Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

US Senate minority staff report

Paragraph about ProPublica, Vanity Fair, and Congress

I'll put the current version, collapsed, below. Can we do something to clean this up. I made an attempt. It was reverted. I don't really care if my attempt is used or not. But in the current version, there is nothing that tells the reader that the "mistranslation" criticism was about Vanity Fair, while the "a cynical effort to try to win Republican votes" criticism and the "a bunch of staffers with no ability to understand the science" criticism were both about the Republican report. On top of the confusion, the current version badly fails WP:NPOV, as Vanity Fair's response is not mentioned, and the discussion of the Republican report has three criticisms.

paragraph

An August 2021 interim report authored by the minority staff of the Republican members of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee asserted that a laboratory leak origin for SARS-CoV-2 was more likely than a natural one. The report alleged that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in humans as a result of gain-of-function research made on the RaTG13 virus, collected in a cave in Yunnan province in 2012, which was afterwards accidentally released some time before 12 September 2019, when the database of the Wuhan Institute of Virology went offline. The August 2021 report relies mostly on existing public evidence, combined with internal documents from the CCP from before and during the early days of the pandemic. The interim report was published coinciding with a joint investigation from ProPublica and Vanity Fair. Immediately following its publication, the report was heavily criticized by experts in diplomacy and the Chinese language for mistranslations and misinterpretations of Chinese documents. Bacteriologist and lab leak theory proponent Richard Ebright criticized the report for packaging pre-existing and previously examined evidence as new information. Evolutionary biologist Michael Worobey commented that the document seemed to be either "a cynical effort to try to win Republican votes" in the imminent midterm elections, or "a bunch of staffers with no ability to understand the science who stumbled across a bunch of misinformation and disinformation-filled tweets." Virologist Angela Rasmussen described the report as "an embarrassingly bad use of taxpayer money and resources."

Adoring nanny (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I am wondering why we need to cover it at all. Just another run-of-the-mill silly journalistic gaffe that streaked across the sky and was forgotten (outside LL obsessive circles anyway). Vanity Fair's response is most definitely not due, as it's not independent as is self-serving. Bon courage (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The Pro Publica report is not noteworthy in itself, but it's one of several sources now about circumstantial evidence for a biosecurity emergency at WIV in November 2019. Any behind-the-scenes drama including nothingburger complaints about Chinese translations that weren't a load-bearing piece of evidence are all undue. Sennalen (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I though the whole point was that there was no 'evidence' other than some guy claiming he alone on the planet understood the secret codes of Mandarin, while making basic mistakes which ... called that into question. Bon courage (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

There are some ambiguous phrases. On the whole, that doesn't call into question the documentation of specific biosafety lapses. Sennalen (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

there was no 'evidence' other than some guy claiming he alone on the planet understood the secret codes of Mandarin

This is the key point to the "mistranslation" angle. A bunch of different language experts (who have no prior concern with the lab leak) called the report out as full of shit, and the journalists as incompetent for not fact-checking the findings with any other language or diplomatic experts.

THAT is why the criticism is both about VF/PP AND the senate investigation. The journalists had responsibility to fact-check those things before they parroted them out to the public. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

They did fact check, and then fact checked some more after the criticisms. The criticisms are overblown. In the phrase "Every time this has happened" it's unclear what 'this' refers to. That is not the load-bearing piece of evidence, still. There was a problem with disinfectants corroding stainless steel inclosures with a paper trail going back to 2016. A WIV scientist explicitly wrote that it could lead to a pathogen escaping. A party official came for an urgent meeting about laboratory safety on November 19, and an order was placed for an air incenerator the same day. As far as I know, there's no question about the translations for any of that. Sennalen (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Much of this appears to be conspiracy-fodder from fringe-outlets. I see no high quality reporting on it, or fact checking of it. Perhaps there are better areas of the internet to discuss these things, other than Wikipedia, which is not meant to reflect whatever truth you see in these facts, but rather what our best available sources say. And they do not say this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I see high-quality reporting from Pro Publica. We'll see what comes out of the reporting on the final Senate version, which is a revised version of the same analysis. Sennalen (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If you'll examine the archives of this talk page, you'll see that local consensus is that this report was unreliable based on the criticisms from notable experts and reporting from reliable outlets like Semafor, The Guardian, Bloomberg, The Atlantic, etc.
It overall doesn't really matter what VF and PP said about the criticisms, since our most reliable news sources treat these criticisms as credible. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:Sennalen: On the whole, that doesn't call into question the documentation of specific biosafety lapses. Actually this is explicitly not true. The most important angle of what diplomats, china-watchers, and other foreign-relations people said about this whole thing (VF, PP, and the Senate report) is specifically this, that there were no breaches. E.g.

Tweets from Chinese-language experts

Jane Qiu, PhD Twitter @janeqiuchina Hi @KatherineEban @jeffykao @VanityFair @propublica: Your article contains at least 1 glaring error & 1 glaring omission Citing two documents published in June & Sept 2019👇, you say they lamented the BSL-4 lab as having the problem of “the 3 ‘nos’” You got the tense wrong 30 October 2022 Jane Qiu, PhD Twitter @janeqiuchina The glaring error: Both documents cite the same quote, saying that there were “the 3 nos” (“三无”)—no equipment/technology standards, no design/construction teams, & no experience of operating/maintaining—“at the beginning of the construction of BSL-4 lab” (”在建设伊始“). 30 October 2022 Jane Qiu, PhD Twitter @janeqiuchina In other words, the documents did not say,as you claim in the story,that “the 3 nos” were a problem at the time of publication I’m sure even you—and anybody w sound judgment—would agree what you claim in the story & what the documents actually say are categorically different. 30 October 2022 Jane Qiu, PhD Twitter @janeqiuchina Chinese verbs do not have tenses, and so can be very confusing for non-native speakers, which you are Was it also a language issue that caused the glaring omission of “the 3 haves”? Or were you being selective in what materials going into your story—to suit your narrative? 30 October 2022 Matt Schrader Twitter @Matt_Schrader_ Yeah, toy screwed up (I was a mandarin to English translator in a former life). As @zhihuachen points out, the key phrase 每当这时 ("every time this happens") is not referring to 操作失误 ("operational failures") but to the act of working with the test tubes, where... 29 October 2022 Matt Schrader Twitter @Matt_Schrader_ ...the party members "rush to the front line" to lead the other researchers by example with their bravery and meticulousness. Saying this sentence implies a safety failure is a mistranslation. 29 October 2022 Zhihua Chen Twitter @zhihuachen The sentence speaks in general terms of the danger of a P4 pathogen and when handling it very careful (小心翼翼) maneuver is required. It doesn’t speak of a breach of breaches that have happened. There is no breach here for “such moment” in 每当这时 to refer to. Instead,… 29 October 2022 Zhihua Chen Twitter @zhihuachen … it is referring to the dangerous task of handling a P4 pathogen. The emphasized sentence was simply saying party members will supposedly lead by example and be the first to take on the demanding work of a P4 lab. They were *not* saying there have been serial … 12/n 29 October 2022 Zhihua Chen Twitter @zhihuachen … breaches and party members threw themselves at it every time 😅😅😅😂😂😂 So looks like the badly translated line here got fed into a genius level “between the lines” reading, with the rotten end product showing up centrally in the Senate minority report. 29 October 2022 Brendan O'Kane Twitter @bokane The short version is that Reid's source, which is not what he says it is -- the text is from August 2019, not November 2019 -- does not say what he says it does. He misreads basic function words, reads hypotheticals as descriptions of actual fact... 31 October 2022 Sources

These people explicitly criticize Toy Reid for concluding (inappropriately) that there was a security lapse, whereas the actual language of the in-house inter-governmental communication was discussing the theoretical possibility of a security lapse. They also criticize VF and PP for lazily reporting this as fact, without actually fact-checking it with any third party chinese-language experts. Probably because Toy Reid made it sound like he had the crystal ball to interpret everything Chinese government officials say to mean what he thinks it actually means. When someone tells you they alone have the key to the kingdom, hire a locksmith. Pretty obvious screw up. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That's just examples of exactly what I said it was. Not only is Reid's translation plausible (among other plausible translations), it is not a load-bearing piece of evidence, unlike for instance the metal corrosion. The translation of that sentence only shapes innuendo. Sennalen (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Not only is Reid's translation plausible (among other plausible translations), it is not a load-bearing piece of evidence, unlike for instance the metal corrosion

Do you have expertise or any formal training in Chinese-English translation or Chinese-American diplomatic relations? Or in biosafety/biosecurity? I tend to trust the experts and what our best available sources say.

I didn't even include the many diplomatic relations experts who said, essentially This is making a massive mountain out of nothing, Chinese-language intra-governmental reports are always written like this to inflate things into more than they are, so one can look better by solving it.[1][2]

Or the scientists who said, in essence, This report totally got the science wrong too! They completely misinterpreted all of my findings![3] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we really want to get into using tweets in the article? For example, Alina Chan has quite a lot of WP:USEBYOTHERS on the lab leak. I've refrained from using her because I assume we don't want to be reaching into twitter for sourcing. [4] Similarly, there is Richard Ebright [5]. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I never suggested we should use tweets in the article. Please argue against what I actually said, instead of the least charitable interpretation thereof. The tweets above were quoted by Semafor in their article about the lab leak as independent chinese-language and diplomacy experts, the only reason I referenced them here at all. We can use tweets to discuss the merits of different sources, but we should never use them in sourcing article text, since they are a WP:PRIMARY non-reliable source. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Telegraph story re: US Senate minority staff report

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/04/18/coronavirus-covid-origin-wuhan-lab-us-senate-report/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I picture Perry White on the phone yelling "Rewrite!" Randy Kryn (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Is that those silly politicians again? Bon courage (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly what a great example of why the Telegraph isn't reliable for politics. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

To clarify my comment, it was not a criticism as much as citing another example of why the lead of this page should be changed ("rewrite") to reflect the growing evidence that Covid-19 did emerge from the lab. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there "growing evidence" or just opinions? Even this report says it is not a definitive answer, and opinion is divided. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

There's shrinking evidence for zoonosis, perhaps "no evidence" as the new senate report says. This will become clearer in time as research reorients in light of Liu, Gao, et al. and EcoHealth FOIAs. Sennalen (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And when it is published in peer reviewed journals we can take note. Also how do we change the lede right now? Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, we might start with the bold statement that “There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic”. This rests on three sources, the most recent of which is eight months old. It appears that one element of the new report is precisely such evidence: namely that work was being undertaken on a vaccine to the virus. It also appears that the report is nuanced and tentative in its conclusions; allowing that a definitive answer is not known.

This is a difficult article for us, witness the visceral reaction to any proposed changes which may seem to lead weight to the theory. Springnuts (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

… apologies, my phone ate half the comment.

I was simply going to add that if we were writing the article afresh… but we are not. We must start where we are.if we were writing the article a fresh… But we are not. We must start where we are.

Springnuts (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"visceral", really? And this report does not provide any evidence there was any SArs in the lab. As you say "a definitive answer is not known" supposition is not evidence. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Peter Daszak confirmed they had collected 50 unpublished novel coronaviruses by 2019. FOIA requests show they were infecting mice that had humanized ACE2 receptors. There's no evidence they started the fire, but there's evidence they were juggling butane torches wearing tiki skirts. Sennalen (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The situation currently is that evidence favors an engineered laboratory origin. We must sit on our hands while publishing institutions work through the process, but let's not kid ourselves about the direction its going. Sennalen (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The situation currently is that evidence favors an engineered laboratory origin
I'm sorry, what? What evidence? There is a scientific consensus that the viral genome shows no evidence of genetic engineering. That no current evidence exists to support the lab leak hypothesis. This is what we describe on wikipedia, because it comes from our WP:BESTSOURCES. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Intelligence, FOIAs, and preprints. Eventually there's bound to be a review article based on evidence. Sennalen (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing that review article published in a topic-relevant widely-circulated journal, peer-reviewed and authored by relevant experts. Until then, this is not very relevant to how we should write a Wikipedia article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I shouldn't be difficult: stick to the WP:BESTSOURCES, ensure anything biomedical is sourced to WP:MEDRS, remember WP:NOTNEWS and keep the WP:FRINGE stuff down. Simple. The problem is more WP:PROFRINGE lab-leak advocates, as the steady stream of sanctions over the months demonstrates. Bon courage (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And both these responses demonstrate precisely the viscerality of which I was speaking. Springnuts (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

A vivid imagination at work (or maybe projection?)! This is just routine workaday editing for one fringe subject among hundreds. Bon courage (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a fringe topic though. There's been an RFC about this and there wasn't a consensus decision to label lab leak a fringe theory. Which makes sense, given the WHO, seven US intelligence agencies, the CDC etc. all say it's plausible and worthy of further investigation. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC) — PieLover3141592654 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In English Language term it's debatable whether it's a "fringe theory"; but in Wikipedia terms it is covered by WP:FRINGE, which is widely drawn. Bon courage (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

actually that was only to conclude it was not a "conspiracy theory". A thing can be fringe-adjacent, and covered by WP:FRINGE, without being a conspiracy theory. And there was actually no consensus either way on that question. So none of us can conclusively say it is or is not a conspiracy theory by Wikipedia's community's thinking. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Please can you explain why it is covered by WP:FRINGE? Where is the relevant discussion where the consensus was formed? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

When I go to WP:RSP for the Daily Telegraph, I see green. It does say some editors consider the DT to be biased or opinionated for Politics. But that's not the same as being unreliable. Do you see something different? Adoring nanny (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I see the many multiple times on this talk page where we have described this as a questionable source for politics, especially for scientific understanding of politics. And then an overwhelming amount of sources which disagree with the take by this outlet. Seems an outlier to me. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I asked here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_the_Daily_Telegraph_for_politics? Adoring nanny (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Well we go by what qualified RS say. End of story. Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The full text of the Telegraph article is available here [6]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Politicians being politicians.[7] The whacko dial has been turned to 11 for a lot of them in the US for a while, it seems. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The full Republican report is here[8]. ABC news did a lengthy segment on it available here[9]. At 7:58, ABC describes it as a "an example of a very thoroughgoing review of the evidence." Adoring nanny (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Come back when there's some MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Was there a new RfC overturning the consensus that pandemic origins don't require MEDRS? Sennalen (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

There was no such RfC. Biomedical stuff requires MEDRS; non-biomedical stuff doesn't, Bon courage (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe the conclusion of the RfC you're referring to was, in essence, COVID origins isn't inherently BMI, but parts of it that are BMI are still beholden to MEDRS — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And the Senate Report doesn't satisfy MEDRS how exactly? 2600:1700:B020:1490:91E3:8F91:C155:7544 (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

1) WP:PRIMARY source. 2) WP:BIASED, 3) non-expert, 4) non-peer reviewed, 5) not published in a peer-reviewed journal, 6) heavily criticized by multiple experts from multiple disciplines — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow, ABC news considered it to be thorough? We should probably just throw out all the other criticisms from experts then. /s — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for all your comments everyone.

The title at the link that I posted has been changed since I posted the link above. This is an archived version with the original titled that I quoted: https://web.archive.org/web/20230417234346/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/04/18/coronavirus-covid-origin-wuhan-lab-us-senate-report/

The new title is "China 'began developing two Covid vaccines' before official outbreak." Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20230419093849/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/04/18/coronavirus-covid-origin-wuhan-lab-us-senate-report/

If this does get added, which title should be cited? Or should both titles be cited?

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't cite headlines; see WP:HEADLINE. And Bon courage's 14:32, 18 April 2023 comment is all that needs to be said in this section. I'm tempted to hat, but not confident enough to do so — DFlhb (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the final version of the Senate Republican report, sourced to ABC News, WP:FRINGE?

We cover the initial interim report. I added a reference to the final version, sourced to ABC news. It was reverted with the comment "Undue/Fringe".[10] Is that appropriate? It was also the subject of an 18-minute video piece by ABC News.[11] Adoring nanny (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Any good secondary sourcing? for WP:FRINGE ideas we need decent sourcing, right! Bon courage (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

ABC is a secondary source and a good one at that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

In fact no: WP:PRIMARYNEWS applies. We'd need something that provides analysis and synthesis of this political nonsense to count as WP:SECONDARY. Your WP:PROFRINGE spree is not helpful. Bon courage (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

News reporting can be primary, but none of this coverage is. My what now? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is. There is no analysis or synthesis of the WP:FRINGE idea being promulgated. You have repeatedly added this to the article. Bon courage (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess we've either seen different sources or we're going to have to agree to disagree. Even if ABC is a primary source it still wouldn't be promoting a fringe source because ABC is not fringe (coverage of fringe does not make you fringe), the personal attack you've made against me has no basis in reality. We don't have any policy which says to exclude fringe content when its covered by reliable sources, we're actually required to cover it in those scenarios per NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

We are bound to omit fringe stuff unless it can be contextualized by the mainstream. That's basic NPOV. You've edit-warred extreme fringe ideas in with an evident WP:BATTLE sensibility. It's not good. Bon courage (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thats exactly what we're doing here, we are letting ABC (the mainstream) contextualize these claims for us. Please focus on content and not editors on the article talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

We give no mainstream context. You just edit-warred this stuff in. Bon courage (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand what you mean, can you suggest a version of the text which would fit your desires by including mainstream context? Do you feel that Worobey is not sufficiently mainstream? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

There is none (yet). So policy requires us to omit these extreme fringe idea you're so keen on adding. Bon courage (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The line immediately proceeding says Evolutionary biologist Michael Worobey commented that the document seemed to be either "a cynical effort to try to win Republican votes" in the imminent midterm elections, or "a bunch of staffers with no ability to understand the science who stumbled across a bunch of misinformation and disinformation-filled tweets." Virologist Angela Rasmussen described the report as "an embarrassingly bad use of taxpayer money and resources." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

And then you added content on a different document: you invoke 'the final version of the report' and you added new fringe ideas, about a pre-September-2019 leak, and an anticipatory vaccine. You added this stuff without qualification, repeatedly. Bon courage (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Its the same report. It is indeed qualified... taking the damning with their own words approach which is what the source also does. If you would like to sandwich the material we can, but note that now you're making an argument for more text not no text. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a different version. You have uncritically inserted fringe ideas into Wikipedia. Not sure what the "damning with their own words approach" is? Is it the idea that WP:PROFRINGE edits are okay because savvy readers will see though the woo? Bon courage (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Pulling the quote "preponderance of circumstantial evidence" is clearly not supporting the fringe theory, if the phrase "preponderance of circumstantial evidence" doesn't make you chuckle I don't know what does. Please stop with the personal attacks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It does seem to be the section is pretty clear that this report is not backed by the scientific community, I am unsure what the objectiion is. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You think it's okay to relay uncritically the idea that the Chinese were developing a vaccine for COVID-19 before the pandemic? Bon courage (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

We do not. In fact I can see quite a bit if criticism in the paragraph. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Of the vaccine idea? I think not. Bon courage (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

So by all means remove that then, as that seems to be pure speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it should stay, Slatersteven? Bon courage (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That part of it I think is dubious, and most likely should not be there, yes. But not the blanket removal of the whole passage. Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

So you're happy with uncritically relaying the idea there could have been a "leak" before September 2019 too? That's - pretty amazing. Bon courage (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Given the amount we say before and that the initial report was roundly condemned by experts, yes. I am unsure our readers are that stupid. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

And given this is explicitly about a different version of the report? What we have at the moment looks like a later text came out with new 'bombshell' revelations - which is precisely the FRINGE narrative being pushed. Bon courage (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have raised a query on this at WP:FT/N. I am concerned about uncritically relaying FRINGE idea from weak sources, without the necessary context we need for WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Bon courage (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Also covered by the WSJ[12]. Full text available here [13]. Adoring nanny (talk) Adoring nanny (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it maybe time to allow others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I failed to chip in myself. I believe ABC News is a perfectly good source, not weak. Also, if it is of interest, the underlying Senate report is available here.[14]. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Reliable sources reporting on fringe beliefs doesn't stop them from being fringe beliefs. Indeed, it's the precondition for our saying anything about those fringe beliefs. XOR'easter (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that who determines what is a fringe belief, the CCP? Qualifying an opinion as "wrong" PER SE is the most unscientific thing I've ever seen in my life. And more so when now it is the same official sources that were used during the Covid pandemic that affirm this. There are two options, either that criterion was wrong all this time, or the current criterion is wrong Armando AZ (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Lots of opinions are "wrong": e.g. COVID is not caused by 5G masts and is not cured by injecting bleach. 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. So the ideas in play here are fringe. Policy requires us to state how experts have reacted to such nonsense, or else omit it entirely. This is not negotiable. Bon courage (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The error is precisely in you when comparing this with those theories. Also, if you are going to use arguments from authority, keep in mind that not everyone shares the same "reliable" authorities (there are even those of us who do not have any authority such as infallible). But in the same way, and based on these arguments, the state authorities are in the second rank in terms of reliability, closely followed by the media, so the information and conclusions they give are relevant according to the tradition followed by Wikipedia in recent years.

Basically, you compared the Washington Post and the United States Congress to InfoWars. Armando AZ (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has fairly a well-established consensus for what constitutes reliable sourcing. For science, politicians and lay source are poor. For fringe notions (like the idea a COVID vaccine was in development in 2019) there are non-negotiable requirements about how the silly stuff is presented. And no, we don't "let the reader decide": Wikipedia presents accepted, mainstream knowledge and puts the put into anti-knowledge. This is a feature not a bug. Bon courage (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

So what do you have to say about this article?https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02833-6/fulltext It says it clearly there, both The Lancet and the WHO consider the laboratory leak hypothesis as "just as valid as other theories", that is, it is a hypothesis that at the time of writing this article was considered a scientifically valid hypothesis . Furthermore, since this is an investigation into the origin of the virus, it is something that involves political authorities, not just scientists. Which is why your evidence counts.

Lastly, the natural origin story is currently benefiting the most from the Chinese Communist Party government, who obviously do not want to take any responsibility and instead blame the United States for causing the virus. Therefore, by ignoring this investigation, a political action is being committed for the indirect benefit of a dictatorship. (Finally, say that the same scientific consensus on Covid has changed a lot over the years, so it is not a very valid argument, especially if we are talking about a not purely scientific matter.) Armando AZ (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot help what the best sources say, it merely reflects them. An old comment piece in The Lancet is not a good source for anything much. Bon courage (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02833-6/fulltext
This article is not peer-reviewed. It has no peer review submission or received date. Meaning it was probably received the same day it was published. We know Horton is the editor-in-chief at the Lancet, meaning it was not likely reviewed by anyone. I see no matters of education, professional experience, etc. explaining why Horton would be considered to have expertise on matters of virology, biosafety, or investigations. These are all major red flags for this being an unreliable source. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a comment piece so covered by WP:RSEDITORIAL. So probably not reliable for statements of fact. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Qualifying an opinion as "wrong" PER SE is the most unscientific thing I've ever seen in my life This is a false belief pretty common among laypeople. Actually, science calls things wrong all the time. That's its job. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Here from FT/N and came here to say what Bon courage and XOR'easter said. The fact that a fringe source is talked about in reliable sources does not mean anyone gets to parrot its claims uncritically on Wikipedia. This looks like pretty standard pro-fringe tendentious editing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Rather amazing in its unremarkability. XOR'easter (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Here from RSN Telegraph thread, but saw this. It's the same situation, ABC is a reliable source for what the report states but not for saying the report is true. Wording would need to take that into account. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I am going to suggest something, since I see that this discussion is going to take quite a long time, it is best to duly indicate that it is about the investigation of the American Congress, that is, to indicate the source. In this way, it is at the discretion of the reader whether or not to accept this information as true. That seems to me a better roadmap in this new phase of Covid. We already know what can be argued on the Chinese side that the United States may have interests that bias the investigation, but it is not Wikipedia's job to change or modify the sources. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Chinese also claim that the virus is artificial, but that it came out of Canada.

On the other hand, I think all the "conspiracy theorists" who said that deserve an apology, hahaha Armando AZ (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is not about an investigation, that would be Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. This article is about a (conspiracy) theory, and some of the whacky stuff the lableak believers have come up with. Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This is all bullshit. Elected politicians are just some group of people randomly chosen for their white teeth, pretty hair, and other superficialities, and their opinions are entirely irrelevant to scientific questions. If they are American Republicans, it is even worse: what they say is very likely to be the opposite of what science says. Bolding "American Congress" as if they had any authority will not change that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the investigation is also being carried out by Democrat politicians. Besides this discussion was closed a long time ago and I basically replied because I didn't know. Armando AZ (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Any mention of something that is a minority view scientificly need to be balanced by the majority view. Just mentioning the report uncritically would give a false balance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The majority scientific view is that a lab leak is plausible, but there's not enough evidence to tell for sure - largely because of Chinese non-cooperation. The congressional report is not at odds with that, and there's no balancing to be done. Sennalen (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is saying that there was a lab leak. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

majority scientific view is that a lab leak is plausible People keep claiming this, but when asked to give evidence for it, all they have comes far short of "plausible". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, from the WP:BESTSOURCES, e.g. the "critical review" piece in Cell, what we have is that the scientific community considers the Lab leak to be the least likely explanation, without any evidence in favor of it being true.

"Plausible" is not a very NPOV way of construing that consensus. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The position of the WHO, numerous US intelligence agencies, and several top public health officials is that both the lab leak and zoonosis scenarios are plausible and worthy of further investigation. Some of these believe the lab leak is the more likely origin scenario.

The scientific consensus could be summarised as "there isn't enough information, both scenarios remain on the table".

See for example: https://news.sky.com/story/who-says-all-theories-for-covid-origin-remain-on-table-as-lab-leak-theory-gains-traction-12824769 PieLover3141592654 (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

numerous US intelligence agencies
A minority of US intelligence agencies*

We don't use Sky.com reports to determine what the scientific consensus is. See: WP:MEDSCI — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sky News UK is a RS. See:WP:RSP.

In any case, the point was the quote from the WHO that "all hypotheses on the origins of the virus remain on the table". The position of the World Health Organisation is clearly relevant to the discussion on scientific consensus.

(To your first point, it was in fact ALL the intelligence agencies asked to look into this that determined the lab leak scenario was plausible, hence the 'low confidence' assessment of those that assessed a lab origin is more likely.) PieLover3141592654 (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that should say "hence the 'low confidence' assessment of those that assessed a zoonosis origin is more likely" PieLover3141592654 (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sky News UK is a RS For journalistic subjects, not for scientific ones. See WP:RS (The reliability of a source depends on context) and WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It's clearly a reliable source for reporting the words of the WHO. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Saying that is was plausible is saying that there is some possibility (however small) that it happened, not that it's the most likely option or anything but the least likely option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not the usual meaning. See [15]: Today the word plausible usually means "reasonable" or "believable,"

The term you are looking for is "theoretically possible". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah! I see , and if that's the case your reaction to majority scientific view is that a lab leak is plausible is correct as it's not what the majority view is. note other places still list possible as a current meaning -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• This was easily predictable. —PaleoNeonate – 22:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Axios analysis re: US Senate minority staff report

Axios provides excellent analysis of the Senate report via a virologist.

We have two options: either quote a short statement from the virologist, and discard the rest; or cover the report's arguments in more detail, and the critical analysis in more detail too. I expect people here will prefer the former, but I think the latter is far more informative. DFlhb (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Well if nothing else it's an excellent illustration of why Axios isn't Wikipedia – the entire article is low a showpiece of the WP:FALSEBALANCE fallacy. Bon courage (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

A little too much, yes; but they do systematically contrast each claim with an expert rebuttal, and give the expert the last word, which is more than most news source do on these kinds of topics. I guess my expectations for lay press are pretty indulgent. DFlhb (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I would support a quote from this piece from Rasmussen who is a recognized expert on these topics. But delving too deep in detail is likely UNDUE. But I WOULD support a sentence like: Rasmussen characterized the report's notion that "blah blah blah" as unfounded and speculative". That kind of framing is probably DUE if other sources also cover "blah blah blah". Just not the full and complete depth of the Axios article. They're writing a debunking, we're writing an encyclopedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

They wrote a fairly strong case for a lab leak and appended some weak grasping at straws by Rasmussen, so a good model of how to cover the issue in Wikipedia. Sennalen (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand that this section was reorganized, but it is important to clarify that Democrat politicians have also approved or supported the report, it is not an exclusive matter for Republicans Armando AZ (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Democrat politicians have also approved or supported the report

Where do you see that? From the Axios source, it's still the minority staff who authored the report, not the full committee. From the full report itself, it appears to be authored by the republican staff of the committee.

It was released by Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) [16], a republican committee member and long-time covid-truther. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink That would mean that there is a Democratic part of the committee, although they have not participated in this report, the issue is still bipartisan--- Armando AZ (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

the committee is the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee. It has existed since 1869. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, Democrats are currently in the majority on that committee. Armando AZ (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That is why it is a minority report. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The committee didn't release the report, a member of the committee did. That's a big difference. MrOllie (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

According to this article published in El País in March (in Spanish), the proposal to declassify the Pentagon files regarding Covid received the support of both Republican and Democratic congressmen. Which is why I think the focus of many of these debates is wrong from the start. Armando AZ (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't answer the question. Sure, declassifying documents was supported by both parties.

But this origins report? That's a completely different matter, and it appears to be your own original research which supports that statement. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that (let me answer each question). I am argued that the debate should not be conducted in this way, especially for future reports Armando AZ (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a matter for Congress, not the Republicans. Armando AZ (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

To clarify here, we don't really care that much about republicans vs democrats, except to get the facts right. We care about mainstream vs fringe ideas, what is considered "real" or "true" according to scientists and scholars. That's what WP:RSUW, WP:FRINGE, WP:BESTSOURCES, and WP:SOURCETYPES tell us to do. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Conducted in what way? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

in a politic way Armando AZ (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

"politicized" would be a better term, I say this because of a discussion I had before in this section (in the previous one specifically) Armando AZ (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

How to write the RfC?

Gonna write an RfC because the discussion above is going in circles.

{{subst:RfC|pol|sci}}

A) Should the lead of this article reference specific proponents of the theory from the intelligence community, as it references detractors of the theory from the scientific community?

B) Should articles and templates about the Covid-19 lab leak theory (broadly construed) treat the theory as WP:FRINGE?

C) Should such articles give prominence to claims from reliable journalistic sources (APART from scientific journals) that support the lab leak theory?

D) Should we give lesser weight to sources about the virus from prior to 2022?

Any thoughts, guys? I think it might really bring light and clarity to the discussion. Red Slash 21:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You did a very good summary. Armando AZ (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The only thing I would add is if it is a matter of public or national interest (something like what happens with the September 11 article), but I don't know if that is implicit in any of the points you marked. Armando AZ (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a train wreck. If presented in this way, it will most definitely not bring light and clarity to the discussion

A) Should the lead of this article reference specific proponents of the theory from the intelligence community, as it references detractors of the theory from the scientific community?Your A is a non-neutral summary. It creates a false-balance, and presents the situation as though most intelligence community members believe the lab leak theory is more likely, when the opposite is actually true. It should simply describe the modified text that you tried to insert as above:

Despite the consensus of virologists that virologists were not responsible for the pandemic, diplomatic intelligence officers such as former American Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe have asserted that the virus most likely did originate in a laboratory.[1]

and then give people the option A) proposed text added to lead, or B) keep it the way it is, or perhaps C) mention intelligence officers in a different way (give example), or D) something else. Short and sweet RFCs with 2 or 3 options for one question are those which are most helpful.

Your B - D are not proper for an RfC on this page, and are too wide ranging for a single RFC. It will muddy the discussion, decrease the likelihood of attaining consensus, and probably breaks some of the recommendations set out in WP:RFCBEFORE. Such as linking to the preceding discussions and prior RFC results.

For instance:

• Your B is a consensus that must be established on either a per-article basis or in a centralized location such as a noticeboard. We also already have an RFC about this (see the consensus template at the top of this page) and any new RFC must explain what has actually changed that a new RFC is required. Any RFC which asks this question should present a neutral summary of the situation with sources, perspectives from both sides, and quotes from WP:FRINGE. To do so here would make it overly long. This should be done at a central location like Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 or WP:FTN or WT:WikiProject COVID-19. FTN is probably the only real place to do something like this, since it seeks to affect multiple articles.

• Your C is a question for WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN, not this talk page. Such an RFC should present a landscape of all the available sources and what would be drawn from them. Such an RFC is also likely unnecessary, and if presented in this way misconstrues the actual situation. The real question raised above is: "Are journalistic sources as reliable as scholarly sources for questions about COVID-19 origins?" The question should be presented with the specific journalistic sources in question, the scholarly ones which are already used, and what text they would be used to support.

• Your D is definitely a question for WP:NPOVN. As above.

If you decide to ignore all of the above and run an RFC with 4 questions like this, no neutral summary for each, and without any explanation or source landscaping, then I will happily call it a very poorly designed RFC, and request a WP:SNOW close as malformed and disruptive. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

:: Comment: About what you answered about point B, those articles have the same problem at the beginning. Armando AZ (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Pretty well-said. That's the exact sort of feedback I was hoping for, @Shibbolethink. Thank you. You're right that this article's talk page isn't the right place to talk about all those things. I'd probably like to have it on a talk page for an article, since it's quite directly tied into articles themselves.

I would not have thought about noticeboards like NPOVN for the "lesser weight" question. That's such a good suggestion. Thank you again so much. Red Slash 16:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Shibbolethink that including all four questions in one RfC won't work. You won't get thoughtful responses from the participants. Better to concentrate on one at a time.

I believe there has already been an RfC about B. There was no consensus either way. (Unfortunately this article seems to ignore the RfC and treats the theory as fringe anyway...).

I agree that one or more RfCs will be needed at some stage, but let's take the time to get them right. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's amazing that some people think "the theory" (which includes the idea that the virus was secretly made in Ukraine/Canada or the US) is somehow 'not fringe'. The only non-fringe thing is an allowance that a lab leak is not impossible. Everything else crusted around this: the secrets labs, the bioweapon, Fauci's supposed machinations, the smoking gun genetic fingerprints, etc. is screaming WP:FRINGE. The continual trouble is WP:PROFRINGE types using the former for some kind of incrementalist argument that anything any wahoo says is somehow 'mainstream science'. Bon courage (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

:::Straw man as a pine tree! We're all arguing about real evidence (not petty conspirative theories). That is not attending to what has been discussed here from the beginning!! Armando AZ (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

As the article states, "There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic". Meanwhile, multiple strands of evidence have accumulated for a natural zoonotic event. That's what the sources say, Wikipedia reflects them. Job done. Bon courage (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That there is no evidence is false, but I understand that it is not what you like. For you an ad numerum is enough to rule out a theory with increasing evidence. Armando AZ (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, all these articles about COVID's oringins misinform in favor of China. I only hope that the evidence accumulates so that at least a few paragraphs of the articles are rewritten. Armando AZ (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I only hope that the evidence accumulates ← there's your POV right there. Wikipedia is not the place for this. Bon courage (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That there is no evidence is false, but I understand that it is not what you like. ← and there's your problem there. It's not for you to decide that something is false when it is said by high-quality, reliable sources; additionally ascribing the view in such sources merely to what editors 'like' show bad faith and a total misunderstanding of what Wikipedia does. Lay off the personal attacks. Bon courage (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You could start by not writing a mocking comment saying things that are irrelevant. This is the last I answer for now. Armando AZ (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop indenting your contributions as if they were responses to yourself. Just today, I thought about four times, "ah, here comes a response to what Armando wrote", just to find out that it was another Armando contribution. And this is not the first day that happened. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I have commented at the WP:ANI thread. Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I already saw that there will not be a consensus on the matter soon, from now on I will only respond to those who write to me. Armando AZ (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Should we get back on topic? I think an RfC on A would help and @Shibbolethink had some good suggestions. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's amazing that some people think "the theory" (which includes the idea that the virus was secretly made in Ukraine/Canada or the US) is somehow 'not fringe'. The only non-fringe thing is an allowance that a lab leak is not impossible. Everything else crusted around this: the secrets labs, the bioweapon, Fauci's supposed machinations, the smoking gun genetic fingerprints, etc. is screaming WP:FRINGE.

And this is why we're talking in circles. Nobody here is saying Fauci's supposed machinations need to be taken seriously. We're saying that reliable sources describe that large portions of the intelligence community, which are analyzing diplomatic data, seem to consider it likely that the virus came from a laboratory and was (probably unintentionally) released from there. They are analyzing different data with different biases and from different perspectives. Their perspectives should be given WP:DUE weight. That's all we're saying. It is ridiculous that this article hints at the FBI's current viewpoint as being some crazy racist conspiracy theory. Red Slash 16:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

They are analyzing different data ← What 'different data'? Spooks are not reliable for virology even if this were true. Bon courage (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The most salient part of this conversation is 1) this is a US-centric thing, not a global thing. And wikipedia is written from a global perspective. And 2) not even a majority of the intelligence assets tasked with this consider the lab leak likely. >80%4/6 ICs consider the zoonotic origin to be the more likely explanation. Plus the governing body (the National Intelligence Council). That's a consensus.

So why would we include the proposed text in the lead if

• A) it's not even the consensus view of the intelligence community? and
• B) It's a US-centric perspective that isn't covered by mainstream intelligence sources with a global and scholarly view to history?

Without either of those questions as a "yes" then I don't see how this could possibly be WP:DUE for the lead per WP:RSUW and MOS:LEAD. (fixed typo in IC tally 02:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Just pointing out a factual error in the above post. The correct tally is:

- Four IC + National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure

- One IC (FBI) assesses with moderate confidence that lab leak was most likely

One IC (DOE) assesses with low confidence that lab leak was most likely

- Analysts at two ICs remain undecided without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.

I think "divided" is a fair summary of the above, but I am fine if other editors feel the need to state the actual numbers (4 natural, 2 lab leak, 2 undecided).

A key point is that none of the ICs asked by Biden to investigate this concluded with high or even moderate confidence that the natural origin was the most likely scenario. In other words, there is a lot of uncertainty and as the WHO puts it, both theories "remain on the table". Our article should reflect this in both the body and the lead and not portray this as a settled matter, or the lab leak scenario as a fringe theory. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"One" and the lack of "strong confidence" says a lot. Why try to misconstrue that into something plausible? —PaleoNeonate – 22:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

factual error
Usually "facts" are things that are less subject to interpretation. I was mistakenly using the old tally, thank you for pointing that part out. In the rest of your comment, I find a textbook example of reading into a situation what one would like to read into it. I noticed you only mentioned the National Intelligence Council once in this comment, and didn't include it in your summary of the situation at the end. Why is that?

There are some facts about the NIC that deserve mentioning:

• "entrusted [with] ... production of the National Intelligence Estimates, the highest and most authoritative US intelligence analytical publication"[17]

• "drawn from government, academia, and the private sector...are the Intelligence Community's senior experts on a range of regional and functional issues."[18]

• Their work is based on intelligence from a wide variety of sources that includes experts in academia and the private sector. - our article.

• past chairs have included:
  • Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense, 2006-2011
  • Richard Lehman (CIA officer), inventor of the President's Daily Brief
  • Avril Haines, current DNI, former deputy director of the CIA and deputy national security advisor
  • among other experts and decorated members of the intelligence community

These are exactly the criteria for a policy-government WP:RS that is authoritative in determining consensus in a field per WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:SCICON, and WP:MEDSCI. They are a governing body in the intelligence community, and collect intelligence from all the other agencies (plus a variety of other authoritative sources) to draw their conclusions. They're staffed with recognized experts in the field, and produce the most authoritative IC analytical publications.

I would say with their assessment, plus the majority of the assembled IC elements, that's easily a consensus according to Wikipedia's standards for sourcing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to include the view of NIH, but don't believe there is "consensus" (i.e. "general agreement"). In my view, the opposite is the case (i.e. they disagree). IMO a fairer summary is that they are "divided".

The more general point is that the current lead essentially portrays this topic as a settled matter, where we know almost for sure how the pandemic originated. Whilst intelligence agencies might lean one way or the other on the most likely origin scenario, none believes that the evidence is overwhelming and that the matter is settled.

 PieLover3141592654 (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note OPArmando AZ has been blocked as a sock. Bon courage (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC); amended 17:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Think you caught up Red Slash's comment in your striking, the sock was the OP for the prior section? Anyway, the NIC summary[19] and agency views should not be put on the same level as our academic sources, and should certainly not be characterized as proponents of the theory from the intelligence community in the lede. It's probably somewhat dated, follows a different methodology and is not open to review outside the intelligence community. If something does go into the lede stating there is less confidence within the intelligence community than that expressed in our best academic sources, it should follow an expansion of the body section with a careful summary. I don't like the way Shibbolethink has expressed it above, but i think there is some broad agreement here that should come first. Just pulling out the DOE and FBI statements of what is "most likely" ignores the rest of the assessment, where there is agreement as to what is a "plausible" lab leak scenario, and most importantly we have no idea what is behind their statements.
• If all this effort to add something to the lede is to balance the Holmes quote: The siren has definitely sounded on the lab leak theory which it seems to be (as it references detractors of the theory from the scientific community), i would say remove that quote for a number of reasons. fiveby(zero) 16:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  O yikes yes! Sorry and apologies to Red Slash. Hopefully now fixed. Bon courage (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Red Slash! Yes, the FBI and others in the U.S. intelligence community have made statements and received WP:RS coverage by non-specialist news media regarding the possibility of a COVID-19 lab leak origin. The U.S. Department of Energy has also released a statement or perhaps a document in support of a possible COVID-19 lab leak origin. Some U.S. government-managed biolabs (they are NOT secret, nor are they located in Ukraine or Sudan, nor is Victoria Nuland the lab director!) are part of the DoE, so that would likely give the DoE findings additional credibility. The DoE announcement occurred after the FBI-related announcement. Might you know if the DoE findings have been assessed by Wikipedia editors and deemed sufficiently rigorous to be eligible for inclusion in part A of your proposed RfC? Also, I would recommend limiting the RfC to only one or two items, not four. I would definitely include A. Regarding B, I don't think there is more than one COVID19 lab leak theory article and am okay with having the FRINGE designation linger around for now; the same for templates. Eventually D will be necessary, just as it is for many other articles, for the sake of being current. Given that it is sort of de rigeur in due time, I wouldn't include it in the RfC either. As for C, you might consider including it in a modified form, specifically, that if you're considering A, then some mention in the body of the article needs to be made about the lab leak theory's possible legitimacy; i.e. it can't just be mentioned in the lead and no where else.--FeralOink (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It's almost as if this article needs a section entitled "Intelligence agencies" ... Bon courage (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Fiveby.

• I take the point that intelligence agency assessments aren't open to scrutiny from WP editors in the same way as academic articles. One counterpoint I would make is that I think editors should at least consider the possibility that some of the virologists active in the debate have a conflict of interest on this issue. Many have worked with the WIV. Others were proponents of exactly the kind of risky research that is alleged (by lab leak theory proponents) to have caused the pandemic. And public belief in the lab leak theory could ultimately result in additional regulations, reputational damage and lower funding for the field.

By contrast, there is no reason to think IAs have a bias one way or the other.

• From my perspective there are two reasons why I think we should mention of the intelligence agencies in the lead. Firstly, I do think the lead doesn't comply with Wikipedia:NPOV. Getting rid of the Holmes quote would be a step in the right direction, but wouldn't completely solve the issue. And secondly, the IA assesments are very notable and have very significant coverage in almost all the MSM RSes. Far more significant coverage than some of the other topics mentioned in the lead like the alleged racism connection.
• IMO, the section in the body on IA assesments is not bad, but it's hard to find and likely to be completely missed by casual readers of this article.

PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That 'counterpoint' is just a stupid conspiracy theory about the scientists being somehow 'in on it'. US Intelligence agencies are simply not trustworthy sources for this kind of thing (Havana Syndrome anyone?[20]) other than for their own imaginative pronouncements. I think taking some views from one country and elevating them the lede would be undue, and the usual US exceptionalism POV we have problems with. Holme's view is in the lede because we need to be clear what the mainstream position is when it comes to WP:FRINGE. There are other ways of doing this too, but we should be clear evidence is accumulating against LL and no relevant scientist supports its likelihood. Bon courage (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with PieLover3141592654. The Holmes quote is actually confusing in that it suggested to me that the Lab Leak theory is becoming MORE not LESS credible. I had to read the reference and quote snippet to understand what he (Holmes) meant. As for the racism part, there are an excessive number of citations about that (10 or more?!) and many are NOT WP:RS e.g. "infodemiology" and all the critical theory content... Which makes me wonder: Why are French theory sources acceptable for this article but the FBI and U.S. Department of Energy are not? I realize that Bon Courage has stated strong objections to American exceptionalism, but this seems extreme. That's okay though, because we are doing an RfC for this very reason, to help resolve this!--FeralOink (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there are lots of citations because editors kept saying there were no sources for the racism thing. The US position is already in the article. I'm not sure why JMIR Infodemiology[21] is meant to be NOT RS for this (it seems on point for the topic), or what the "many" other non-RS sources are meant to be? Bon courage (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd disagree with racism in the lede, but also think the best thing we could do for the reader here is Afd, which ain't gonna happen, so understand your thinking with that and the Holmes quote. There are good reasons for removing Holmes tho: Australians don't know the difference between a siren and a horn, so that little sports metaphor could be confused i guess with siren song or a warning siren. It is Holmes commenting on his own work where we would usually look for something independent. And in one sense he was completely wrong, our football match is still very much ongoing. fiveby(zero) 14:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think Robertson in better than Holmes ("It’s important to appreciate that we’ve lots of evidence for a natural origin for Sars-CoV-2, ie not just a single report but multiple lines of evidence which has steadily accumulated since 2020"). The siren thing is a bit weird. I'd be in favour of AfD - there really nothing here that can't be better covered at the Investigations article, and there is a mountain of cruft. Bon courage (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If this were structured as an encyclopedia article i think you would just state that outright, rather than quoting Robertson. Of course we are now in the phase of arguing what "natural origin" and "lab leak" mean. fiveby(zero) 16:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we should do that. I think Holmes is only attributed because Holmes' "siren" wording is so novel Wikipedia couldn't ape it without plagiarism concerns, and couldn't interpret it without inviting cries or OR! Bon courage (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Virus with 80% similarity to SARS-2 not relevant

Mention is made of a virus with 80% genetic identity with SARS-2. Id like to delete this as it seems irrelevant. 80% reflects only a very distant relation. Humans, for example share 99% of our genome with chimps and bonobos and 80% with cows. I would leave the rest of the viruses in there as they are more closely related.

“Analysis of related viruses indicates that samples taken from Rhinolophus sinicusshow a resemblance of 80% to SARS‑CoV‑2. Analysis also indicates that a virus collected from Rhinolophus affinis in a cave near the town of Tongguan in Yunnan province, designated RaTG13, has a 96% resemblance to SARS‑CoV‑2. The RaTG13 virus genome was the closest known sequence to SARS-CoV-2 until the discovery of BANAL-52 in horseshoe bats in Laos, but it is not its direct ancestor. Other closely-related sequences were also identified in samples from local bat populations in Yunnan province. One such virus, RpYN06, shares 97% identity with SARS-CoV-2 in one large part of its genome, but 94% identity overall. Such "chunks" of very highly identical nucleic acids are often implicated as evidence of a common ancestor.” JustinReilly (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. That 80% sentence is likely undue. I haven't seen it mentioned much of anywhere else. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, I’m going to edit out that one virus. JustinReilly (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it actually possible to prove a xenophobic intent?

I understand there are probably racist adherents to this theory, but stating that "The idea has been informed by (and has, in turn, fueled) racist and xenophobic sentiments" sounds I bit off. I've read a few sources, and maybe someone smarter can prove otherwise, but I haven't seen anyone prove that the idea was racist, they just say it is. Like I said, you can prove me wrong if that's the actual case, but the way that sentence is written, the tone of it, is off, and sounds way too objective than the evidence for this idea would allow for.

I'm all for including that there are people who call this theory racist, or however it needs to be phrased, I'm trying to be as brief as I can, but can you truthfully say that it WAS racist, like this page states? LukFromTheWiki (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. WP:ASSERT it (unless you can provide reliable sources saying there are zero racist elements to these ideas). Bon courage (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not how that works, the burden of proof should be on the one who says it's 100% racist. That's a burden of proof fallacy.

Is there proof that this idea was informed by racism? Can that be proved? LukFromTheWiki (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

We do not deal in proof, we deal in wp:v if RS say it we assume they have seen the proof, we do not have to show they have. Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

So if a reliable source said that God exists, and they were an expert in that regard, the Wikipedia would state that God does indeed exist, and would just assume the source has seen the proof? LukFromTheWiki (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

If multiple RS say it, and no RS contests it yes. We go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is that we don't actually have multiple RS who say that, going through the linked sources our language is stronger than that of the sources and also appears to do something which is actually criticized by the section of the source we're quoting to "The mistake many in the media made was to cast the lab-leak theory as inherently conspiratorial and racist, and misunderstand the relation between those properties and the immutable underlying facts." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Not really, article says "informed by" not "inherently". No source says otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it, the lede has sources that call it racist and Sinophobic (and also hate speech), as well as Xenopohic (multiple sources for that one). Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't, they all have more nuanced takes than that. We're close but we aren't currently reflecting what the sources say, IMO all we have to do is add "often" to make it "The idea has often been informed by (and has, in turn, fueled) racist and xenophobic sentiments." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I can live with that. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully this can satisfy @LukFromTheWiki: as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It's good enough imo as well. A reasonable edit to satisfy a more complete consensus here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

My argument here is that it's not possible to prove these sources are correct in their statement. It's unreasonable to have to prove something to the extent you require, when the idea that this threats is racist is hardly proved that that extent; that there 100% is racist intentions to this theory. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

We do not have to. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like the OP is making a WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Despite the (thin) sourcing, this isn't due in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarise the main article and I don't see this elucidated anywhere there. The relevant policy isn't just WP:LEAD but also WP:UNDUE. 82.154.97.56 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The cited sources do not support the use of “often.” There is one source that uses that word, the Garry article. It’s not the best source since a few of its major conclusions do not to represent the majority view anymore: eg, its title says that it is proven that it was not a lab-leak. All of the cited articles, other than Garry’s, that address the proportion of lab leak claims that are racist all would support the use of “sometimes,” not “often.” I urge people to look through the pieces of text quoted in the footnote. JustinReilly (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@LukFromTheWiki, I personally think that the idea that lab-leak is substantially racist is silly, but others who commented are right that Wikipedia just represents what WP:RS say. If you can show that some proportion of reliable sources have another view, we can and should put that in along with an indication of the proportion of RS’s that state that view. the idea that lab leak is racist is often strongly criticized, and especially the corollary claim that that the idea of wet market origin is less racist. But I personally only remember seeing or hearing this in sources that are not considered reliable (but I mostly don’t read sources considered WP:RS). Again, if you can make a showing, I think that’d be great. JustinReilly (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)