This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

We have discussed China origin before, and this news is getting more coverage in Slate. We have discussed this before here Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_42#Origin_of_virus and now this is probably WP:DUE. MEDRS as I have noted before is not a valid reason to exclude. Maybe someone here could propose one sentence? I am sure we wont get consensus here, as we can come to a sentence (those that want to include) and then we run an RFC and see if the MEDRS excuse holds or not. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 16:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Already covered with a dedicated sub-section at COVID-19_pandemic#Misinformation. We can mention the popular press and political theories there. They should not be presented as a "both sides" ( WP:FALSEBALANCE) option to the scientific consensus, though. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This article in Slate doesn't really change the analysis of WP:DUE, IMO. Particularly since Dr. Chan seems to be suggesting it be considered and investigated (which the WHO did in their latest joint report, and this interview doesn't even address let alone cast doubts upon). I'd suggest the 'popular press reports of fringe science doesn't need MEDRS' idea is an attempted end-run, looking to apply a scientific veneer of credibility to a conspiracy. It's either a WP:FRINGE alternative scientific hypothesis in which case we should rely on secondary sources (latest WHO report), or it's a conspiracy theory in which case it goes in COVID-19 misinformation. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The current COVID-19_pandemic#Misinformation section provides an excessive summarization and fails to include any of the DUE conspiracy theories on this article. One or two sentences would be sufficient. Saying 'there are various false information and conspiracy theories' is excessive summarization. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 17:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

IMO, there is no such thing as a "due conspiracy theory". At least, not for the primary article versus one specifically covering conspiracy theories (see the single short paragraph in Moon landing#Historical empirical evidence vs Moon landing conspiracy theories). But perhaps you should be more clear, what do you want included in the article? Outright conspiracy theory, or non-mainstream science? Where do you categorize the article above on the range of WP:FRINGE/PS? Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course there are due conspiracy theories and we have entire pages dedicated to them, as as you pointed out. WP:FRINGE/PS as you mention points out "Alternative theoretical formulations" in which those skilled in the art have different opinions. The former director of the CDC is obviously in that 'skilled in the art' category (borrowing an IP term). Just because the status quo doesn't accept that opinion doesn't 'deem' them scientific (of course they would deem them unscientific if they disagree). Obviously, with attribution, the opinion of the very definition of a category expert (even if the opinion differs from the mainstream) is due a sentence. Specifically, a sentence that summarizes the other sub-article, such as 'various people including xyz and abc have alleged the virus escaped from a lab in china, although these opinions are disputed by the mainstream.' (insert notable people's name, obviously, the person making the statement would need a wikilink itself, or their opinion would be undue in my opinion to begin with, but just because they have a wikilink it doesnt make it due. but expert + notable = due) Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 13:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Except the lab leak has failed to gain any significant traction amongst scientists. The odd one here and there (notice how the CDC director is also a political appointee...); but it's IMHO much closer to the "Questionable science" bit (nothing but anecdotal/circumstantial evidence) than to the "serious theory which is only supported by a minority" end of the scale. It being an "alternative theoretical formulation" would require it be reported as a serious possibility in multiple MEDRS (which would demonstrate it is a possibility actually entertained by scientists) - yet these, if they mention it at all (most don't), say things like "extremely unlikely". As to the mention in the article, that's already there, innit? "Without evidence, some people have claimed the virus is a bioweapon accidentally or purposefully leaked from a laboratory," RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@ RandomCanadian: One quibble, the "SARS-CoV-2 could have been collected from bats then accidentally leaked from the lab which collected it" hypothesis is distinct from the "it's a bioweapon" conspiracy theory, and the WHO report including the hypothesis as one of the 4 being investigated very much makes it an "alternative theoretical formulation". It's just one that's unlikely enough (according to the same MEDRS source which concludes it's an alternative worthy of consideration) not to be worth mentioning on this page, just like how the standard model article doesn't reference string theory. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Jtbobwaysf: And this is covered in Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin, which is transcluded on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Feel free to add Dr. Chan as a notable supporter over there, but you've not made the argument (beyond an interview in Slate being 'more coverage') that it's DUE here on this article. Just like with the moon landing page, no need for the details here. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Per summary style and fringe it is not necessary for us to summarize fringe viewpoints outside of the sub article (the investigations into the origins). And yes, MEDRS is a valid reason to exclude things that can only be sourced to "popular news" articles, as investigation of a pandemic's origin, index cases, etc is biomedical information - whereas statistics are not, investigation of single cases is. The theory is not fully disproven at this point but is considered so unlikely as to be fringe by mainstream science. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 14:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There are no known sources of the virus. Disproving something that is not known is silly. Are there no other sources besides slate? I am guessing there are a few. There are numerous China lab leak theories as you point out, they are in fact theories, not conspiracies as the POV pushers would try to assert. I am not taking any position at this time on subsets of the China lab leak theory, whether it is a bioweapen, accidental, bats, etc. There is no discussion of the inclusion of that there and that is an attempt to the discussion off track, it is clear above what I am proposing. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 17:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Jtbobwaysf: it is clear above what I am proposing. With respect it is not. Perhaps it would be more clear if you wrote up the sentence you wanted added so we could discuss that, instead of hoping for someone else (who agrees with you) to write up the sentence under discussion. Until then, there's no point in continuing. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Our MEDRS and the WHO report

Our MEDRS and RS on origins only weigh probabilities of different hypotheses as there is no direct evidence for any of them, and should therefore be properly attributed as opinions, and not presented as facts in Wikivoice. The probability of accidental zoonosis are based on priors and is weighed higher than probability of lab origins, which Chan and other much more senior scientists are reported in reliable sources to contest, as lab origins has both priors with SARS viruses leaking from biosecure labs in China and circumstantial evidence linking SARS-CoV-2 to WIV through RaTG13, as reported just yesterday in CNET. A multilateral statement by 14 governments [1] contests the weighting of the four hypotheses made in the interim WHO report, which were quietly dropped from its final report, and the WHO DM made a follow on statement calling for further investigations of lab origins in specific [2]. ::The lab origins hypothesis is falsifiable, as both our MEDRS and RS explicitly state, but only if China cooperates with these further investigations, specifically in providing access to its early patient and donor blood samples/data for seroanalysis. CutePeach ( talk) 18:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS (and not just the WHO) explicitly put the lab leak on the "extremely unlikely" end of things. As for arguments to false balance and debunked arguments such as the RaTG13 "link" and political (not scientific) claims, that's already discussed in an RfC last year, and I don't see anything that has changed the situation. It's not WPs job nor purpose to advocate for "further investigations", nor to criticise the scientific consensus (there are multiple sources, not just MEDRS which explicitly say that natural zoonosis is the scientifically accepted hypothesis - you picking only the ones which report on politics is of course cherry-picking); nor to present minority opinions which are based on circumstantial evidence which in all honesty boils down to "there's a lab in Wuhan" (see the quote from a Nature article posted here or on some other talk page). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE would apply only to really ridiculous origin hypotheses like meteorites, little green men or peeps. The WHO's joint study with China and the four main hypotheses they considered [3] includes the laboratory leak hypothesis that was assessed in their interim report as extremely unlikely [4], but that appellation was dropped in their final report [5]. The WHO DG later said lab origin hypothesis indeed requires further investigation [6], which he also stated after the interim report [7]. The US led multilateral statement made in response to the long awaited final report on the WHO joint study "underscores" the need for an investigation with full and open collaboration [8] from the government of China, which is well documented to have covered up the early outbreak of this pandemic [9], and is well documented to cover up stuff in the general. We should not express academic opinions or contrived government policies as facts in Wikivoice. CutePeach ( talk) 18:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Politics should not be confused with science. You shouldn't take governments as unbiased entities (especially not the US government which was led by the most virulent of COVID misinformation spreaders). We're writing on science. Re. the WHO report; what you're giving is the annexes, not the report itself, as should be clear from the file name and the first page. What the annexes do contain is stuff like "WIV was heavily targeted by conspiracy theories. Staff talked to media and scientific journalists to dispel the myths.", "the low likelihood that RaTG13 was the precursor of SARS-CoV-2", etc...; but that's nothing new, since you've obviously read the whole thing and are providing an unbiased assessment of it, since you're talking about it, right? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Politics shouldn't be confused with science, and the WHO is science... right? We give due weight to all kinds of things at WP including green people as another editor points out above, not sure that was his objective ;-) Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 19:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Even if we disregarded the WHO all other serious scientific sources point in the same direction... See WP:NOLABLEAK for a sampling. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@ CutePeach: Correcting a significant error in what you said above: the laboratory leak hypothesis that was assessed in their interim report as extremely unlikely [10], but that appellation was dropped in their final report [11]. The first link is indeed the final report, and contains the "extremely unlikely" conclusion. The second link is a supplemental document with reference data, not a later or replacement document. It's also worth noting that this final report also concluded with , the team called for a continued scientific and collaborative approach to be taken towards tracing the origins of COVID-19. As for wikivoice, I suggest it's a stretch to say everything that might change in the future must be discussed as such in every article (see: WP:FRINGE). Consensus might change in the future, but that shouldn't stop us from describing current consensus. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Bakkster Man:, thank you for correcting that significant error as the final WHO report does in fact use the extremely unlikely appellation, which I missed late last night. I am much better rested now and already on my second coffee of the day. I think my main point still stands. The WHO DG critiqued rejected the report’s findings [12] saying that the team’s assessment was not extensive enough, and that the lab leak hypothesis needs further investigation [13] [14] [15]. The WHO’s Joint Study - which was performed by an independent group of scientists and not the WHO itself [16] - is presented on the WHO website alongside the WHO DG’s statements [17], so the report should not be taken alone as the WHO’s official position on COVID-19 origins, until its findings are verified by underlying data [18].

Also, the US led multilateral response of WHO member states who would have liked to have had more of a say in the Terms of Reference of the Joint Study and for it have taken place earlier, and for further investigations to be expedited with full and open collaboration, casts doubt on the WHO Joint Study and its assessments [19], but agrees with the report’s call for a continued scientific and collaborative approach, as you pointed out. China's response to the WHO DG and the US led multilateral statement is not reassuring [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. Without blood samples/data, the lab leak hypothesis cannot be falsified, and if they are confident of the report’s findings, the Chinese government would have every reason to share the relevant data with the WHO like they did after the SARS-COV-1 epidemic of 2003 [26]. WHO team member Dominic Dwyer said it is the norm for member states to share such data in a Public Health Emergency of International Concern [27].

As to your point on Wikivoice, the current scientific consensus on COVID-19 origins as presented in our MEDRS and RS - including the WHO report - is based entirely on weighing/assessing probabilities of different hypotheses based on priors and circumstantial evidence, and not on forensic or phylogenetic evidence. There are senior scientists and officials - including the WHO DG - expressing widely varying viewpoints supporting different hypotheses, but all of them call for further investigation of all hypotheses - including lab origins - which China has yet to acquiesce. All these views should be properly attributed as opinions and not stated as fact in Wikivoice, until direct evidence is presented in a peer reviewed journal, or the Chinese government releases the blood data/samples requested by the WHO. Since you want to discuss the application of this policy on other articles, it should be no different to how we treat China’s claims in the Spratly Islands and the Air Defense Identification Zone. They are just claims, which we attribute to the Government of China, and it's as simple as that. In this article, we should not present PRC claims as facts on matters pertaining to what looks like a matter of non compliance with International Health Regulations that are legally binding on all members of the World Health Organization. Those regulations were reformed after the Chinese government’s disastrous coverup of SARS-COV-1 and will have to be reformed again after SARS-COV-2 and what looks like another coverup on its origins and emergence [28]. CutePeach ( talk) 10:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't bode well for your argument when it triggers "use of deprecated (unreliable) source"... As to your WP:BLUDGEON wall of text, which I've likely addressed already, it again, from a quick glance, entirely fails to address anything, as even if we disregard the WHO and politics, that all of the other MEDRS do not treat the lab leak as something very plausible; and you have cited exactly zero MEDRS in your post so I can't be bothered to entertain further such WP:IDHT comments. Either cite MEDRS which treat the lab leak as something serious (if they exist); or be content with the existing section on misinformation. That or we'll be going to AE. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@ CutePeach: I strongly disagree with this characterization: The WHO DG critiqued rejected the report’s findings. I interpret the Director General's comments ( direct link to avoid potential editorializing by news agencies) as entirely consistent with the report's conclusion: the team called for a continued scientific and collaborative approach to be taken towards tracing the origins of COVID-19. I welcome your report, which advances our understanding in important ways. It also raises further questions that will need to be addressed by further studies, as the team itself notes in the report... Finding the origin of a virus takes time and we owe it to the world to find the source so we can collectively take steps to reduce the risk of this happening again. No single research trip can provide all the answers. It is clear that we need more research across a range of areas, which will entail further field visits.

I also don't think we "present PRC claims as facts". We are presenting WHO-published research as the scientific consensus. Whether or not Chinese cooperation or obstruction has limited our current understanding, this report is the current state of public understanding. As before, any criticisms would be more appropriately addressed on the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 page instead of this one. For the same reason that we only describe subatomic particles in terms on the standard model on their pages, instead of including discussions of string theory. We would obviously need to rewrite those articles if sting theory became dominant, but until then they're written from the perspective of the dominant theory, with discussions of competing WP:FRINGE theories left for articles dedicated to that discussion. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

That comment you make about CP's dimissal of science as "PRC facts" also remind me of stuff of eerie ressemblance to POV pushing at other subjects. Painting the dominant position as only the POV of "one side" is exactly what some editors were doing at Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus (where the global position that this was an invasion is deemed by POV pushers to be the position of the "Greeks" and is therefore dismissed as being biased)... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Bakkster Man: the WHO DG’s statements were characteristized by at least one RS as having rejected the findings of the report, while most RS use the term critique, so I would agree to the latter term.

The claim that WHO-published research is the scientific consensus when we have the WHO DG, multiple WHO member states, and numerous independent scientists who do not agree with Terms of Reference of the Joint Study with China and the findings of the their report, due to the lack of underlying data for verification, is unsupported.

The WHO DG’s remarks in reference to the Joint Study team’s assessment of a potential laboratory incident as not being extensive enough are not in line with the team’s own proposal, which is why RS characterises them the way they do.

CutePeach ( talk) 15:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@ CutePeach: I disagree, a plain reading of the WHO DG's comments simply states that their work is not over until they have a definitive source. Not that their latest study is flawed or inaccurate or otherwise to be dismissed, just that the intention is to increase the level of certainty to the point they no longer need to apply probabilities to four different hypotheses. Until that happens, I see no reason to include the "extremely unlikely" scenario on this page. There are other pages where due weight and attention can be (and are) given, improve those if you find them lacking. Bakkster Man ( talk) 16:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, a plain reading of the WHO DG’s remarks states that the team's assessment was not extensive enough in relation to one of the hypotheses, which is not something they admitted to in their report, and is good reason for us not to present the report as scientific consensus and present its findings as facts, in Wikivoice. The WHO DG would not have made these remarks if there weren't concerns with one team member’s COI [29] [30] [31] and even more significant concerns with their assessments [32], especially with the cold chain transmission hypothesis, which is unsupported by science [33] [34] . Please note that we are not discussing whether we should include the "extremely unlikely" scenario on this page, but how to present the WHO's report in light of the WHO DG's remarks, the concerns of independent scientists with assessments made in the WHO report [35], and the US led multilateral response, all of whom unanimously called for China to release underlying data. CutePeach ( talk) 16:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Calls for further investigations and criticism that further data needs to be made available to complete a more thorough assessment are not "good reason" to treat the report as bollocks. As to the rest (where I fail to see a single MEDRS), per the below, we should indeed "present the report as scientific consensus", criticism aside (academic publications of all kinds get criticised by academics themselves - that doesn't make them invalid; it only highlights what needs to be further researched). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, from the WHO report itself (you've clearly read it, since you're criticising it so much, so this shouldn't be news to you): (p. 9) The team assessed the relative likelihood of these pathways and prioritized further studies that would potentially increase knowledge and understanding globally. So your comment that it is "not something they admitted to in their report" is wrong. Clearly we should not use popular press misrepresentations for this. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach While the words "not... extensive enough" were only used for one hypothesis, all four hypotheses and the lack of raw data access were referenced by the WHO DG in his statement. That's the plain reading I'm referring to, the team and the DG are in agreement, everything needs further study.

Please note that we are not discussing whether we should include the "extremely unlikely" scenario on this page, but how to present the WHO's report in light of... Which specific section are you referring to. The report is only cited twice on the page. Once near the top in Background, alongside multiple other strong sources about the early cluster of cases at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. And again about halfway down in the History 2019 section discussing the findings relative to the earlier hypothesis that the market was the original source of the outbreak. IMO, critiques of the WHO report don't particularly fit in either of these sections, where due to the brevity of the sections they'd risk being WP:UNDUE (an issue the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article does not have). Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Bakkster Man: the WHO DG presser can be considered an addendum in that it tells the reader that in regards to a laboratory incident, the team's assessment was not extensive enough. You may be having trouble reading the WHO DG’s remarks, but one Chinese member of the team does and his government does not [36]. If you are still in doubt, we can have the Wikimedia Foundation reach out to WHO Director of Communications Gabriella Stern, as we do not want to misrepresent the WHO’s position here on Wikipedia [37]. As Guy Macon says in the Misinformation page, if there are MEDRS compliant sources on the topic of how where and how the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus first entered the human population, then it is due for SARS-COV-2 page, and presumably also this page. I would not say that the WHO’s remarks put forward any position as to how and where SARS-COV-2 entered the human population, but I would say that the WHO report and DG’s remarks are MEDRS, and that they should give us pause when we state expert opinions as facts in Wikivoice. I do not ask for more than that. CutePeach ( talk) 16:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@ CutePeach: Please stay WP:CIVIL. I took care to ensure I did so (along with WP:AGF) when pointing out your errors above (which, IMO, would be appropriate for you to strikeout if you concur they're in error). I appreciate if you can extend the same courtesy rather than accusing me of not reading the remarks.

Taking the full WHO DG comments on the topic: The team also visited several laboratories in Wuhan and considered the possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident. However, I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions. Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy. Taking it all in context, he's calling for more robust conclusions. This should not be taken to imply the current conclusion is not at all robust, rather that the goal is to move from a less robust estimate to a more robust definitive conclusion. It's inappropriate to selectively quote to change the context, especially when the calls for further studies on the other 3 hypothesis are not referenced.

As I said before, I've given my perspective on this topic being WP:UNDUE in this article. Unless you have a specific proposal on what content to add to which section of this article that meets the criteria of depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery then I stand by my statement above. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Bakkster Man: I do have faith in you, which is why I repeatedly explained my point of view based on my reading of the primary source and provided affirmatory reports from secondary sources. I sincerely apologise for my remarks on your comprehension abilities and I will again explain my point of view, with one additional caveat for your benefit.

Explaining away the WHO DG's very pointed remarks on the team’s report that were characterized in numerous RS as fault and criticism, like in [38] - as well as overlooking the US multilateral responses to the report as reported in numerous RS, like in [39] - and casting aside the open letters from independent scientists that were published in the Wall Street Journal [40], New York Times [41] and Le Monde [42], to present in Wikivoice that there is scientific consensus on COVID-19 origins, would be a gross violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV. It would also violate WP:MEDRS, since the WHO team report along with the WHO DG’s remarks are our highest quality MEDRS and should not be misquoted, misinterpreted, or misrepresented in any way. If you have secondary RS supporting your reading of this primary MEDRS, please put it in your feedback to my suggestions below.

For the caveat: the WHO DG could have made his statements clearer, but the ambiguity can be understood in the context of the " diplomatic balancing act" he has to put on [43] [44] [45] [46], with the help of a very skilled spokesperson. Nonetheless, a faithful reading of his statement clearly shows that his remarks in relation to the lab leak hypothesis were in fact an addendum to the team’s report, which the Chinese government clearly agrees with me on in the protests they’ve made through their state controlled media [47] [48], as reported in this RS [49]. These protests are WP:DUE for coverage in this article as the WHO DG’s remarks we are discussing here were made in reaction to the alleged politicization of the science by the Government of China [50]. The WHO does not exist in a political vacuum, and this report was based on a "Joint Study" with China, which could have been subject to political meddling, or worse, censoring [51].

What is known and unknown about the origins of the virus that caused this pandemic are WP:DUE for this page and the SARS-COV-2 page, like they would be for any other page on other pandemic and viruses, which Drbogdan, Jtbobwaysf and Ozzie10aaaa seem to agree with me on. CutePeach ( talk) 15:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

That the WHO director made his statement as a "diplomatic balancing act" means it clearly isn't really a scientific remark. As for "the origins of the virus" see the post immediately below which includes "Recent MEDRS"... Reports in the WP:MEDPOP sources are ok for politics, but not for science. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

JPxG can you see what we’re dealing with here? Please can you unarchive that ANI? Time for a Boomerang. CutePeach ( talk) 15:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I dont see anything here, other than two editors who seem to have opposed views. CutePeach seems to want to add an excessive amount of content and RandomCanadian's arguments that WHO DGs comments don't meet MEDRS are farcical and the repetition of it is bludgeoning. That said I dont think I have seen this ANI being referred to. I think anyone can see an archived ANI (they are mostly archived), why does someone have to unarchive it, or was that comment a veiled threat to raise another? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 16:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Just as an observation, a WHO DG's "comments" do not, in fact, meet MEDRS. A position statement from the WHO would, though. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Wowie zowie, it's hard to think of an argument I want to participate in less, but I guess I will give my opinion here. "Politics should not be confused with science", indeed. What is even going on with this article? @ RandomCanadian: I am puzzled by your rhetorical tack here -- while I don't think the lab leak hypothesis is particularly likely, it is a little odd to insist on mentioning it only once, in a weirdly constructed sentence that seems designed to deliberately conflate it with "NWO illuminati bioweapon" and "CORONA 5G TRUE" nonsense. I'm sure that this insistence makes perfect sense in the context of some very long argument on this talk page involving a multitude of people, but to an uninvolved editor it seems quite bizarre. jp× g 19:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Jtbobwaysf: I have long given up on replying to RC because of the reasons you mention. Here is the ANI they filed on the new user they successfully baited into making "thinly veiled accusations" and "overall trolling": [52]. It would be better understood in the context of this ANI [53], which was all over Twitter. CutePeach ( talk)

@ CutePeach: appreciate that, and my apologies if I came off as brusque. I have also replied to your proposal below.

Would it be fair to phrase things a bit differently to where we might find reasonable points of consensus to build from? Coming back to wikivoice, perhaps my concern is more a WP:BLP concern of putting words into Tedros' mouth. I'm not opposed to reliable sources which describe his statement as critical, only to saying he said so in wikivoice in a way that suggests he intended it to be significantly more critical of that hypothesis than others. If he has made clarifying statements to that extent since, I'd love to see us use them instead. Otherwise, if included, I'd be more comfortable with something like "Tedros' statements were seen by many to be critical" with a few citations. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Bakkster Man: another editor is opening ANIs falsely claiming I want to use MEDPOP over MEDRS on COVID-19 origins [54]. I actually agree with you that origins should mainly be covered on the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, but the reason we are here is because that editor is deleting all edits there they don’t like [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]. We have discussed how to use our MEDRS in line with WP:WIKIVOICE and I hope we are in agreement that expert opinions should not be stated as fact. I would also welcome your comment on how we should assess the quality of MEDRS for virus origins as WP:MEDASSESS [60]. I will respond to your comment there tomorrow. CutePeach ( talk) 16:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@ CutePeach: I'm going to attempt to stay out of the ANI kerfuffle. I've got my own thoughts on things and think there's a fair amount of bad behavior around here, but I'd much rather model good behavior until we reach a good decision than rant and rave.

As for MEDRS, I think I lean first on FRINGE to ensure notability, then think we should use MEDRS wherever possible, and always for anything that's clearly biomedical (mostly because without it we'd be thrashing back and forth without saying anything concrete). See my below rewrite for an example. There is no MEDRS for the critiques of the WHO report, but IMO the critiques are well sourced, not UNDUE, and most importantly not biomedical themselves. You'll notice I usually point to other policies first when I disagree with content/wording, and when I think MEDRS applies I ask to see if there's a MEDRS source which supports whatever claim there is. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, please give me until Saturday to respond to your edit proposal. I am crazy busy at work and I haven’t menaged set aside some time to reply below or on the Investigations page. When you first cited the WP:FRINGE policy, I must confess that I didn't completely comprehend it because I took it in the colloquial context. CutePeach ( talk) 16:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@ CutePeach: No worries, I generally assume a week minimum before I should be expecting certain responses. And yeah, FRINGE is pretty broad. From pseudoscience to bad science to solid science which is accepted by a minority. I'm sure that this is a big reason why there's so much consternation on the topic, different people misinterpreting the policy different ways. Bakkster Man ( talk) 16:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@ CutePeach: There is indeed something unusual going on here. Looks like WP:SEALION. I suggest we do an RFC for one sentence, probably starting with the science one. Normally RFC is the only way to deal with this, consensus will not be reached on this talk page. Maybe you (or others) could help me with option #2 and try to clean up the Tedros statement, as I have seen people suggest here we are putting words in Tedros' mouth (could we do a 3-4 word quote for him in the same sentence?). I think it needs heavy sourcing, we can do a WP:CITEBUNDLE if needed. If we cannot deal with Tedros' statement, we could also run the RFC without it and address that later. Maybe more logical to come back to that later. This clearly has to be a babysteps approach with a couple impassioned editors who WP:BATTLE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Jtbobwaysf: If asking you to cite a WP:MEDRS (i.e. a secondary review in an adequate academic journal) which supports the lab leak and the best you can come up with is Tedros saying "it needs further investigation" and somehow interpreting that as being explicit support (it isn't); then I don't think I'm POV pushing; and your accusations are grossly out of place. This has been argued since May last year. If you can't come up with a MEDRS which supports the hypothesis, then you're better not starting an RfC about the science section, as it will not give the result you expect. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• ( edit conflict) So let's disregard the WHO for a moment. What of all the other MEDRS (and popular press too, despite their false balance) which quite explicitly say that the hypothesis most favoured by scientists is indeed natural spillover. Recent MEDRS:
  • Mishra, Sanjay Kumar; Tripathi, Timir (2021). "One year update on the COVID-19 pandemic: Where are we now?". Acta Tropica. 214: 105778. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2020.105778. ISSN  0001-706X.

  All human CoVs have zoonotic origin and are capable of transmission among mammalian hosts; however, most CoVs originate in bats and are transmitted to humans through domestic animals and SARS-CoV-2 is thought to have originated in bats via genetic recombination of existing bat CoV strains and to have been transmitted from bats to humans either directly or through unknown intermediate hosts, similarly to the roles of civets and camels in SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, respectively. (no mention of a lab, anywhere)

  • Adil, Md Tanveer; Rahman, Rumana; Whitelaw, Douglas; Jain, Vigyan; Al-Taan, Omer; Rashid, Farhan; Munasinghe, Aruna; Jambulingam, Periyathambi (1 February 2021). "SARS-CoV-2 and the pandemic of COVID-19". Postgraduate Medical Journal. 97 (1144): 110–116. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138386. ISSN  0032-5473.

  Another unconfirmed hypothesis that has received mixed response is the possibility of the virus originating in Wuhan’s Centre of Disease Control and Prevention, located just 300 yards away from Wuhan’s animal market or the Wuhan Institute of Virology located eight miles away from the animal market.13 Conspiracy theories about a possible accidental leak from either of these laboratories known to be experimenting with bats and bat CoVs that has shown some structural similarity to human SARS-CoV-2 has been suggested, but largely dismissed by most authorities. - so an "unconfirmed hypothesis", "mixed response", "conspiracy theory" and "largely dismissed by most authorities" (if you haven't got the memo, that's solidly WP:FRINGE.

  • Hu, Ben; Guo, Hua; Zhou, Peng; Shi, Zheng-Li (6 October 2020). "Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19". Nature Reviews. Microbiology: 1–14. doi: 10.1038/s41579-020-00459-7. ISSN  1740-1526.

  Has much too many interesting things to quote all of it. However, I note that there are repeated calls for further investigations (like the WHO report and the apparent critique from the DG et al.) and that there is clear discussion of the preponderance of evidence regarding spillover and hypotheses about the specifics of that.

• So back to the WHO report. It maybe doesn't tell anything new or significant, but it certainly gives more weight to the existing scientific consensus, which is that the virus spilled over from bats (via an intermediary host); and that further research is required. Little, if any, mention of lab leaks or other "extremely unlikely" hypotheses. Given this is the main topic article and that it is already overly long, we should summarise the main consensus (already done), which is that the virus spilled over naturally. Alternative theories (like alternative facts) can be relegated to sub-articles about political investigations and misinformation; despite the efforts of a dedicated twitter group that claims the contrary. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with RandomCanadian, alternative theories should be sub-articles and the main article should be focused on relevant scientific consensus, otherwise we would have an article full of speculation and unfounded theories that would simply waste space and deter from the purpose of providing relevant information. Jurisdicta ( talk) 23:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@ CutePeach: can you please propose a sentence with sources and if it looks ok we run an RFC. This can only be addressed through RFC process. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It only needs an RFC if it's contentious. If it's a clear proposal that obviously meets policy, you might find there's no opposition to accepting it as-is. It seems unlikely at this point, but possible. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

What it appears to me is there are various interpretations of policy above and the discussion is plenty contentious (bold text, colors, etc). Agree, there needs to be a proposed sentence, I will make one below. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 19:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion #1

Here is a proposal: ' Robert R. Redfield, Alina Chan of the Broad Institute, Donald Trump, Tom Cotton, and others have asserted that COVID-19 escaped from Wuhan Institute of Virology. This claim is not accepted by the mainstream.' This is not an RFC obviously, just a discussion. I didn't bother with the sources, since we know there are many for each of these. Some probably MEDRS compliant, and many probably not. I dont think this claim is subject to MEDRS regardless. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 19:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• There's no issue with the factual validity of that statement. The issue, as it has always been, is one of "this article is already too long, we need to summarise" and WP:UNDUE (is the view of a minority, mostly deemed to be misinformation, unfounded speculation and a conspiracy theory really worthy of being singled out amongst all of the others?). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• The only addition here is wordiness - the article already, under the misinformation section, states the following: False information has also been propagated by celebrities, politicians, and other prominent public figures and Without evidence, some people have claimed the virus is a bioweapon accidentally or purposefully leaked from a laboratory. I fail to see how adding specifics would greatly improve this article, because those should ideally be added to COVID-19 misinformation if not already present, as that is linked in the "main article" hatnote of that section. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 20:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• you might want to 'spell out' who Robert Redfield is...I think we need something added to the article, however worded a different way...IMO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Ditto above, it remains a large chunk of text wherever we'd place it on this page. Where do you recommend placing it? To me, this content still makes more sense on other pages. Regarding content, I'd rather see it focus on notable adherents within science/medicine (rather than politicians), and not purely US figures. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed the politicians may not be necessary, could remove Tom Cotton, maybe too much US focus. Trump is probably enough of a global figure to probably be due, Cotton maybe not so much. Are there some other notable (we could wikilink) science community figures that are non-US that have made this claim? I found David Relman and Nikolai Petrovsky of Flinders University here, and Tedros Adhanom of WHO here Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Relman and Petrovsky, yes. I'd cite Relman's original opinion piece, and think both can go straight into the relevant sentence in Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin alongside Redfield.

For Tedros Adhanom, I'd categorize that as a reliable source reporting on a 3rd party's (Elizabeth Economy) interpretation of his statement. Neither Adhanom's nor Economy's opinion reach what I think could be considered support for the hypothesis as likely. I'd go so far as to say we'd potentially be violating WP:BLP unless we can cite a direct quote from the person, advocating for the likelihood of of the theory. We don't have that for Adhanom, and even Economy's quote in the article falls far short: I think the administration has made it pretty clear that given the lack of Chinese transparency, it is not comfortable eliminating the lab escape theory.The fact that WHO head Tedros, who has previously championed China's transparency, stated that more extensive research was needed before eliminating the possibility that the virus escaped from the lab signals that continued skepticism is merited. To be clear, this is not anything beyond the existing WHO conclusions cited: the lab escape hypothesis is unlikely, but still requires further study before ruling it out. Any person identified here as an adherent should be on the record as directly opposing this conclusion. Bakkster Man ( talk) 20:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Example of the text in the context of one possible article placement, which makes it easier to evaluate due/undue weight.

Although it is still unknown exactly where the first case originated from, the first outbreak started in Wuhan, Hubei, China in late 2019. Many early cases of COVID-19 have been attributed to people who had visited the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan. On 11 February 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) named the disease "COVID-19", which is short for coronavirus disease 2019. The virus that caused the outbreak is known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a newly discovered virus closely related to bat coronaviruses, pangolin coronaviruses, and SARS-CoV. Scientific consensus is that COVID-19 is a zoonotic virus that arose from bats in a natural setting.
The earliest known person with symptoms was later discovered to have fallen ill on 1 December 2019, and that person did not have visible connections with the later wet market cluster. However, an earlier case of infection could have occurred on 17 November. Of the early cluster of cases reported that month, two thirds were found to have a link with the market. There are several theories about when and where the very first case (the so-called patient zero) originated. Robert R. Redfield, Alina Chan of the Broad Institute, Donald Trump, Tom Cotton, and others have asserted that COVID-19 escaped from Wuhan Institute of Virology. This claim is not accepted by the mainstream.

Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

As proposed it can't really go anywhere but the misinformation section, since by putting it anywhere else it would create false balance between the scientific view and the politicians. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Better: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in misinformation and conspiracy theories about the scale of the pandemic and the origin, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the disease. Several politicians and their appointees, such as Donald Trump and Robert R. Redfield, have notably asserted that COVID-19 escaped from a lab, a claim which is not supported by virologists and most other scientists. At which point that brings us back to DUE, as in "is it really that notable, amongst all the misinformation, to warrant a mention here"? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You are suggesting to add the politician part? If there is consensus on that part we can move on to the non-political part. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I was suggesting a wording, but no I'm not sure we should add it, per the concerns I raise about WP:UNDUE (lab leak is one misinformation among so many). Still the same issue with your comment below. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You are suggesting wording that you think is undue? I'm confused. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Despite personal reservations, I was suggesting how it could possibly be done (so as to guide further discussion) - not that I think it should; because the other proposal was even more UNDUE. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion #2 (non political)

In this one, we remove the politicians entirely looking at the scientists and public health officials only (probably better we look at the issues separately given the above comments.)

Robert R. Redfield, Alina Chan of the 
Broad Institute, 
David Relman, Nikolai Petrovsky of 
Flinders University, 
Tedros Adhanom, and others have asserted that COVID-19 could have escaped from 
Wuhan Institute of Virology. This claim is not accepted by the mainstream.

Comments? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Which section of this article are you recommending this go? Bakkster Man ( talk) 20:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't given a lot of thought to the section yet. Do you have one to propose? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally, still not convinced it's right for this article. Prefer it in the SARS-CoV-2 article where there's a significantly longer discussion. Bakkster Man ( talk) 01:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I dont see the other article you suggested contains any exploration of cause or the China theory. Anyhow, I wasn't prosing to add the content on that article and this talk page we discuss this article. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• definite improvement over option 1, would probably agree to support its addition in the article-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 21:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

That page has a brief piece on the lab leak. I'm going to add these additional adherants to that article. But since I'm not in favor of this addition here, I'm not the right one to propose a location. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think we could afford to give Trump a namecheck (since he's been described as the biggest spreader of it), but we don't need to start listing others (and we don't need to put words into the mouth of Tedros - he only said it required more investigation) - they're an extreme minority of scientists. A statement such as Donald Trump, amongst others, has asserted that COVID-19 could have escaped from a lab, a claim dismissed by scientists. would be more in line with the purpose of this article which is a summary of the topic; but would still run in the issue that it needlessly highlights one specific piece of misinformation more than all of the rest. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  This, basically. About the only addition to the current material in the section I could see as due for this article (keeping in mind this article is to be a summary of the child article) is Trump's name possibly, but even then I don't support an addition of names as I think the current summary is more than sufficient given the hatnote to the full article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 23:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Normally a pandemic article would have some exploration of the cause of the pandemic, and that would be DUE. In this case the controversy surrounding the cause and lack of knowledge about it. The current formulation is essentially a POV that the cause is known and it isn't xyx (neither factually correct nor supported by the sources). In this option #2 Trump is not a proposed formulation (that was proposed in #1) and in #1 you stated it was UNDUE, and are in this section saying it should be included. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

logic dictates that scientist (non-politicians) have the capacity to understand what 'could have technically/scientifically' occurred to advance this minority opinion, furthermore since the Dr Tedros who leads WHO has not discounted the possibility then that is all that is needed. 1)a possibility that is being/will be investigated by WHO, and 2) a minority view/support by MD/PhD like former CDC chief who believe so...IMO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

To quote ToBeFree "Whether people have been infected by a leaked biological weapon or a common zoonotic disease is an epidemiological question whose answer has an enormous effect on the public reaction to the pandemic, so Wikipedia is in a reputational and moral position that requires it to enforce extremely strict sourcing requirements." We are in no position to make a false balance on the main topic article between an extreme minority which only gets reported in WP:MEDPOP sources, and the relevant community, which is that of WP:MEDRS. That there are (non-scientific) "controversies" over the pandemic's origin is already in the article, with DUE weight. Right at COVID-19_pandemic#Misinformation. A short sentence about this "controversy" could possibly go at COVID-19_pandemic#Politics, if it can be framed as part of larger political controversies. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The joint WHO report itself already concludes that further research into the hypothesis is required. So not only is the Tedros statement unnecessary to make that point, the reading of his statement should not be interpreted as support, lest we violate WP:BLP. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion #3 (short)

Since its outbreak in Wuhan in late 2019, the exact origins of COVID-19 remain unknown. In a November 2019 editorial, Microbiologist 
David Relman wrote "efforts to investigate the origins of the virus became mired in politics, poorly supported assumptions and assertions, and incomplete information".
[1] White House officials, US Senator 
Tom Cotton and President 
Donald Trump floated claims that the virus may have originated in a lab in Wuhan rather than a seafood market, as first reported
[2]
[3]
[4]. A WHO convened study found that the most likely hypothesis was a 
zoonotic transmission from a reservoir host to humans through an intermediary host at a local market in Wuhan, and that the least likely hypothesis was the lab leak, but the WHO Director General said that the assessment of the lab leak hypothesis was not extensive enough, calling upon China to cooperative on further investigations and provide access to supporting data
[5]
[6]. China responded to the WHO Director General’s criticism of the report saying the lab leak theory was ruled out, alleging that the WHO DG was yielding to political pressure. 
[7]
[8]
[9]. In a series of open letters published in the Wall Street Journal, Le Monde, and New York Times, a group of independent scientists calling themselves the "The Paris Group" called upon the WHO to conduct an forensic investigation.
[10]
[11]
[12] In a multilateral statement, US Government with 13 other WHO member states joined the WHO DG in criticizing the WHO report, and with the European Union, called upon China to be more timely and transparent in further investigations with the WHO and provide access to raw data. 
[13] 
[14]
[15] 

I would welcome any constructive feedback to improve this contribution. CutePeach ( talk) 12:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel like this kind of brief 'history of the source' would be the right way to move forward, if it doesn't end up bloating the article (might be best in the 'investigations' article instead). I could see it fitting better in the 'background' section like this. Quick impression, I'd like to see it start with the zoonosis hypothesis, before moving into the discussion around the two sources of lab discussion (scientific and political), with the backlash against the political one carrying over to the science. I'll need to come back to it later, shot 2 has me a bit drowsy. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

More complete comments:

• Broadly speaking, this reads very much as "probably lab leak covered up by China", rather than "probably from bats through an unknown crossover point". I'm open to making reference to the lab hypothesis here, but not jumping past treating it as an alternative theoretical formulation (see WP:FRINGE into treating it as the primary area of study.
• I agree with RandomCanadian that it's best to leave most of the politics out of this section, the more separate the clearer (and less likely to be argued over constantly) the section will be. The one place I think it could be appropriate is the 14 WHO member states critiquing the report, but this depends on making sure the length of the rebuttals isn't so much greater than the original report as to give undue weight.
• Quick note that the WHO intermediary conclusion didn't necessarily conclude that the intermediary species was introduced to humans through a market setting. Introduction through a market or food was only one possibility for intermediaries.
• Error relating to the Relman editorial: November 2020, not 2019. This exacerbates the WP:DUE issue of placing the minority view prior to the majority (and spending more space discussing it). Both the date error and DUE concerns need to be addressed.
• Weasel words regarding the Tedros statement, specifically the word "but" in a way that's MOS:EDITORIAL. Specifically: When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.

The above is a rewrite (still needs cleanup, particularly better sources in some spots) that I would find much more comfortable with. I think the two most important tweaks were including the 'why' of the hypothesis lost its mainstream traction early on (without saying whether that was right or wrong), and zooming out on the critique of the report to be the lack of raw data with which to make transparent conclusions (something that applies to all four hypotheses evaluated, not just the lab leak). If people prefer this version and perform some cleanup, I'll propose the cleaned up version below in its own sub-section. Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Bakkster Man: thanks for your feedback. I do hope you're feeling better now. My Mondays are crazy and I really need to go to sleep now. Please can you incorporate your suggestions into a fifth edit proposal below? Agreed on starting section with zoonosis hypothesis and seafood market. CutePeach ( talk) 16:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and yeah just the one day of cold symptoms. I'll wait for some feedback and refine, IMO it's better to have a good starting point than to try and rush the start of the discussion. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems a more reasonable suggestion. We could add further sources about the origins than the WHO report (there's the ones at WP:NOLABLEAK, and there's also the ones here (including PMC7537588, which is cited by many others, so likely a good source on this: [61]). Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm open to thoughts on how best to incorporate additional citations of the primary hypothesis. Perhaps replacing 'early investigations' with 'most investigations' being zoonosis from bats and putting some of the highest quality MEDRS reviews on that sentence? Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Bakkster Man: ( edit conflict) I've added 3 more sources and two short sentences (along with some minor re-writing) to the existing text - [62]. I think this should be enough without spending UNDUE weight on the conspiracy theories - the section already links to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 anyway. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The above suffers the same problems as proposal four; and it again focuses unduly on the lab leak and WP:MEDPOP sources (Bloomberg; SCMP; WSJ; Le Monde; NYT; WaPo). We can report the political controversy (which is much more than just about the lab) in the #Politics sub-section using these sources, but not in the science section, as already explained. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion #4 (long)

Since its outbreak in Wuhan in late 2019, the exact origins of COVID-19 remain unknown. In a November 2019 editorial, Microbiologist 
David Relman wrote "efforts to investigate the origins of the virus became mired in politics, poorly supported assumptions and assertions, and incomplete information".
[1]
Initial reports in China indicated that the virus may have originated in the 
Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market where trade in exotic species through 
wildlife smuggling, though illegal in China, was known to take place. Several papers were published in early 2019 implicating 
Pangolins as intermediate species, but have no supporting data has been provided by the authors.
[2]
[3]
[4] Mainstream media in early 2019 reported the origins of the virus as a likely 
zoonosis between exotic species and humans at the market. Some scientists say the zoonosis may have occurred outside the market.
[5] 
In a February 10 email exchange between infectious disease doctors and medical experts in the US federal government dubbed as the 
Red Dawn Emails, then White House advisor 
Mark Keim stated "The novel virus could be anthropogenic rather than zoonotic".
[6]
[7] In February 16 Foxnews interview with 
Maria Bartiromo, Democrat Senator 
Tom Cotton floated the theory that the virus may have originated in the 
Wuhan Institute of Virology near the Seafood Market, saying that "because of China’s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says."
[8] On 30 April 2020 US Republican President 
Donald Trump claimed he had seen evidence pointing to the Wuhan Institute of Virology as the origin of the virus saying “the World Health Organization should be ashamed of themselves because they're like the public relations agency for China."
[9] 

Peter Daszak, a British zoologist and an expert on 
disease ecology, in particular on zoonosis and president of 
Ecohealth Alliance, said on 
DemocracyNow "The idea that this virus escaped from a lab is just pure baloney". In a letter published in 
The Lancet, a group of scientists led by 
Peter Daszak stated that natural origins of 
SARS-COV-2] like with most prior outbreaks from zoonotic diseases is far more likely, condemning the lab origins theory as a conspiracy theory.
[10]
[11] Trump who was publicly criticising the WHO at the time for being "China centric" over its 
response of the virus’s early emergence in Wuhan, was criticized for politicising the virus.
[12] Trump was criticized for blaming China to distract from his administration’s bungled response to 
pandemic in the USA, and even scientists for investigating the possibility of the lab origins of the virus became scared of the politically toxic notion.
[13] 
In mid 2020, the WHO negotiated with the government of China on conducting an investigation into the origins of COVID-19. By November 2020, the WHO had agreed on a "Terms of Reference" for what China called a "Joint Study", the first phase of which would be undertaken by a Chinese team and the second phase to be completed by international teams of scientists.
[14] The terms of reference were criticised by independent scientists for allowing China basing the results of the study on research carried out by the Chinese side.
[15] The appointment of Peter Daszak of 
EcoHealth Alliance to the international team stirred controversy, as his organisation’s association as a funding partner of 
Shi Zhengli’s research at 
Wuhan Institute of Virology was perceived as possible 
conflict of interest by scientist 
Richard Ebright
[16]
[17]
[18]. The Trump administration called the study a "Potemkin exercise", citing that even the Chinese CDC Director 
George Gao aand other Chinese government officials had ruled out the Seafood Market as the source of the virus.
[19]
[20] The Biden administration said the US would not accept the WHO report without independently verifying its findings.
[21]
[22] 
On March 30, the WHO published a report entitled "WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins, presenting four scenarios as how the virus was first introduced to humans, including direct zoonotic transmission from a reservoir host, through an intermediate host, the (cold) food chain, or a laboratory incident.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the 
help page). The WHO team assessed these scenarios in the report by likelihood assessing that zoonotic transmission through an intermediate host was the likely to very likely, and a laboratory incident extremely unlikely, while zoonotic transmission direct from a reservoir host was possible-to-likely, and cold food chain transmission was possible.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the 
help page). In a statement made on the same day at a press conference, WHO Director General critiqued the report saying that the team’s assessment of the lab leak hypothesis was not extensive enough, and that it needs further investigation, with additional missions involving specialist experts.
[23]
[24] The report was criticised by scientists 
Richard Ebright and 
David Relman, both of whom had called for an unimpeded forensic investigation into the origins of the virus, saying the inclusion of Peter Daszak on the team was a conflict of interest.
[25] In a series of open letters published in the Wall Street Journal, Le Monde, and New York Times, a group of independent scientists calling themselves the "The Paris Group" called upon the WHO to conduct an forensic investigation.
[26]
[27]
[28] In a multilateral statement, US Government with 13 other WHO member states joined the WHO DG in criticizing the WHO report, and with the European Union, decried the lack of access to supporting data and called upon China to be more timely and transparent in further investigations with the WHO and provide access to raw data. 
[29] 
[30]
[31]  

All constructive feedback welcome. CutePeach ( talk) 12:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Why leave out the WHO guy Tedros? I guess there will be claims this is too long. Certainly, this has more prose and context and might be ok from my view, I think I would cut out a sentence or two of the US centric content (just to be more global). In my proposals above I was trying to keep it really short as there seem to be cries of TOOLONG and UNDUE time after time above, and as an editor who doesn't really follow this article much, I thought it best to insert one sentence or maybe two to start. Your content is really useful as you clearly understand the story much better than me. Seems we could at least have one sentence on politics and another on science, and a lot of this content would go on what the other editors are calling misinformation. I have no idea how the US govt and 13 member states could be considered misinformation, but that seems to be the current state of the POV of this article (certainly unbalanced). Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 14:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• No If one sentence mentioning Trump is likely UNDUE; this (which adds a whole 4 paragraphs on the lab leak) is not even worthy of our time or discussion. It doesn't go here - maybe, in a greatly summarised form, at the misinformation page, where it already pretty much is. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• No - you need to re-read WP:SS. This is covered in a child article (investigations into the origin) and as such any lengthy material like this that's not already present there should be added to that article, not this one. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 16:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the arguments of "excessive bloating" and "need to summarize" are fair, given that many of the editors who spouse these arguments have recently voted against expanding or creating spin offs on the origin of the virus. For example, that happened when we discussed whether to launch ab article on the Emergence of COVID-19 outbreak. Either let the sub articles be created or supress them but letting the main articles breath with the new facts that user Cute Peach has brought. Forich ( talk) 19:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The article is already in the upper-limit of acceptable size (76 kB of readable prose, 12000 words). Investigations into the origins of COVID-19 exists, and the only reason this content might not be there already is because it was never argued or proposed there - the only arguments there recently were about the status of the lab leak as misinformation and a fringe position; and against attempts to false balance it by using MEDPOP sources and making it look as though the lab leak was just a "minority" position when it is in fact WP:FRINGE according to multiple MEDRS. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• No, on length alone this shouldn't be considered outside the dedicated Investigations into the origins of COVID-19 article. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion #5

Rewrite of above proposals for neutrality, and to incorporate into the existing COVID-19 pandemic#Background section, reproduced as it stands today below (with markup for elements removed in the proposal, either because of duplication, being non-medical sourced, or both).

And the proposed rewrite:

While I'm still not entirely convinced yet that this is the right change to make to the section, I think this is a rewrite I'd no longer oppose. I feel the length increase is now minimal (having trimmed some now superfluous details to make space for other context), and everything in the section is better sourced and focused on the background that's actually required for understanding the source of the pandemic. Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• something will have to be incorporated, this may not be that bad...weak support-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 15:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• This is somewhat repetitive (reports the seafood market bit twice, for example). The proposed text also doesn't clearly delineate the position of "mainstream science" (which is the only science we care about in this context, per WP:FRINGE), instead only saying how "most research" has been about that. This might be caused by the fact it drops the previous wording of the MEDRS sources supporting the scientific consensus and instead only focuses on the WHO report. I prefer the more general statement about conspiracy theories and misinformation (which doesn't unduly single out any particular one) which I added. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  All solid feedback. I copyedited the above to take care of some of the simplest concerns, but I'm sure it would benefit from more. Is it close enough and enough of a potential step in a direction we want to take this section to be worth sandboxing? Bakkster Man ( talk) 23:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• This claim " limited credibility and attention being given to the hypothesis by mainstream science", I know that it is probably true, BUT: if it is our own synthesis of the literature, we may not use it. We need a MEDRS that sums it up exactly or very closely like that wording (this has been the argument of a few wiki editors on sourcing claims about the origin of the virus, I am not sure if they hold water with Wikilaws). Please provide the link to such MEDRS (the lancet letter is not MEDRS, and the Hakim (2021) source does not says that claim). Forich ( talk) 20:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Agree with that; the sources used for this do not support the statement in the text AFAIK. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's not what SYNTH is supposed to prevent. SYNTH prevents one source saying A=B and another saying B=C and us saying A=C, or similar. It does not prevent us summarizing a wide variety of sources all saying the same thing by lumping them all together - which is what this would be. In fact, we are encouraged to do so because it is extremely wordy and useless to say "Source A says this, source B says basically the same thing slightly differently, source C... source D, etc". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 21:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  SYNTH/NOR is about not making conclusions which are not stated in sources: sources say that the lab leak is unsubstantiated or "extremely unlikely"; or group it with other "conspiracy theories", ... Not that it got "limited credibility and attention" - this second bit is an interpretation which is seemingly what is being objected to. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, I thought the objection was to the entire inclusion - apologies. I agree it would be better worded as "mainstream scientific sources generally discount the hypothesis as being an implausible level of unlikely" or similar. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 21:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  I agree, there's probably a better way to write this I can't think of right now. Perhaps a more direct mention of the Lancet open letter, without suggesting any causal relationship? That letter's not MEDRS, so it's in a bit of a weird spot. Bakkster Man ( talk) 23:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  @ Bakkster Man: If you don't object, I've reworked your existing text into something better, which will still require some work. But I think that the best solution might be taking a few sentences from here and tacking them onto the existing text in the article (which I've slightly altered while this was ongoing). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't mind at all. I'll need to come back later, but I think your changes are all solid and give a clearer and more concise overview. I'll need to reread the WIV section again to process it, it's a tricky subject. Bakkster Man ( talk) 02:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, Thank you for this proposal. Here are a few suggestions for your edit proposals.

1. Rephrase origin to origins, as there are several aspects of origins which are unknown, such reservoir host and/or intermediary host of the virus, evolutionary history of the virus, Identity and provenance of virus’s most recent ancestor/s, and the place, time, and mechanism of the transmission of the first human infection/s. Lots of unknowns here.
2. Remove claim of relation to Pangolin CoVs in Wikivoice and remove Zhang et al, which like Lam et al, Liu et al, Xiao et al are all poor non review MEDRS lacking supporting data, which has been requested from the authors by the editors. There is a possible issue of academic fraud and data fabrication here, as reported in this CNET article [63] based on FOIs from USRTK [64]. The nature article is very outdated. This more up to date paper says there is no evidence [65].
3. Please remove statement of natural origins in Wikivoice and Andersen et al paper. The natural settings is a confusing term and the Andersen paper is not a high quality MEDRS. Its dated, not a review article, and was critiqued by scientists [66] [67]. Andersen and Chan needlessly personalised the dispute [68] [69]. Andersen was FOI’d and its clear that his paper was targeted more at the bioweapons conspiracy theory [70]. This article explains some nuances Andersen leaves out of his letter [71]. The Latinne article is also not high quality and has COI authorship.
4. In the third paragraph, please differentiate allegations of bioweapons from allegations of accidental lab leak more clearly, and add statement of need for forensic investigation as per Graham and Hakim papers. Both papers make such differentiation and state said need for forensic investigation explicitly.
5. In fourth paragraph, please consider laying out all hypotheses and their assessments as in my Proposal #4. I think it's also due to mention Terms of Reference of the Joint Study, and the reception that followed the report, especially the US led multilateral statement, and the WHO DG’s own critique. We now also have this from the WSJ [72] and a third open letter from scientists, covered in Bloomberg [73], the Washington Post [74] and The Australian [75]. I think China’s response to these calls for further investigations is also due.

I think we should retitle Background to Timeline, like 2002–2004 SARS outbreak article, and summarise the local outbreaks even more so that global concerns are given due attention. CutePeach ( talk) 16:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Numbered this to facilitate reply. IMHO:

• No. 1 Y Unsure "the exact origin of the virus is unknown" is already rather clear; this seems a minor quibble over wording.
• No. 2  No the text (both in the proposal and in the article as it stands) only says that the virus is "closely related to bat coronaviruses,[6] pangolin coronaviruses,[7][8] and SARS-CoV.[9]" - I don't think there's anything controversial about that. The text at Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Scientific_consensus_on_origins also clarifies the historical development, saying that their is rather strong evidence against this claim.
• No. 3  No, again Natural origin (via whichever intermediary host) is the scientific consensus. I fail to see a single WP:MEDRS which says otherwise. Andersen et al. in Nature Medicine is a high-quality source; as is Hu et al. in Nature Reviews. Microbiology; and Hakim in Rev Med Virol. (who explicitly devotes to it, "2.3. Current evidence supports the natural emergence of SARS‐CoV‐2") The WHO report is also a good source, and they say the same thing as all of these high quality MEDRS papers. There are additional sources in this article and others to support this.
• No. 4  No, again This information is already included in Investigations into the origins of COVID-19 - this article is supposed to be a summary, we should not cover every minor fringe theory. Cherry-picking the Hakim paper is also very unacceptable. He spends a whole section on the "lab leak", before concluding "Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory. Yet, it is difficult and time‐consuming to rule out the laboratories as the original source completely. It is highly unlikely that SARS‐CoV‐2 was accidentally released from a laboratory since no direct ancestral virus is identified in the current database."...
• No. 5  No Same issue about this being the main article as no. 4. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I'm immediately highly skeptical of any claim which is sourced primarily with tweets (suggestion #3). Similar to how WP:DUE says that If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, if something is worth mentioning on this article (particularly because it's the summary of another article that can get into the fine details) it should be easy to provide a higher quality source than a twitter thread. This also makes it difficult to WP:AGF, because it is easily interpreted as WP:PUSH. Particularly after complaining about ANIs on the topic, I was hoping for behavior that would be harder to interpret as the core issues brought up in the referenced ANI (MEDPOP, BLUDGEON, SYNTH). This behavior is more compatible with WP:IDHT (Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time-wasting), and I recommend re-reading and incorporating these policies in order to make recommendations which are more likely to be taken seriously. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

About item 3 - Natural origins represents scientific consensus and deserves Wikivoice, I have the following comments. First, origin has been used too broadly in all sources (pro and anti lab leak): it should refer only to virus appearing in the natural reservoir instead of being manufactured from scratch; the evolution is the correct term to refer to the pathway followed by the virus from reservoir to index case, which can be natural or manipulated; The best sources (Cell, Science, Nature) are very careful to talk about natural origin and evolution, or natural origin and artificial recombination to avoid the ambiguity of the word origin. Precision can be achieved if we talk about emergence to encompass all aspects of origin (reservoir, intermediate host, index case, spillover event), origin of the initial outbreak to refer to the spillover event, origin of the virus to refer to the reservoir being an animal.

Second, scientists should communicate the degree of certainty of their findings calibrating it by the use of two metrics: i) confidence in the validity; ii) quantified measures of certainty in a finding expressed probabilistically. The level of agreement that scientists reach, by itself, is not a precise way of communicating the robustness of a result. Figure 1 on page 3 of this guideline (from climate change experts) depicts all possible combinations of confidence and strength of evidence. The phrase "Scientific consensus is that SARS-CoV-2 is of natural origin and evolution" indeed holds high agreement, but it does so with limited evidence, which correspond to cell 1 in the figure, with medium overall confidence about it. Full confidence only comes for results with high agreement and robust evidence (upper right part of the figure). What many people can find misleading about using taxatively the scientific consensus in the SARS-CoV-2 case is that a reader will not get the nuance part of the evidence being limited, and the confidence being medium. This is an important distinction that perhaps we can propose to implement at the talk page of our Wikilaws concerning communication of scientific results. Forich ( talk) 19:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Unless there's a source which explicitly says "medium confidence" regarding COVID, any such mention would be SYNTH. We can say that there is a lack of certainty (that's already partially included with stuff like "remain in need of further investigation" [which is already in, cited to the Hu paper], but maybe we can make more explicit that the intermediary host issue is not settled), but we shouldn't do so based on our own analysis. We need to have appropriate sources which say so. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording in Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 would be a good guide? It makes the link and rationale more explicit.

Bats are considered the most likely natural reservoir of SARS‑CoV‑2, ^{[31] [32]} but differences between the bat coronavirus and SARS‑CoV‑2 suggest that humans were infected via an intermediate host. ^[33]

Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Bakkster Man: I see Forich explained some of the nuances of my third point better than I did. My comment re natural setting as confusing and my suggestion to remove the Andersen paper is because his findings don’t rule out the possibility that the virus was a product of gain of function research, which involves the acceleration of a natural process, as explained by Dr Rakestraw in this RS from yesterday [76]. There are many more recent RSs on that subject, and MEDRS too [77] [78]. The most reputable scientist to make this point is Ralph Baric who explained in an interview with RAI that we wouldn’t be able to tell if the virus was of lab origins as GoFR does not leave signs in the way synthetic virology methods do [79] [80]. To comprehend this, a basic understanding of biotechnology is needed, which I am glad to share with you and other editors here.

If the intent of including Andersen’s paper is to assure our readers that the virus isn’t a product of synthetic virology, then I’d have you know that with the current state of such technology, we can perhaps build only seven to eight nucleotides of a genome like SARS-COV-2 - which has around 30,000 - so obviously this isn't even close to being a possibility, and hasn’t been suggested by anyone notable, so giving prominence to invalidating it is undue. Keim, Cotton, Trump and Redford didn’t suggest this form of lab origin, but they did suggest a different form, which is due, in correct detail. Some of the Twitter links above may not be good for referencing in the article, but can broaden your knowledge of the subject and lift the level of our dialogue, enabling us to make better editorial decisions.

Please continue to WP:AGF and work with us on this suggestion. There were also four other suggestions I made. Any comments on those? CutePeach ( talk) 15:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@ CutePeach: I am WP:AGF, WP:IDHT can apply to editors acting in good faith. Please do us a favor and skip the 'here's a bunch of tweets' step, and simply share the underlying WP:RS (and, even better, a relevant quote or section to begin looking) to minimize the frustration and effort level of others. I strongly disagree that twitter threads 'lift the level of dialogue', especially if provided devoid of the WP:RS we could actually use.

RandomCanadian's feedback mostly covers my overall thoughts.

While Redfield certainly appeared to be referring to gain of function, Tom Cotton was reported as referencing the COVID bioweapon conspiracy. Just out of curiosity, regarding Redfield's suggestion that gain of function made the most sense because the virus was so well adapted to humans, what would be the explanation that the gain of function activities wouldn't have produced the D614G or N501Y mutations, which have evolved independently multiple times and appear to be primary adaptations for human spread? I figure turnabout is fair play if we're performing some external analysis to determine which sources are credible and which are not (not that I think this isn't WP:NOR, but I suspect you must have a reason to think that makes sense in context). Bakkster Man ( talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Bakkster Man: before agreeing with them, please check RandomCanadian’s claim that the text in Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Scientific_consensus_on_origins presents strong evidence against my suggestion to remove unsubstantiated relation between SARS-CoV-2 and Pangolin CoVs.

Regarding Tom Cotton, he did not claim that the virus was a bioweapon, which he set straight here [81]. None of the statements from Keim, Cotton, Trump or Redford claimed the virus was a bioweapon or that it was created with particular synthetic virology methods, which is why the Andersen paper and its rebuttals of said methods is undue. GoFR, which these notable public figures raised IRT the possible lab origin of the virus and which the Andersen paper did not address, is a dual use technology which depending on intent, will generate organisms that are either valuable indicators of spillover threats, or a potential bioweapons. None of these public figures implied any such intentionality in their public statements.

To amuse your curiosity on D614G and N501Y, these mutations likely resulted from genetic bottleneck event and/or convergent evolution of the virus as it spread in wider populations where it adapted to new hosts with different genes [82] [83]. These minute mutations likely improve the fitness of the virus for survival in human hosts and unless one could design an experiment to test for their fitness in a wide array of cell cultures or humanized mice, I don’t see how or why they would arise in lab conditions. FYI: Most speculation about the GoFRoC re SARS-CoV-2 has to do with the virus’s anomalous Furin Cleavage Site, and the fact that the WIV left it out of one of their two 01/20/2020 papers which mentions the related RaTG13 virus [84] while mentioning it in the other paper where the related virus is left out [85]. See also [86]. CutePeach ( talk) 03:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• The key point here is that WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical information only, and specifically doesnt apply to Business information, History, or Beliefs. All of these are capitalized as they are topics already carved out here: Wikipedia:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information?. While this topic tends to get really long and wind off course (I wonder if intentionally) MEDRS certainly doesn't apply to the history, or beliefs of the covid pandemic. Here is another very in-depth source on 60 minutes Australia a couple of weeks ago that interviews many of the key players and looks quite neutral to me. This type of hour-long in-depth special makes it clear that it is DUE, as a belief by some and the history of this belief. For all those who want to howl MEDRS ad-nauseam, we are discussing the historical and belief theory that the virus may or may not have originated in a lab. We are not discussing if the virus originated in the lab. Next, for those who howl Fringe, we would measure that by the sources and who believes it, and given that major mainstream media is covering it, and notable figures are quoting it, it is by definition not fringe. I suggest we make a 'history and beliefs' section of the article and start there. Trump, the WHO comments, and others are all due as part of the history of the beliefs. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 16:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

All good arguments for being WP:DUE for Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 (which it is), but being due there doesn't necessarily mean it's due here. I'll add that I only reference WP:MEDRS for determining the majority scientific opinion, which comments that are DUE but not MEDRS get discussed in the context of. Bakkster Man ( talk) 16:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 does contain some discussion of the lab leak theory. It is surprising to me that there isn't a sentence in COVID-19_pandemic#Background that summarizes that belief given that it also makes up a decent part of the sub-article (theory is mentioned repeatedly, generally as being disproven (as if it has been disproven, but that is another matter). Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 16:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that what the proposal above seeks to do? Add a summary mention of the topic? Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, why are two Chinese govt primary sources being cited in this section? These PRC govt saying they didnt do it, is by definition primary, no better than Alex Jones on twitter. That is laughable. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 17:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Would you like to propose a change? Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

'The Chinese Academy of Sciences says it came from bats through an unknown intermediate animal.' Why would we wikivoice this, unless we are saying 'The Chinese government says it came from bats through an unknown intermediate animal.' Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This kind of proposal has already been discussed and adressed. See this (and the very similar dispute I was referring to, here). In short, no, the "natural origin via bats" is not just the opinion of the Chinese. If that were the case, we'd likely have multiple sources identifying it as such. The natural origin hypothesis is the accepted one by most mainstream scientific sources, including papers which were published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals such as Nature. The lab leak is a fringe theory, whose mention here would be UNDUE. Of course that doesn't satisfy your view, but obviously the message hasn't gotten through despite it being told multiple different ways. So, last time: unless you can present adequate, WP:MEDRS sources to support that this theory is something more than unfounded FRINGE, we, like John Bercow [ here, don't care what your view is - WP:NPOV is clear that only the opinions of sources, not of editors, matter. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you either do a from/to of exactly the text and source you're looking to change, or just make a proposed edit in Proposed Rewritten "Background" Section? I'm unsure exactly which bit you're referring to, especially since we have three sources for the bat reservoir and two for the intermediary. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion #6

Note I have made the following changes. First I removed the Chinese government sources, obviously they are not RS on a subject like if originated from a Chinese lab. If we do use them, they are simply primary sources and must be attributed, aka 'The Chinese govt said they didn't do it'. Second I added a more neutral formuation to the cause. If there truly is a scientific consensus we need more than one US university and a COI lab (Chinese lab). Consensus will have a lot of secondardy MEDRS sources. To paraphrase all we have here is the Chinese say they didnt do it, a US university says the Chinese didnt do it, and some other scientists saying they are not convinced (this theory is far far from disproven) and more research is needed. It seems logic gets thrown to the wind on this article and talk page. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 13:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it's most accurate to say "only the Chinese gov't and Scripps say this", or are you suggesting we need better/more sources than the two suggested above? Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to look at either option. But if we mostly only have China saying, then it isn't Kosher. The PRC sources are clearly PRIMARY & COI sources, and we have existing policies in place to deal with them, this article doesn't get any special treatment. If we have Oxford, Harvard, Scipps, Berkeley, etc saying it, then it is a different matter. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 13:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Back to the original question, which citation is being referred to as 'the Chinese government'? That's the root WP:NPOV issue with your suggestion, and this rewrite doesn't address it. The two citations following your claim are a publication from Scripps Research Institute, and a publication from Nature Medicine (with authors from Scripps, University of Edinburgh, Columbia University, University of Sydney, and Tulane University). Neither are Chinese sources. You can't claim 'the Chinese say so' and cite someone other than the Chinese. Even if your argument is that those other authors are too dependent on Chinese sources, you can't simply make this substitution without a more reliable source than the article in Nature which gives us a good reason to refute it. If you find a reliable source, most likely that would be added as context, but doesn't override that others agreed with the claim. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

We dont need to override anything. The Nature source you are referring to cites half a dozen employees of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, starting with the second name, Ben Hu. You can also look at the Zhang source as well, same organization, its all very obvious when you mouseover of the name at the source. Are you are suggesting the Wuhan Institute of Virology can co-write a paper to respond to a leak/coverup allegation and we at wikipedia accept that as an RS? And then we write it is the scientific consensus? Not only is the source resulting in an NPOV issue, but the source is also the very definition of COI. Am I missing something here? This is by very definition a primary source, no different from publishing an opinion piece in a newspaper. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Either you're not referring to the same cited source that I am, or you've conflated this paper's authors with this paper's citations' authors. Please clarify. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, I was confused by the sources I think. I must have been looking at another source. How many total sources (excluding the Wuhan labs own sources) are there for this proposed Scientific Consenus? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

A read of the text of Suggestion #5 should make clear the sources, I'll leave that analysis (and perhaps modifying your above suggestion to match) as an exercise for you so you can self-check for any other potential confusion.

I'll also add, that the whole point of WP:MEDRS taking secondary sources is that it avoids the issue of primary source bias. The secondary source has already evaluated the quality of those primary sources when including them, and we needn't second guess them (especially when there are multiple secondary sources in agreement). Bakkster Man ( talk) 12:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, as a final nail in the coffin for the WP:FALSEBALANCE, we should not be putting the positions of mainstream science and of misinformation echo chambers (see this, sourced to NYT and MIT) as supposedly equivalent. Hence why I prefer not mentioning the lab leak directly here: we can put a statement about all conspiracy and fringe theories (IMHO DUE, due to the excessive amount of coverage it generates) without putting UNDUE weight on one of them in particular (no matter how popular it might be). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. Forich ( talk) 12:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

CLOSED

Images were separated from the infobox and moved into the article's body. WP:CLOSE as unopposed. -- AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

---

Meeting of the Italian government task force to face the coronavirus outbreak, 23 February 2020

Clockwise from top:

• Nurse treating a COVID-19 patient in an intensive care unit aboard USNS Comfort, a U.S. hospital ship
• People queuing for masks in Hong Kong
• Donated medical supplies received in the Philippines
• Burial in Iran
• Italian government task force

I think it's about time we revisit our selection of images for the collage. Most of these images are from very early in the pandemic, and I don't think they really represent the full scope of it or are as good as they could be. Ideally, the collage should incorporate various different elements of the pandemic, and I think the current one does that alright: left to right top to bottom, there's the medical aspect, the political aspect, the social aspect, the tragedy aspect, and the logistics/economic aspect. I like the top photo and bottom two photos, which are all relevant, quality, and visually engaging. The Italian task force photo is almost good, but it includes neither masks nor social distancing (it's from Feb. 2020). The Hong Kong crowd photo doesn't have social distancing either (it's from Jan. 2020), and is visually cluttered/not that engaging. The photo that used to be in that spot, File:蔡總統視導33化學兵群 02.jpg, may have been hygiene theatre but at least it was a good photo.

Could we have some additional suggestions for images that would be good to include in the collage to represent the broad scope of the pandemic, and then decide on some swaps to make? {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 19:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Good idea to look into updating this. I also agree that the three images you pointed to are strong candidates to keep. I have two thoughts on categories to include: a teleconference of an event that is generally not teleconferenced (court proceedings would be a strong example), and socially distanced COVID vaccine distribution. For the latter, here's a few wikimedia candidates. The drive through one in particular is novel enough to be somewhat unique to COVID. [87] [88] [89] [90] Preferably we would find similar photos from outside the US. Bakkster Man ( talk) 20:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, I like those Maryland photos a lot, although I agree ideally we'd want as much global representation as possible. Looking through them, I found five good ones of people receiving their vaccine shot. Any thoughts on which of these are best? 1 2 3 4 5? {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 23:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

And File:2020 12 27 primera vacunacion 3.jpg is the image used on Commons for commons:Category:COVID-19 vaccination; it's from Spain. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 23:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so after looking a bit more, here are my top three suggestions for people getting vaccines photos: File:2020 12 27 mas vacunados en la residencia mixta 1.jpg (Spain; senior citizen rather than politician), File:Alberto Fernández recibió la primera dosis de la vacuna Sputnik V.jpg (president of Argentina; smile and simple background), and File:COVID-19ワクチン（ファイザー製）の接種を行う菅義偉首相４.jpg (prime minister of Japan, also nice composition). {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 00:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

First and second show the health care providers not wearing gloves. Third is a nice clear image, and everyone is using standard precautions. We need one where all are wearing masks and gloves imho. MartinezMD ( talk) 00:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I also feel like the mass-vaccination images perhaps tell a better part of the story than an individual politician. I'm not sure if those are a predominantly US item, though. Bakkster Man ( talk) 12:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here so far, I've gone ahead and swapped out the Hong Kong photo for the Spain old people's home photo (if anyone knows Spanish, it'd be good to confirm whether "Residencia Mixta de Gijón]] is a nursing home or retirement home). It causes some misalignment because it's 4x3 whereas the Italian task force photo is not. But hopefully we'll be replacing the Italy photo next—anyone have suggestions on a government/politics COVID photo to use instead? {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 18:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I found File:Pres Duterte IATF-IED May 19 meeting.jpg, but we already have a Philippines photo, it's not super great quality, and giving Duterte photo op publicity doesn't seem ideal. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 19:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Should drop image/map spam....infobox is a scrolling nightmare in mobile view. Should follow our best examples that dont spam the infobox with junk.. Spanish flu (GA) 2009 swine flu pandemic (GA) Smallpox (GA) HIV/AIDS (GA).-- Moxy- 11:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with Moxy that image spam isn't helpful. As an interim, the HK picture could be dropped to only keep the four images which highlight the main factors. Otherwise, if we want to keep one picture and not a map I'd say go for the nurse in the ICU, which is already more prominent than the others. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we should likely be able to decide on one picture that is most representative - suggest a photo that represents the vast amount of medical struggles during the pandemic such as the first picture here, or a better one maybe that shows masks/etc. The other pictures can all be moved to the body of the article near what they are most associated with if we want to keep them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 01:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

agree w/ bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of a single photo for the reasons above. Perhaps rather than the hospital setting, an image of social/physical distancing with masks would be a more uniquely representative photo. While the hospitalizations are a major factor, social distance seems like it was the most visible to the majority of people. Bakkster Man ( talk) 12:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I could get on board with going to a single photo, as it is true that the infobox is rather long. If we do that, I'd suggest we keep the top photo; Bakkster Man, I agree that the social distancing is perhaps the most novel/signature element of the pandemic, but File:2020-03-Detalls i conseqüències del COVID-19 al País Valencià 14.jpg is our best picture AFAIK of social distancing currently, and it's just not super compelling. (There's also File:Memorial Day 2020 - San Francisco Under Quarantine (49935629483).jpg, which is featured, but which won't display well at small scale.) Moving the other photos to the body may require some rearrangement, but it should be doable with the removal of some of the less compelling photos currently there, e.g. File:How wear surgical mask ISO 7010 M016 bis (How wear surgical mask 1) up nose strip 2) down folds 3) cover chin)).jpg. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 05:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I can agree with that, the HCP in PPE remains legible as a thumbnail, and there aren't a lot of high quality social distance pictures (I found some of distanced circles painted in a park, but again hard to see small). Bakkster Man ( talk) 12:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Once you know what photos are best, could you merge them into a single image, so it's not a scrolling nightmare in mobile view? 74.98.192.38 ( talk) 20:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not the way to go; files should be separate so that clicking on them goes to full view, among many other reasons. It seems we're moving away from a collage anyways. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 22:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Done. I went ahead and removed the collage, moving the pictures into the article body. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 19:48, 7 May 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.

The small map with the percentage of infected population on the Infobox does not correspond to the image of the bigger map from 10 May 2021 when we click on the small one. 213.141.15.42 ( talk) 13:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It works for me. This may be to do with your browser showing you cached versions of the images. Perform a force-refresh (Windows and Linux browsers: CTRL + F5. Chrome and Firefox for Mac: CMD + SHIFT + R.) |→  Spaully  ^~talk~  13:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. Thank you. 213.141.15.42 ( talk) 15:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to update the info regularly and link more reliable sources. I will also maintain the grammar and spellings checks. GreatAviator ( talk) 14:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 14:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

In the Europe section of the article a comparative geographic map is shown of the European cases per 100,000 citizens. In the subtitle of the image it says The numbers are not comparable, as the testing strategy differs among countries and time periods. It seems wrong to show a map that shows non-compatible data since that is the goal of this type of map.

• It would make sense to update the map to more comparable data,
• delete the map or
• delete the comment (if the data is actually comparable). -- Lemio ( talk) 23:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done - I agree that map was out of date and not that useful. I have substituted a map of deaths per million, which is up to date to March and is more comparable and less dependent on testing regimes. |→  Spaully  ^~talk~  13:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It is currently being suggested that the virus did not come from bats and that it actually came from the lab in Wuhan, China. Maybe change the listing from likely from bats to currently under debate. 2600:1003:B46C:D0E4:0:29:C53C:3501 ( talk) 07:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ edit extended-protected}} template. ―  Qwerfjkl  (please use {{ reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 10:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Since this page includes suspected global infections using information from the World Health Organization, should it also include suspected deaths from the findings of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which shows that the true global number of deaths is closer to 6.9 million, or is this not backed up enough by other institutions to be featured on this page. The link for the data is https://covid19.healthdata.org/global and the link for the report is http://www.healthdata.org/special-analysis/estimation-excess-mortality-due-covid-19-and-scalars-reported-covid-19-deaths.

" not backed up enough by other institutions to be featured"-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Add to the article’s Oil and other energy markets secion that renewables experienced rceord growth despite the pandemic [91]. I would add it myself, but I’m editing on mobile and the editor is being too laggy. X-Editor ( talk) 19:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it just a correlation or is there actually some causal link? We don't include everything simply because it happened, it needs to be related to the subject. The Grauniad article doesn't mention any significant causal link AFAICS. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@ RandomCanadian: I’m not sure if there is a direct link. X-Editor ( talk) 05:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to COVID-19 pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Edit request: General copy-editing and addition of sources for updates. On the subsection for National responses → Asia:

• Inclusion of Singapore: Singapore ^{[1] [2]} in the sentence "Despite being the first area of the world hit by the outbreak, the early wide-scale response of some Asian states, particularly Bhutan, Taiwan and Vietnam has allowed them to fare comparatively well." Best in alphabetical order, therefore: Bhutan, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam.
• Copy-editing for the sentence regarding the situation in Japan:
  • Current: "The pandemic has had direct side effects, per a report on 28 November, in Japan. According to the report the National Police Agency indicated suicides increased to 2,153 in October. Experts state the pandemic has worsened mental health issues due to lockdowns and isolation from family members (among other issues)."
  • Copy-edit: In Japan, the pandemic has been believed to have caused direct side effects in regards to mental health. According to the report by the country's National Police Agency, suicides had increased to 2,153 in October. Experts also state that the pandemic has worsened mental health issues due to lockdowns and isolation from family members, among other issues." Thanks, 220.240.36.89 ( talk) 19:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done — TG HL ↗ 00:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The WHO has recently estimated that 6 to 8 million people have actually died of COVID-19. Should we add this estimated death count to the infobox? [92]. X-Editor ( talk) 16:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think, given the caveats, this wouldn't be the right number to add to the infobox. We'll need to wait for a more refined estimate. WHO data analyst William Msemburi said the raised estimates included both unreported COVID-19 deaths as well as indirect deaths such as patients not seeking healthcare for other conditions due to the lack of hospital capacity and restrictions on movements, among other factors. [93] Bakkster Man ( talk) 16:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Bakkster Man: Good point, but maybe the info could be added elsewhere in the article? X-Editor ( talk) 19:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably space in COVID-19 pandemic#Deaths, around the discussion of excess deaths. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

yes agree probably best...-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 22:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I created this collage of photos including worldwide situations, I think is better than just to have the american nurse in there, but I need a consensus. Hearing you people. TheBellaTwins1445 ( talk) 01:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

From left to right and top to bottom: people in Guangzhou wearing face masks; burial of COVID-19 victims in Iran; student in Mexico taking online classes from home while wearing a face mask; nurse from Italy showing his bruised face due to the long hours of wearing medical stuff as a helper of COVID-19 infected people; nurse treating a COVID-19 patient in an intensive care unit aboard USNS Comfort, a U.S. hospital ship

• What is the benefit of a collage? Collages are only useful when there's multiple images that convey extremely important information about the event and they cannot be decided between. I don't think a collage is necessary for this article - the other images can certainly be included in the body if/where appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 01:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am weakly against a collage (though definitely not in favor of one as big as the one here, maybe max 3 images). I think if we are going to use a single image, it should be similar to the top-left one presented here. If there is one lasting and representative image of this pandemic, it will be those blue surgical masks being worn by the public. I don't really like the nurse image because I think it's generic and fails to highlight the unique sights of this time in history (medical equipment and masking in a hospital is nothing special or striking). The image is too "personal"/"small scale" for this event, which affected the lives of people far, far beyond those who caught the disease and treated it. I am not opposed to having no image, either. — Goszei ( talk) 02:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment. This was the "3 image" version of the collage that was briefly in the article, for the record: [94]. Any thoughts? — Goszei ( talk) 07:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
From left to right: people in Guangzhou wearing face masks; burial of COVID-19 victims in Iran; nurse treating a COVID-19 patient in an intensive care unit aboard USNS Comfort, a U.S. hospital ship

• I agree the current image is generic. There was a previous discussion on this that decided to remove a collage. Probably decisions such as this should be added to the page consensus so that we don't continue revisiting past discussions forever. I think we should probably stick to that decision but maybe use another single image which is more representative. It needs to include masks and give a sense of scale I think. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 15:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not a fan of most of the images in this collage. The bottom (existing) and top-right images are fine, but the upper left one is cluttered, the middle left one is low-quality and uncompelling, and the middle right one is a really powerful portrait but not a good fit for the collage. Given the length of the infobox already, I'd be more willing to consider a three-image collage than this, but I'm not 100% convinced we need a collage at all. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 01:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• What about something like this -- Almaty ( talk) 14:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

The preference seemed to be to avoid a collage entirely, to improve mobile readability. Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Greetings,

Requesting article expansion support @ Draft:Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic

Thanks

Bookku ( talk) 11:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The Economist has a new article out estimating much higher excess deaths during the pandemic (7m-13m) than currently reported. Seems like something that could be included EagleBoss ( talk) 18:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

'the Economist' as a source for global deaths??-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the source. Can we] get the full article? They appear to be a secondary [95] -- Almaty ( talk) 15:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not a WP:MEDRS source. It cannot be used to support that claim. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 15:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes but this is actually a secondary source - The Economist citing the John Hopkins school of public health. It can be argued also that this is an economic claim rather than a medical claim, it is possible to put it in. WP:MEDRS is more complex than most people think. -- Almaty ( talk) 12:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Disclaimer I haven't read the full article because of paywall. -- Almaty ( talk) 12:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to provide an estimate, we should at least use the best estimate available. And that means citing something other than the Economist: either cite Johns Hopkins' calculations directly, or the Economist is WP:SYNTH and we should be careful to use a more reliable source.

The WHO has an estimate. As does the CDC for the US. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This sums up just about everything to date. https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ Charles Juvon ( talk) 01:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Already discussed multiple times at sub-pages. Wade (a "science" writer known for a book on race and intelligence) getting his controversial statements published by a non-medical journal doesn't sum up or change anything. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with RandomCanadian, the source cited does not conform to reliable sources, see WP:RS. A quick glance at WP:RSPSOURCES also does not include this source. Given these factors, I do not agree with including this source in the article. Jurisdicta ( talk) 02:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Jurisdicta: Just to clarify, inclusion or not at WP:RSP doesn't make a source unreliable (obviously reliable sources, such as Nature or Science, are not included, and obvious troll sites are not either, since they go directly to the blacklist). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists might actually be reliable for some things in its area of expertise (although even there it is not cited much [per Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists#Indexing], so not particularly inspiring), but obviously not here. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, you are right, by itself, it does not warrant exclusion. I merely included the list as examples of what is reliable and what is not. I should have clarified why I included that point. 力 also makes a strong point which is more focused on the germanane issue and I appreciate their contribution. Jurisdicta ( talk) 14:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with everyone above. The Bulletin is a well-known publication with a good reputation, and suggestions it should be dismissed as "unreliable" for all subjects are flailing to keep anything they feel is "pro-lab-leak" out of Wikipedia. That said, it does fail WP:MEDRS spectacularly. In assessing coverage of genomic analysis of the COVID virus, it is remarkable how non-scientific persons make bold claims that there is genomic "proof" there was a lab leak, people with some scientific training make tentative claims suggesting it might suggest evolution in a lab, and virology experts almost universally agree that there is no good genomic evidence for a lab-based origin. This is why we have MEDRS - popular coverage of scientific topics (especially medical ones) is often very low-quality, even in otherwise-reliable sources. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

力, I wanted to write this comment basically but you did it better than I ever could have. I agree - it's not unreliable in general, but the mere fact that this was published doesn't change the scientific consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 04:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it is now obvious the lab leak theory is now clearly WP:DUE, and not due as a 'conspiracy theory'. NYMag "COVID-19 MAY 14, 2021, The COVID Lab-Leak Hypothesis Just Got a Big Credibility Boost, By Chas Danner. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 13:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

You're essentially using a MEDPOP source which argues that an open letter (i.e. science by press conference) changes something. Entirely ignoring the discussions about it at other talk pages... Entirely ignoring our policies about MEDRS. Entirely ignoring what you have been told multiple times. Stop ignoring and start listening. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Include This source is reliable in my opinion and I think the scientific consensus is shifting somewhat. Also: I don't think WP:MEDRS applies to this topic as the origin of the virus falls under the "general information" category and is not a biomedical claim (see Wikipedia:Biomedical information). Basic WP:RS should suffice and this is one of them. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 08:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  No it isn't "general information", it's information which is important in preventing a future outbreak. See the extremely thorough refutation of using poor sources at the bottom of this discussion. Even if we were not to apply MEDRS, then WP:BESTSOURCES brings us to the same point: use the actual papers by the scientists, not exaggerated reports of science by press conference. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 12:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  It is not considered biomedical information according to the policy above. Papers are fine of course if we have them (single papers are not WP:MEDRS compliant, only reviews etc.) however I'm not sure this is something you will find in a paper, but rather in an investigative report (and probably published in the press or by the WHO/Governments). For example: the fact this virus passed directly from a bat to a human, or came from a bat virus stored in a lab and infected an employee there cannot be determined through "scientific" means. The virus would be identical. The way it managed to spillover changes and that is something only an investigation would discover. It's not something that necessarily ends up in a paper. This source is a WP:RS and should be used. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 15:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  There is a previous discussion that reached the consensus that a potential lab leak should not be mentioned [96]. I don't think the fact this information should not require WP:MEDRS sources has been discussed however. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 16:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Whether there is a de-facto or not requirement for MEDRS (there is: this is still a matter of science, it's not something "historical", so we still should stick to the scientific sources), WP:BESTSOURCES leads us to use MEDRS anyway. That discussion explicitly mentioned MEDRS, and the consensus hasn't changed, i.e. the lab leak is still so WP:FRINGE that any specific mention of it here would be WP:UNDUE. The lab leak is a "possibility", which so far has no direct evidence and very little in the way of circumstantial evidence, according to the best (MEDRS) sources. We don't mention it here, since this is a big-picture overview and since the topic can be better covered at other sub-pages. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  WP:MEDRS does not relate to "science" but to biomedical claims alone. Please review it fully before editing medical pages as it is very important to understand the difference between the WP:RS standard and WP:MEDRS used only in medical topics. In a nutshell: Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies.. Single papers (even if from WP:RS) are not sufficient for biomedical claims. This is not a biomedical claim so a WP:RS is sufficient. In this case some are disputing this is a RS. But MEDRS has nothing to do with this general (not medical) claim. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 16:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  What claim? The article is full of biomedical ones (as you'd expect from a piece which boasts "By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses"). This is a really weak source but may be okay for some veyr weak/mundane claim. So what claim are is being proposed for inclusion? Alexbrn ( talk) 16:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  I was mostly commenting on the source which I think is reputable. The claim is that a lab-leak is a realistic possibility. Probably should be used here: Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 rather than on this page (where I think the virus origin is accurately described as unknown). Such a claim is not covered by WP:MEDRS from my understanding. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 08:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• This source appears to be a journalistic opinion piece (is it peer-reviewed?) in a bottom-of-the-barrel journal. Probably not reliable for anything scientific, let along something controversial in the realm of bioscience when we a handful of top-tier sources. Proponents aren't even saying when they think it's reliable for. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what it is, republished from the self-pub on Medium, with an author who is problematic has past writings widely disputed by scientists in the field. I agree with the view that it's basically WP:MEDPOP. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about the Bulletin. But I do take issue with Nicholas Wade being described as "a 'science' writer" with scare-quotes around "science" and as broadly "problematic"—these seem to be smears, blatant WP:BLP violations, and totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Not until Wade waded into the fevered swamp of race did he become "controversial", and this was clearly for political more than scientific reasons, beginning with Before the Dawn (book). Wade was the staff writer for the NYT Science Times for 30 years, former editor of both Nature and Science, and has impeccable credentials—and is one of the preeminent science writers. Enough with the smears, please—they're politically puerile and fall far below encyclopedic standards. Elle Kpyros ( talk) 03:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

A journalist (not a scientist) writing uncritically about a FRINGE position (republishing an originally self-published piece) in a non-topic related journal is not a credible reliable source for our concerns. So, yes, he is "controversial" and "problematic", and we're perfectly allowed (in fact, we need to, per WP:SPS) to evaluate the credibility of authors, especially when it concerns self-published sources. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I updated my wording above to be more specific, but stand by my analysis of the unreliability of the article. Whether written by Wade or someone else, it remains a former WP:SELFPUB picked up by a publisher outside the field of study and wasn't peer reviewed. It's not a WP:RS. Given all the attention on the COVID articles over open letters with around a dozen scientists signing on, the author having an open letter where over 100 scientists said he misrepresented their research should be an additional WP:REDFLAG to a source that arguably already isn't reliable enough to include. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If it is possible, I would like to modestly put several points in perspective:(1) The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is dealing with biosecurity issues for years. If one recognizes that, that is a first point;(2) Wade's publication is published under this category, so a priori with the same rigor if one recognizes the previous point; (3) The reprinting of Wade's article, originally in Medium, can therefore be considered as recognition of Wade's article in this field, by the biosecurity experts of the Bulletin; (4) In addition to the Bulletin's expertise, Wade's expertise as a science reporter for the New York Times is also recognized. So, to say that the source is not "unreliable" or "peer-reviewed" seems to have to be weighed, at least in the sense that (a) the Bulletin has recognized expertise on biosecurity, (b) the editorial board has agreed to republish Wade's text, so the editorial board has accepted it in its original form (c) bulletin, with its editorial choices, remains a journal hosted by Taylor & Francis CyberDiderot ( talk) 16:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC).

To clarify again, my concerns of credibility are not the root issue. No matter how credible the author, the source wouldn't be strong enough to cite for the reasons it's being suggested we cite it. I'm merely adding that he's not so dependable/reliable/credible as to have an argument that we make an exception to WP:PAGs in order to include it.

If you can confirm that the article was peer reviewed before republishing, then we can have the discussion that it meets our guidelines for being a strong source. If not, then we're left with the article being one of the weaker sources available describing this minority viewpoint. And a plethora of weak sources doesn't increase WPDUE weight. Bakkster Man ( talk) 17:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please join this broad discussion on how we discuss and explain COVID origins. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/wuhan-lab-staff-sought-hospital-care-before-covid-19-outbreak-disclosed-wsj-2021-05-23/

205.175.106.86 ( talk) 23:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC) |}

• current discussion Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information give opinion please-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 21:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The statement in the lede: "It has led to widespread supply shortages exacerbated by panic buying, agricultural disruption, and food shortages. " seems grossly overstated. It has been a remarkable feature of this pandemic that the food supply chain has continued to work very well. I don't recognise the reference to "agricultural disruption" at all. Panic buying has not been a major issue. There have been localised shortages of medical equipment and supplies (ventilators, PPE, oxygen). But the sentence as written gives entirely the wrong impression. Mhkay ( talk) 17:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

thank you for posting and bringing this issue up-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree that this could use an update. I suspect this text remains mostly unchanged since the initial wave of restrictions. Probably need to better distinguish between localized short-term shortages in food diversity (grocery stores selling out of beans/rice/cereal/milk/bread prior to government restrictions going into effect) and long-term increases in global food insecurity where the problem is access to basic nutrition (compare reports from 2021 to warnings from early 2020). We should be clear about the impacts to wealthy and impoverished communities to avoid being to focused on the perspective of editors (more likely food diversity than food insecurity). Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)