy theory. There is a valid scientific pathway to get to lab leak as the source, and even though there's equally many or more pathways to get to the conclusion that it was from animals, neither has been proven correct or incorrect as of yet. Thus, it's not a conspiracy by definition. Conspiracies are not defined by "how likely they are" - they're defined by misinterpreting facts or outright fabrication to support their views. If and when a conclusive source is proven, then continuing to spread this theory would be a conspiracy. Until then, it is being used for misinformation (saying that a conclusive source has been found as a lab leak, for example), but it is not a conspiracy. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Opening an RfC so the endless I-dont-hear-it-is can come to an end. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think this will settle it, as there are different "lab leak" theories, including odd variants being pushed on Wikipedia which don't seem to appear in sources. Also some sources seem to use multiple terms to describe the lab leak including (yes) "conspiracy theory" but also "rumours" and "misinformation". Alexbrn (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, at least this will give an enforceable consensus about it, and it will be that much harder for the POV-pushers to keep repeating the same rebutted arguments all over again under different usernames... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• We already had a conclusive discussion on this in early last year (which I am unable to find at the moment), so I cant imagine this concensus holding for more than 8 months. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• That previous RfC is here. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That was in the main topic article (where the lab leak is entirely off topic, unlike here). Time goes on and things don't change: "The only WP:MEDRS which discusses this speculative theory find "that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence".[1]"; "Politically-motivated narratives about the virus origin are completely divorced from hypotheses developed by scientists reporting in WP:MEDRS"; "Discussion of the origins of the pandemic should be based on WP:MEDRS sources."... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• This RfC does not address the issue we have. The issue is the conflation of the legitimate hypothesis that the virus accidentally escaped from a lab, the hypothesis that currently sits, along with just three other hypotheses on the WHO table, with some arbitrary and non-specific lab leak conspiracy theories, that we should be getting comments on. Should we be doing that, as we currently are, or should we separate them and treat the conspiracy theoris as such, and the hypothesis with the weight and voracity that its widespread coverage in the media and in the literature deserves. This RfC does not address that issue at all, it offers two closed questions, neither of which is relevant, and whichever get's the most support is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I suggest scrapping this RfC and getting agreement on the wording for a new one, before then opening it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)‎

• You have been repeatedly asked to provide a source setting out your "natural virus languishing in a lab" leak idea, but have not done so. I have concluded the story is your own original one. The "conflation" in is the sources and Wikipedia just reflects that properly rather then embarking on original research, which would be prohibited by policy. Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Alexbrn, we saw the sources and you dismissed them as not being MEDRS compliant, as if that has any weight wrt the specifics here. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"The issue is the conflation of the legitimate hypothesis that the virus accidentally escaped from a lab" No, it might maybe be "legitimate", but it's very WP:FRINGE. The real issue is editors attempting to push that theory as something equally valid (based on poor sources) to the scientific consensus, which is actually, very clearly, per recent WHO clarifications and the vast majority of MEDRS, that COVID does not come from the WIV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, and this RfC does not cover it either way, so needs starting again. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It does not cover it explicitly, because it is not a legitimate concern, it is one which you keep pushing without evidence, as mentioned by both me and Alexbrn. In any case, even if it does not cover it explicitly, it is implicitly included in the first question. If you think you have a case, do so by giving us direct and non-cherrypicked quotes from WP:MEDRS and proper research, not WP:SYNTH from the popular press. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

At this stage I'd be interested even to see a non-WP:MEDRS sourced that sets out the supposed sequence of events. But every time the question is asked there is just arm waving at various sources which do not do so. The idea sounds to me inherently absurd, that the virus can have somehow both a natural origin and lab origin, without human intervention in its nature. Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, imagine for a moment that a member of a lab's staff or a delivery to it or animals in transit came in with a virus, or viruses being studied in there evolved, and then their biosecurity system failed in some way. Is that, for example, beyond the realms of possibility? That'd be the sort of thing the WHO would want to look at, if they had the power and the resources to do it. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

If you want to include that in the article, and assuming somehow it's not just your wild speculation, then applies... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, and the rest is history! Can you remind us what happens then, and how quickly it is whisked away? What's the record, sub-30 seconds I wouldn't wonder. (clue: MEDRS) -- DeFacto (talk). 17:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, if the RfC does not cover it it will not solve the issue, will it? And whether you or MEDRS think it is a legitimate concern, or not, is totally irrelevant. The RfC should decide if there is a case to cover in due detail the widely publicised and commented upon hypothesis that the WHO have kept on the table. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

And which hypothesis is that, that is not already included in the RfC? Virus bio-engineered? Already in article. Virus leaked from lab? The point of this RfC. Sources on the topic that are not just the popular press reporting on politics? Nowhere to be seen. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

*I agree with DeFacto that this RFC does not address the real issue, so I would suggest rewording it and posting it again.

There is a similar discussion on the talk page of Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 where editors Park3r, Guest2625, Horse Eye's Back and My very best wishes support the inclusion of the Biden administration's statements dichotomising the lab leak hypothesis from conspiracy theories.

There is are also a long discussion on the talk page of the Wuhan Institute of Virology where Feynstein makes many good points delineating several points of divergence between the lab leak hypothesis and bioweapons conspiracy theories.

Alexbrn also points out in this discussion that there are different lab leak theories, including some variants he finds "odd" and which he says do not appear in sources. The Hakim MS source he mentions in the above discussion includes one variant involving gain of function research, so I assume he not referring to that one as "odd" or unsourced, as that is the main variant that many editors here and on other pages are concerned about.

TacticalTweaker (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock editing in violation of their topic ban. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That's how conspiracy theories work: taking convenient bits here and there and connecting them in a way to speculate and suggest conclusions despite the lack of evidence. Investigations can indeed explore all needed aspects but unless those demonstrate clear evidence that a lab leak occurred the narratives pushed about it remain misinformation and meet WP:FRINGE. You claim to have read the history of previous discussions, it should then already be clear that Wikipedia is not about presenting a WP:FALSEBALANCE of opinions and speculation, but should instead present the current consensus. Many reliable sources discuss these claims as misinformation and document the spread of rumors by conspiracy theorists, thus it should be presented as such... —PaleoNeonate – 03:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

To be strictly accurate, the misinformation about the WIV is a melange of conspiracy theory and unfounded speculation (per the best sources). So this is what we say:

Currently, there are some fictitious and pseudoscientific claims as well as conspiracy theories associated with the Covid‐19 pandemic ...

(Hakim 2021)

Some of the lab leak scenarios fall more into the pseudoscientific, fictional category than the outright "conspiracy theory" category, as some of the claims on this very Talk page illustrate.

(Add) though I notice DeFacto has just tagged this very directly-sourced text in our article with a {{cn}}, which seems disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: there is nothing disruptive about asking for a source when the sentence containing that phrase is totally unsourced. There are four sources on the following sentence, is it one of them? If it is sourced, then why not make it easier for the reader to find it. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

[11] The tone of the two sentences in the diff could use some work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: The source is the next following. A source is not required for every sentence. Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I think for conspiracy theorists, "believer" is the correct/neutral term as it is an article of faith for them. From the conclusion of the Hakim source:

The believers of conspiracy will continuously search for ‘scientific evidence’ to defend their claims that SARS‐CoV‐2 is a human‐made virus, such as the case with an HIV‐1 bioRxiv paper that has been retracted. On the other side, however, the believers of conspiracy theories criticise sciences when scientific evidence argues against their beliefs.

Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, thanks for the feedback. Here's my concerns. The first sentence has an essay tone, like it's building up to some subjective conclusion. The second sentence in the diff (farther down) uses strong words like "believer" and "dedicated". Even if the source says that, it seems like an opinion to me, and I'd argue that tone is too strong for Wikivoice. No response necessary unless you want to, I don't want to spend too much time on this minor issue. But I did want to articulate my concerns. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Problem is it can be both.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m with Slatersteven, it can be both. Forcing it into a false binary choice makes the RfC useless. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It can be both, but WP:NPOV means it probably shouldn't be described as such in the article (especially if MEDRS overwhelmingly reject/describe it as some degree of unlikely). Anyway, there's the other question which is also pertinent for purposes of UNDUE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me, from the best RS, some variants of the "lab leak" story are conspiracy theory, others fall more into the category of "unfounded speculation". Hence our current opening of this section is "Conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation have gained popularity during the pandemic ...". Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No NPOV does not mean that, it means we give a nuanced view. We call should include the parts that are called by RS misinformation as misinformation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV would seem to be nearly the opposite, if it can be both then we must express both to the extent we find them in WP:RS. Also MEDRS does not apply to the political and communications aspects of the claims (which this page is primarily about), only the biomedical ones (which this page is *not* about, there should be no unique biomedical claims here). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'd like to say that this article[12] would actually fall in the MEDRS category as it is secondary. All the arguments i've seen against it are based on the authors credentials and I'm allergic to that. Some editors think they can dismiss papers because they think they know enough about the authors. Feynstein (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• You might "like" to say it, but you'd be wrong. The publisher/PUBMED categorize it as a "comparative study". Alexbrn (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: In French it says "synthèse" (or summary of research), which would be a secondary article. Can you explain to me how it's a comparative study and what's about them specifically that's not MEDRS. When you read it, it actually reads like a review. Looks to me like you picked this argument out of a hat mate. Feynstein (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• See PMID 32773024. Alexbrn (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I saw that. It doesn't make any sense. Maybe PubMed can't speak French? Or they mixed it up? I'll contact them tomorrow to see if it's a mistake. It's written "synthèse" in the original article. Anyhow, literally a tag on a paper from a website other than the original publisher shouldn't be used to completely dismiss the article. And what I've asked you is actually: if it's a comparative study, which it is demonstrably not, why isn't it MEDRS? Because it's primary? They literally cite multiple authors throughout the paper like a litterature review. You hiding behind what is probably a tagging mistake is not an argument. Do you also think it's a comparative study? Aside from the tag can you demonstrate that? It looks a bit shallow to me mate. Feynstein (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

To my non-medical (but minimally scientifically literate) eyes, this doesn't look like a primary (case-study/experiment report/...) source. It doesn't change my previous comments on the content therein. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Feynstein: "Maybe PubMed can't speak French?" ← has to be one of the more ridiculous statements on this page, in a competitive field. The metadata record with the article's type will have been prepared by the publisher and submitted to PUBMED. From the abstract ("Based on phylogenetic inferences, sequence analysis and structure-function relationships of coronavirus proteins, informed by the knowledge currently available, we discuss ...") it is apparent the authors are conducting novel research using others' work as a basis. One has to wonder why, when we have genuine and recent review articles, we would want to consider a comparative study from last August? Alexbrn (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Except for this...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33558807/

@Feynstein, looks kind of like a checkmate on this issue, no? Which would great as we can all move on to better or more important things, yay!

There is now a good MEDRS secondary source that meets literally everyone's requirements.

Good MERS means the lab leak theory is a 'Minority but scientific viewpoint.'

A 'Minority but scientific viewpoint' can not be a 'Conspiracy theory'. More precisely, it is no longer a 'Conspiracy theory.'

Might need a little blurb about the transition.

Case closed.

Any objections to assuming consensus on this?

Dinglelingy (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a modified version of the article appearing in a non-MEDLINE indexed journal, an indication that the journal article may not be reliable. Avoid, especially when we have solid sources. Alexbrn (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That's one objection. Any others? Dinglelingy (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, plenty of objections. As said, this is a translation of the French-language article mentioned above, and I'm not going to repeat what I said about it in excruciating detail (see my comment and the one mentioned in it earlier, [13]), but in short, the only thing it offers for this lab leak story is some minor speculation (which, unlike for the other statements in that study, is not even sourced to any other previous paper). And it is from last August, so it isn't exactly the newest thing. We'd do better to wait for the full WHO report and see how that has any consequences in MEDRS: after all, on Wikipedia, we're not supposed to be latest news and there's no worry if we're a bit delayed in reporting things, especially when reporting things earlier could lend undue credence (read WP:FALSEBALANCE for once) to a theory that is not really supported, except for some minor mentions, in proper sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"The data currently available are not sufficient to firmly assert whether SARS-CoV2 results from a zoonotic emergence or from an accidental escape of a laboratory strain. This question needs to be solved because it has important consequences on the risk/benefit balance of our interactions with ecosystems, ::on intensive breeding of wild and domestic animals, on some laboratory practices and on scientific policy and biosafety regulations"

The review is updated with current data and additional information. They have not backed away from their previous statement. It's from Feb 4, 2021. You are proposing to wait until for the WHO Summary report. You are not claiming it's not a good MEDRS review. I think that's right. Any other objections?Dinglelingy (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A translation does not mean the data is the latest available, and, crucially, even the publication date (let alone the date at which this was actually submitted for publication: peer-review and translation typically are not, in a reputable journal, something done hurriedly in a day or two) is before the WHO press conference on the 9th, which provided plenty of new information, which this study (initially written in August 2020) could not possibly have even known of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"This article is the English translation and update of a French article published in médecines/sciences (10.1051/medsci/2020123) on July 10, 2020. Since our study included a complete re-analysis by ourselves of the genomic and peptidic sequences, this English translation contains an additional section “Materials and methods.” We also added the ferret in Fig. 4, made some minor revisions, added a short conclusion at the end of each paragraph and discussed a few key articles on the subject that were published after our initial publication."

I don't think that changes anything from your first comment. You have a content issue. I posted what the review says about the update, people can read it for themselves. Are you now saying it is not MEDRS? If you are not saying that, we are good and we can see if there are any other objections. Are the any other objections? Dinglelingy (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to go in circles and repeat myself about the analysis of the French language article (most sections are pretty much unchanged). What about this direct quote: "The hypothesis promoted by most specialists is that the virus has a zoonotic origin. This hypothesis relies on phylogenetic studies suggesting [...]". So the lab leak thing would still be pretty much a minority affair (even more so in light of the more recent WHO reports), so even if we somehow wanted to divorce it from the politically motivated conspiracies we'd still only afford a very minor mention of it per WP:DUE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to. I have acknowledged you have a content issue and people can read your comments. You are not claiming it is not MEDRS. Thank you for your objection. Are there any other objections? Dinglelingy (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. I still think we have to mention in the article, that there is no way to tell an artificially produced virus from a natural, zoonotic emergence. Alexpl (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that's fine with a nice MEDRS link. Thank you. Dinglelingy (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

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.

---

(Proposed) Concensus

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33558807/

There is now a good MEDRS secondary source that meets literally almost everyone's requirements.

Good MEDRS means the lab leak theory is a 'Minority but scientific viewpoint.'

A 'Minority but scientific viewpoint' can not be a 'Conspiracy theory'. More precisely, it is no longer a 'Conspiracy theory.'

Might need a little blurb about the transition.

Case closed.

Objection 1: Alexbrn - Not MEDRS because its a non-MEDLINE indexed journal (see above)

Objection 2: RandomCanadian - Is MEDRS but has content concerns. Timing with WHO report (see above)

No need to argue, if you have an objection, keep it short & sweet, be very specific if you object to it being good MEDRS. I am going to try and let this go without needing to summarize. We'll see what happens.

Any objections to assuming consensus on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy (talk • contribs)

The consensus is to omit. Arguments against the WP:PAGs have no weight in evaluating consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

As has been said there are two stains here, the "it was a leak" conspiracy theory and "the data currently available are not sufficient to firmly assert whether SARS-CoV2 results from a zoonotic emergence or from an accidental escape of a laboratory strain." scientific bet-hedging. We need to differentiate the two, not assume that the existence of one means the other is not a conspiracy theroyy or misinformation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I support the conclusion that the accidental leak of the virus from a laboratory (regardless of how that virus might have got there) is not a conspiracy theory, that is supported by the latest reports from the WHO team who confirm it is still on the table and they would need more power, resources and expertise to fully investigate it. That does not though, I think, rule out the 'theory' that the virus was created in a laboratory, which might well be a conspiracy theory. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added a sentence which seems to be well supported in the MEDRS, that is that further research might be required (whichever source is most appropriate for this should be added). If that pleases everybody then we can settle this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that suggestion aligns well with where the new MEDRS is taking us as well as the previous two comments. Let's see if there are any more objections to the proposed consensus, don't want to cut short if there are more objections. Dinglelingy (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dinglelingy: Yeah it's pretty much a checkmate. It also absolutely proves my point that PubMed messed up the tag, considering the translation paper is "a review". Alexbrn can retract his statement about me raising the possibility of this to be ridiculous. I accept your apology mate. Other than that, this article is perfectly MEDRS. It is a minority view, of course, but it should be included. I think we actually broke the WP:STONEWALL about this issue didn't we? Can we all agree it's not a conspiracy theory now or what? #toldyouso. Feynstein (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I would also suggest we box that RfC so that the consensus of that article being WP:MEDRS can apply to other wikipedia articles and that it can be used as a reference. Meaning that with this precedent we can finally separate the conspiracies about an "engineered" virus from the minority viewpoint that a specimen could have serially passaged (in petri dishes or lab specimens) in the lab and finally escaped. I would also suggest editors inform themselves that lab specimens evolving the virus for it to develop the ACE2 receptor would also represent like a natural evolution in the virus's genome. Editors can actually look up how evolution works, especially if they're into debunking creationism over at the fringe noticeboard. It would make us look bad wouldn't it? Feynstein (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I will consider any clutching at straws over this to effectively be proof of bad faith. Feynstein (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Any other objections to assuming consensus on this? Dinglelingy (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I also object to calling this a "review" article. The authors do not limit themselves to discussing other publications' results and analyses; they actively performed their own alignments/PIP calculations and phylogenetic inferences with original scripts (fig. 2) as well as structural analyses and proffer their own novel conclusions from those data throughout the article. This is evident by the fact they have a "Materials and Methods" section, which is not something one needs in a literature review (at least outside of clinical trials and other studies with specific inclusion/exclusion criteria). That at least some of their conclusions on the viability of the lab passage scenario rely on primary data they generated (in particular, see the penultimate paragraph of the section "An evolutionary history by fragments") indicates this primary-review hybrid article should not be used to support the passage hypothesis. JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we can keep the 'passage hypothesis' out of the consensus until there is more MEDRS on that. Fair point. Dinglelingy (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Any other objections to assuming consensus on this?Dinglelingy (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is not "assumed", it has to be achieved by editor(s) seeking to include content, per WP:ONUS. We generally don't use non-MEDLINE indexed journals for biomedical claims, but especially not for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, so this POV-push has no hope of succeeding. If you want to gauge consensus formally, a WP:RFC is the way to go. Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I have your objection that it's not MEDRS noted up above and we have your comments. The other objections seem reasonable for achieving a consensus. Let's try not to repeat ourselves.Dinglelingy (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: May I remind you of what you used to form a concensus on WIV page? WP:CLUE. Your objections are noted and rejected by some editors. Feynstein (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Any other objections to assuming consensus on this? Dinglelingy (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you stop saying "assuming consensus". There is an RFC in progress on this issue, and that will determine consensus, not "assuming consensus" in this section. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Was just trying to stay consistent in looking for specific objections following the MEDRS that came out of the RFC discussion but I think I get your point on semantics. Maybe the following is more clear? Dinglelingy (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Any objection to the proposed consensus in the discussion section? Dinglelingy (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is the survey that matters.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs Dinglelingy (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Does not say we ignore one part of an RFC. Wre take into account the opinons expressed in the survey (else why even have it?).Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Any objection to the proposed consensus in the discussion section? Dinglelingy (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

There are clearly lots of objections. You do not need to keep asking. This is getting spammy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Great idea. Let's get back to focus on driving consensus by identifying specific objections to the proposed consensus so we do not get sidetracked. Thanks. Dinglelingy (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Lets ask an uninvolved admin to close this RFC then, and let them determine what is and is not relevant to consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Summary of Proposed Consensus discussion

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33558807/

1) There is now a good MEDRS secondary source that meets literally almost everyone's requirements.

2) Good MEDRS means the lab leak theory is a 'Minority but scientific viewpoint.'

3) A 'Minority but scientific viewpoint' can not be a 'Conspiracy theory'. More precisely, it is no longer a 'Conspiracy theory.'

4) Might need a little blurb about the transition.

5) Case closed.

"Any objections to assuming consensus on this?"

Objection 1: Alexbrn - Not MEDRS because its a non-MEDLINE indexed journal (see above)

Objection 2: RandomCanadian - Is MEDRS but has content concerns especially with respect to WP:DUE. Timing with WHO Summary Report (see above)

Objection 3: Slatersteven - [14] (see above)

Objection 4: DeFacto - Is MEDRS, Lab leak theory is not a conspiracy theory, 'created' in lab might be a conspiracy theory (see above)

Objection 5: JoelleJay - First paper is MEDRS, updated paper adds primary research on a 'passage hypothesis' which should not be supported by WP (see above, I think that is right?)

That's what we have so far. Seems like Objection 2,4,5 could be accommodated with carefully worded consensus. Objection 3 unsure. Objection 1 see Feynstein/Alexbrn dialogue.

I don't mind doing this another day to see if there are other objections but cool with whatever. Dinglelingy (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That is not what I said, now ask for this to be closed without telling anyone what the result should be and let the closer decide who said what, and what the merits of those arguments are.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Relax, just trying to summarize your comment not put words in your mouth. No need to get pissy, here's your diff. [15] Dinglelingy (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know what I said, "the two are different" one is a conspiracy theory and one is not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Now formally ask for a close or do you want me to?Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I updated your objection. Sorry for any confusion. Dinglelingy (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me as if you added "Is MEDRS" to every user who has not explicitly said "it is not MEDRS". This is argument from silence and not a valid reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"be very specific if you object to it being good MEDRS." I think the only objection that concern might apply to is JoelleJay as she stated the the updated version was a hybrid primary/review because of the updated information so I am assuming the first paper without the primary was fine. I'm not sure how to catagorize Slatersteven's objection now and will let him speak for himself. Does that make sense or do you still have a concern? Dinglelingy (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Even the main MEDRS articles we found do not dismiss the lab leak hypothesis. And then there's this RS saying "In a significant change from a year ago, a growing number of top experts – including (ordered alphabetically by last name) Drs Francois Balloux, Ralph S Baric, Trevor Bedford, Jesse Bloom, Bruno Canard, Etienne Decroly, Richard H Ebright, Michael B Eisen, Gareth Jones, Filippa Lentzos, Michael Z Lin, Marc Lipsitch, Stuart A Newman, Rasmus Nielsen, Megan J Palmer, Nikolai Petrovsky, Angela Rasmussen and David A Relman – have stated publicly (several in early 2020) that a lab leak remains a plausible scientific hypothesis to be investigated, regardless of how likely or unlikely. We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list."[16]. And plenty others that move in the same direction. At this point still considering it a conspiracy theory is clearly WP:STONEWALLING. I'm sorry, but it's true. The clutching at straws over this is excruciating. Feynstein (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

We are just going over old ground, either ask for this to be closed or just allow new voices to chip in. But no involved editor can or should close this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

My objection below was mischaracterized; I never said the original Sallard article was MEDRS. JoelleJay (talk) 19:54, 22 February 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.

RFC closure

Was the main RFC (the one with the "survey" section) that was closed just now by Hemiauchenia closed properly? I don't feel like having 5 days of debate spanning over 200 edits, then getting a close of "oh this RFC doesn't count, see this MFD instead" is the correct close here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia I reverted your premature closure. Wait for the discussion to play out and then ask at the appropriate board for a formal close. This is about what happens in this article, and not about what may or may not have happened at another article. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: @DeFacto: In that case everyone who voted in the MfD but not in this RfC should be notified of this RfC. This RfC currently has less than half of the votes in the MfD, many of which expressed that the "lab leak" was a conspiracy theory. The RfC should not be closed until every MfD voter has been notified and given reasonable time to respond. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, that's not how it works. The editors of this article have no reason to know about that other article, and have no reason to reach the same consensus. Canvassing a group of editors with a known opinion, with a reasonable expectation that they will influence the outcome of a discussion in a particular way isn't a good idea. Do we have to check every other article in Wikipedia each time we have a disagreement or RfC on an article, in case they've argued the same point before? Of course not. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I never said that editors who exclusively expressed negative opinions in the MfD should be notified, that indeed would be canvassing. My point is that all the editors who expressed an opinion in that discussion should be notified of this one, as whether or not the "lab leak" supposition is a conspiracy theory was a central theme of that discussion. The MfD by my count had 33 participants, compared to this ones 15. Whether or not the "lab leak" supposition is a conspiracy theory has been an ongoing issue for nearly a year at this point, and it should not be considered resolved by a low participation RfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, knowing what the consensus was there gives a reasonable expectation as to the influence the same participants might have here. Anyway, here we are talking about something completely different - here we are discussing the investigations into the hypothesis, and not specifically what the strengths/weaknesses of the hypothesis are. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If you read the closing statement, it was based on the strength of the arguments presented, not the number of participants, it was a more even split than you might think. The discussion was also heavily canvassed by ScrupulousScribe, who covertly emailed all of the users who had previously expressed pro "lab leak" opinions in related discussions extending many months before the MfD, including accounts which had long been dormant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto By the same reasoning, you could be accused of trying to keep this a secret from those users because you fear that the majority of them will disagree with you. If you use this two-edged sword, you are very likely to cut yourself.

Hemiauchenia is right. Another point: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis is not a page intended for being visited by users with specific opinions. It happened to be visited by users who collectively happened to come to a specific conclusion. If that were canvassing, then posting on any page whatever, noticeboards or other function pages, would have to be disallowed. People would not be allowed to go to WP:AIV or WP:ANI if they had any expectation of success. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I disagree. The reason given for targeting that particular group was based on the outcome of a discussion they were all involved in. That sounds very much like votestacking to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We already know that you disagree. And we already know the reason you gave for disagreeing. And we already know why you really disagree. You do not need to repeat yourself. Read WP:BLUDGEON. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I've made a post on WP:ANI about WP:STONEWALLING on the subject. [17] I think there's sufficient proof at this point. Feynstein (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

And it was rightfully ignored as the claim was frivolous. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

People will answer, be patient. I wouldn't call the evidence "frivolous" though, it's pretty explicit. Evidence you still didn't address over there btw. I'm waiting for your rationalization behind using WP:STONEWALLING to WP:BAIT editors into getting topic banned. Looks pretty disruptive imo. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Feynstein (talk) 22:28, 22 February 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.

Note to closer

I abstained from voting as I didn't agree with the question. A better question would have been: conspiracy theory or working hypothesis?

Here is some new information that was published in the last few weeks:

After a fumbled press conference in Wuhan in early February [18], the long awaited report on the even longer awaited joint study conducted by the WHO and PRC was released March 30 [19] assessing the lab leak as extremely unlikely while assessing the frozen food transmission hypothesis as possible, which was considered to be highly controversial [20]. After the press conference, WHO Mission Chief Peter Embarek downplayed the "extremely unlikely" moniker in an interview with Science Magazine, saying the lab leak hypothesis was not assessed as impossible on their scale, and it was an "achievement" to even call it that as previously it was considered "impossible" to even discuss [21]. However, the credibility of the report was questioned before it came out by scientists in an open letter published by the Wall Street Journal [22], and after the report in another letter published in the New York Times [23]. The US government and the 13 other multilateral statements were put out as a well prepared response to the WHO report [24] [25] [26], and US gov spokesman Ned Price said the other day [27] that What is evident from our review of the report is that it lacks crucial data, it lacks information, and it lacks access. The WHO Director General critiqued the report [28] and reiterated his previously stated position [29], stating that the lab leak hypothesis requires further investigation and called on China to be more transparent in further investigations [30]. China rejects this criticism [31], and is now pushing rumors that the virus leaked from a lab in the US [32].

To date, China has not shared raw data, particularly the requested blood donor and patient data [33]. This data can rule out the lab leak hypothesis if the blood specimens from index patients show the earlier stages of the evolution of the virus, like with SARS-COV-1 [34]. If China does not cooperate in providing access to the data, international scientists may set up an independent investigation and make an assessment of the lab leak hypothesis without them [35]. There is now also talk of reforming the WHO and the need for a new post pandemic health treaty [36].

CutePeach (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)