Talk:Origin of COVID-19/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

The wording for the WHO-China joint report

In the "Laboratory incident" section, I've reworded this sentence:

A final scenario, considered unlikely by most experts, and "extremely unlikely" by the World Health Organization...

as follows:

A final scenario, considered unlikely by most experts, and "extremely unlikely" by a joint report by WHO and China...

Yet the change was reverted.

I would suggest to use my wording, and not just "WHO".

We must indicate that the report was authored (in part) by Chinese authorities.

Firstly, because it's true. As per the report itself, it is a joint report by WHO and China, not just a WHO report.

Secondly, because there is an obvious conflict of interest here. As many sources mentioned on this page indicate, the Chinese gov is actively working on suppressing the idea that the virus escaped from a Chinese lab. Thus, we must be especially careful while using sources that are directly connected to the Chinese gov.

Calling it a "WHO report" would indicate that the report is a neutral source, which is misleading.

But (correctly) calling it a "joint report by WHO and China" would indicate a possible conflict of interest, which is the reality of the situation.

BTW, judging by the List of laboratory biosecurity incidents, such incidents happen on average every 3 (!) years (and every 6 months in the past 10 years). If some report calls such an incident "extremely unlikely", it is a strong indication that the report is biased. Compare: "A report XYZ says that a sunrise in the next 24 hours is extremely unlikely".

--Thereisnous (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Here are several reasons why:

1. The final report did not have input from the Chinese government, which is what is heavily heavily implied by that wording. The report was commissioned by the WHA and written by WHO affiliates, with input from Chinese scientists (as well as other countries, but to be fair mostly Chinese scientists). Chinese scientists collaborated on the study that forms the bulk of the evidence cited in the report. A fair depiction of the COI means explaining all of that. Why would you want to obscure that fact? We cannot make it sound like CCP officials had oversight or editing authority on the final report, because that was not the case.

2. Did Chinese people collaborate on the study? Yes! And it's important to reference that. Because that is a fair COI criticism, that we need more international involvement and unaffiliated involvement. Totally agree with you there. But I disagree that it's fair to call this report "authored but the Chinese government." Chinese scientists collaborated on the study. This is patently evident in the fact that the report is written grammatically from the point of view of "The WHO team." In the acknowledgments, each paragraph starts "WHO wishes to thank..." You can also tell because the Chinese scientists are cited in the acknowledgments, but not the authors of the report.

3. It isn't how reliable secondary sources refer to it. When the heads of state of a bunch of different countries criticized the report, they did so in reference to "the WHO convened study in China." Here are several other secondary sources on how people discuss and refer to this report which demonstrate it is "WHO-convened" and operated in collaboration with China, which hosted the international team of visitors hand-picked by the WHO. Chinese scientists helped gather the data, helped author parts of the report, but the final say was from the WHO team.

Sources

--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Btw, not to get into a protracted discussion on lab leaks, but your wording in those statements is also misleading. It's also an example of the Gambler's fallacy. Only some of those accidents resulted in human infections, and extremely extremely few actually result in outbreaks of disease in the general population. It would be more fair to ask "How often does a lab leak result in a general public outbreak?" and even then, it's not as relevant to say "What is the probability that this occurs, regardless of place, context, or time?" the more accurate question is "What is the probability this occurred in China in late 2019 in this lab with this virus, causing this outbreak?" It's akin to the difference between "what's the probability of someone winning the lottery?" (extremely high) versus "what's the probability of you, in particular, Thereisnous, winning the lottery?" (much lower).--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Shibbolet's point, but I note that even if he were wrong, persistently referring to the report using "joint WHO-China report" is needlessly verbose and repetitive. The report, how it came to be, the actors involved, ... is already described in plenty of details. There are also plenty of sources, some of which I think have already been linked, which use simply "WHO report" or "WHO [something]". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The report's acknowledgements are written by the WHO as an individual entity. That section also says that David W. FitzSimons edited the document. A google search with his name shows that he worked with the "External relations and Governance" Division of the WHO. In the "Methods of work" section, the report says "The final report describes the methods and results as presented by the Chinese team’s researchers. The findings are based on the information exchanged among the joint team, the extensive work undertaken in China in response to requests from the international team, including re-analysis or additional analysis of collected information, review of national and local governmental reports, discussions on control and prevention measures with national and local experts and response teams, and observations made and insights gained during site visits." So, it is a complex authorship structure in which the heavy work was done by the Chinese team's researchers, followed by observations and comments from the international team (we can't tell whether these observations were minor or major), followed by a formal editing and publishing, and posting as official position, on behalf of the WHO as an individual entity. In sum, I vote to use WHO-convened study in the first ocurrence followed by the use of the abreviatted WHO report or WHO study in all subsequent uses. Forich (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

'Joint WHO-China' report is its official name, other than being the most accurate and providing context. Not mentioning is highly inaccurate and misleading. Eccekevin (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this is the official name and should be used. Which it is, currently, four times in the article. My only suggestion would be to reference it once near the top the World Health Organization section, which it used to be prior to recent rewrites giving more background to the process behind the report (a worthwhile addition, IMO, which also aims to address this topic of China's involvement). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - I also agree that the official name, "Joint WHO-China" report, be presented - maybe a first-time "Joint WHO-China" (WHO-CH) report - and just "WHO-CH" report for all relevant instances afterwards (to help avoid being too "verbose and repetitive" as suggested earlier)? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait! Did I miss something? Since when is there a WHO-Switzerland report on this? Humour aside, no need for either abbreviations or repetition. Many sources refer to the report as the WHO report, and we should strive to use language which will be familiar to our readers and which is not needlessly verbose- especially given the presence of a complex enough section on the actual science, already. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Even on the WHO website[[1]], it is referred to as the "Joint WHO-China study". I'm not sure why this would be controversial with other editors. Strong agree with referring to this report using similar language. Further, any time this report is used as a source it must be specified so that the reader is well aware.KristinaLu (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, please check out the very detailed section of evidence and argument we have about this exact thing on this very talk page over here. This is a lot more complicated than simply one cursory mention on the WHO site. They also refer to it as the "WHO-convened global study" in several places. It is not so simple.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

WHO-China report as a source

There are many sources that call this source into question. It should be avoided as a source whenever possible.KristinaLu (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Care should be taken when using this source for contentious claims and the source should be named in the passage eg. "According to the WHO-convened study..."KristinaLu (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It's WP:MEDRS. There really isn't anything to discuss here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's the first sentence of WP:MEDRS:

"Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge."

The WHO-China report doesn't accurately reflect current knowledge. That's why the letter to Science is relevant.KristinaLu (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, I should clarify my use of "whenever possible". Where the report makes non-contentious claims I see no issue whatsoever in using it as a secondary source. It should be pointed out however that the WHO-convened study is a primary source as well as a secondary one, we can see this in the "ANIMAL AND ENVIRONMENT STUDIES" portion where they have "Methods" and "Results" sections. It is not so simple as a literature review in how it needs to be handled here.KristinaLu (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you're over-complicating this. One of the three types of MEDRS acceptable sources is medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies. Official reports by the WHO easily qualify. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The letter published in Science should suffice as evidence that the WHO-China should not be used as other sources are.[[2]]KristinaLu (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Letters to the editor are not a very reliable source. I'd say it ranks pretty low on the totem pole. No peer review, and similar to a newspaper opinion piece. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the point where a sensible user would think, "Oh! It seems that I, with my handful of edits spread over the last two years, am not familiar enough with how to judge if something is a reliable source or not! It seems that I routinely mistake reliable sources for unreliable ones and vice versa! I should be more modest to better fit my rookie status!"

Can't we add big, fiery letters to the top of every lab leak Talk page which say: "before you post here, be aware that you are probably on the low end of experience with medical and scientific sources and the sources you suggest are very likely crap, while the sources you want to reject, which are used in the article, have very likely already been vetted and are immaculate. If you search the archives of the Talk page, you will very likely find several discussions about the very subject you want to talk about" or something like that? WP:RANDY has been relevant to this subject for months now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:One could have experience with both reliable sources and scientific sources through, say, both graduate school and employment in labs working with pathogens. I would refer you to WP:NPA, but I'm not particularly insulted by someone calling me a "Wikipedia rookie".KristinaLu (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:Perhaps I can't speak as a veteran Wikipedia editor, but in an academic setting, if a substantial number of experts have derided or criticized a particular source, one should question whether or not to use said source or at the very least name the source/authors whenever it is used. The mere fact that the source in question is for example published in a prestigious journal or funded by a major organization or even that it is a secondary source doesn't make it "immaculate". I would expect this convention to pertain to science related articles here as well.KristinaLu (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@KristinaLu: Perhaps the issue is with limited experience with the policies and guidelines the encyclopedia is based on (WP:PAG). Of particular note reading between the lines: WP:NOR and WP:COI. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, from one academician to another, I feel it is my duty to tell you that the gulf between what Wikipedia expects of its content and what academia expects is very large indeed.

There are parts of academic science which A) are better at this than wiki and parts which are B) much worse. There are very opinionated scientists and very neutral ones. There are scientists who write inflammatory subject matter reviews which would never work here. And there are ones who are much more careful than the best wiki editors at citing their sources.

But, overall, in both academic science and Wikipedia, the ultimate result is more than the sum of its parts. The peer-review process takes these inflammatory reviews and pours cold water on them. In areas of science described as "Hatfield and McCoy" feuds, continual back and forth from different camps in review articles and primary research will eventually give way to one or the other "view" of the field. As Max Planck said, science advances one funeral at a time.

Wikipedia, though, does have some assets that make it even better than academic science at its chosen goal. Scientific review articles aren't beholden to any policies like WP:DUE or WP:MEDRS, not formally anyway. That's something I really like about this place, and something it took me a really long time editing to understand. There's still a lot about it that I do not understand.

What is often told to PhD graduates at their defense? That old Socrates-ism? "What I have learned most is how much I do not know."

The same is true here. You, like me, may be an expert in your corner of science. You may be the world's foremost expert on solid state physics and its applications to Quantum computing for all I know. But here on wiki, humility is really important. Respect that you may be an expert in your field, but you are not an expert in how Wikipedia works.

My other suggestion would be to make policy-based arguments with evidence drawn from a combination of the policies themselves, the Reliable Sources in question, and examples drawn from other wiki articles. Arguments about your own knowledge of science, or, more pointedly, arguments drawn from conspiracy theorists like Deigin or Sirotkin....will not go very far around here.

I would tell you the best piece of advice I have ever learned is "figure out the precedent." Check out the extremely long and detailed archives of this talk page. You may find that the sources you've referenced, or the arguments you've made, have been made before. Read the gold standard WP:PAG like WP:NPOV (especially WP:DUE and WP:RSUW), WP:AGF, WP:MEDRS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:V.

None of the above is to say that I have figured any of this out, but more to tell you that we are all still learning, and humility is key.

We need as many content experts as we can get, but they are not the only thing worth keeping around here. And being a content expert alone will not get you very far in terms of arguments. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Your personal view that Deigin and Sirotkin are conspiracy theorists is WP:OR and should not guide your or anyone else's edits here. I also wonder if you consider Ralph S. Baric or Robert R. Redfield to be "conspiracy theorists"?

Also, thanks for bringing up peer-review. As the joint WHO-China study is never went through the peer-review process, this should be considered as well.KristinaLu (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, if I were you, I would read WP:STOPDIGGING. I am trying to help you, not engage in battlegrounding.

Many others have described these two as conspiracy theorists, it isn't just my opinion. For example: Angela Rasmussen [3] [4]

Also helps to know that Dan Sirotkin's highest qualification for knowing anything about science or medicine is that he was a janitor in a prison hospital for 4 months. Seriously, that's it. [5] Karl Sirotkin (his dad) used to be a big name in bioinformatics.

All of which to say, no I am not alone in thinking these two are conspiracy theorists. I'm not trying to say it in wiki-voice, mind you. And I don't think these two are even notable enough to be included anywhere on wiki. But my advice to you is not meant to start an argument. It's meant to show you how your arguments can be more effective.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Rasmussen calls anyone who entertains the lab leak hypothesis a conspiracy theorist. On this issue she's a staunch advocate of a particular position and invoking her is an argument from authority. Contrast her to someone like Carl Zimmer who has maintained strict neutrality in his reporting and recognizes that no scientific consensus exists and has reported out evidence that favors zoonotic origin and evidence that favors lab leak origin. I read a lot of virologists on twitter and the views are a lot more varied than this article currently implies. (At the same time, I understand how WP works and that the article has to be based on RS, whether the RS reflect reality or not.) -- Jibal (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

So, there are three "particular positions": pro-lab-leak, anti-lab-leak, and fence sitting. You yourself are a "staunch advocate of" the particular position of fence-sitting, and by your own reasoning, invoking anyone who thinks like you would be "an argument from authority".

Back in the real world, when people quote a scientist's reasoning, you cannot turn that reasoning into "an argument from authority" by pointing out that that scientist has a point of view. The Spock model of science where everybody except fence-sitters has to stay outside is naive and far from the real world of science where you look at the soundness of the reasoning instead of labelling and dismissing people depending on their position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The argument from authority wasn't about Rasmussen's position on the hypotheses, it was about her labeling people as conspiracy theorists. "you look at the soundness of the reasoning instead of labelling and dismissing people depending on their position" -- exactly. As for your three particular positions, that's absurd--there is a range of levels of confidence about the zoonotic and lab leak hypotheses; all scientists are "fence sitters" to some degree or another, even if they are 99.999% positive of something. BTW, I respect and appreciate your efforts here at WP and agree with the vast majority of your positions, but I think your comment here is a misfire. I won't comment about this further. -- Jibal (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Your claim that invoking Rasmussen is an argument from authority still does not work. We quote people saying things all the time on Wikipedia, and suddenly we can't because...? There is a gaping hole in the justification.

all scientists are "fence sitters" to some degree or another, even if they are 99.999% positive of something That is exactly the Spock dogma I mean. Spock dogmatists have real difficulties to step out of it and see agnosticism as just one of several positions instead of the only right way. This is not the place for such a discussion, but you are trying to impose a specific position (a pretty broad one, but still) on all scientists and to exclude those from the scientist status who are different. As far as I know, dogmatic agnosticism is not found in any writings of philosophers of science, only in those of amateurs like Charles Fort who want to paint people who disagree with them as closed-minded. Just stop it. Science is defined by how you do it, not by what your opinion is or is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

More misfires, and these are hostile, aggressive, misrepresentative, fallacious, and rude, and are totally wasted on me. I won't tell you to stop it because I know you won't, but these personal criticisms are out of place. Over and out. -- Jibal (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• An official report from a government agency based on a large international investigation is exactly the source that we need. You have not provided a policy-based reason for removing the WHO report, and in fact your sole reason appears to be that some other, non-peer-reviewed sources have disagreed with it. But these sources appear to be calling for more investigation. They do not appear to be directly contradicting the report. You have provided no evidence to indicate that the report is unreliable. You have not even demonstrated that you have sources that directly contradict it. Our rules and policies on sourcing say that the WHO Report is the highest quality, or one of the highest quality sources available. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Is it possible the WHO report is unreliable and/or out of date? Possibly. But the only source put forward to back that claim so far is... an opinion letter. Such a farcical claim doesn't help build credibility. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Especially given how many other sources we have that are A) more current than both the letter and the report and B) confirm the assessment of the report.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The joint WHO-China report never went through peer-review. Environmeltal Chemistry Letters on the other is peer-reviewed:

"Content published in this journal is peer reviewed (Single Blind)."[[6]]KristinaLu (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Science, but all letters are also peer-reviewed in Nature:

"The following types of contribution to Nature Portfolio journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Matters Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Resources, Reviews, Perspectives and Insight articles."[[7]]

This appears to be the convention.KristinaLu (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, I think you may be confusing "Letters" and "Letters to the Editor."

These are two different things. At Nature letters to the editor are actually called a "Correspondence." See their instructions for authors: [8] However, a letter to the editor about the need for further investigation, etc. would probably be instead solicited as a "Commentary." Also not peer reviewed, but more about topical disagreements about X, Y, or Z current event. Plus Correspondence can only have up to 6 authors I believe.

As for the other sources you've indicated, they are not reliable for questions about this content. See the other arguments made against those sources elsewhere on this talk page. It does not help you sway consensus towards your view if you just leave those unanswered and choose to ignore them. See WP:1AM.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hyperion35:

1) I never meant to say that the WHO-convened report be removed as a source altogether. If I gave that impression I apologize for the miscommunication. English is not always easy for me, especially when I'm tired. What we have in the joint WHO-China study is a non-peer-reviewed source that has undergone significant criticism by notable experts. The WHO-convened report is not exactly a secondary source either, as we can see where they have there own "Methods" and "Results" sections.

2) As to the veracity of the letter to Science to provide context for reliability of the WHO-China study: Some "Letters" in Science are peer-reviewed, according to their website. Whether or not this source was peer-reviewed appears to be an open question on this talk page. We can see however that Ralph S. Baric is one of the authors, and we of course know that Science is one of the world's top journals. Here is a secondary source in Nature documenting criticism of the WHO-Convened source [[9]]

3) The Segreto et al source[[10]] in Env Chem Lett is definitely peer-reviewed.[[11]] I am adding this source to show that the Science letter is not the only evidence suggesting that the WHO-convened report has problems. We also have this[[12]] published in the PNAS saying WHO-led efforts have been "cloaked in secrecy".

4) Surely the public statements by virologists Ralph S. Baric, David Baltimore and Robert R. Redfield (as well as microbiologist and medical professor David Relman [[13]]) need to be taken into consideration as to whether every single word in the joint WHO-China study be taken as gospel in this article. At the very least, I am arguing that whenever we have a claim which is argued by such experts that we a) source said claim in text specifically to the "WHO-convened report" and b) note the controversy as per WP:DUE. @Bakkster Man:I would like your take (as well as anyone else who wants to reply) on this last point as I am not particularly well-versed in the many WP:PAG.

Following advice from Shibbolethink as per WP:1AM and pinging @CutePeach: @My very best wishes: @Thucydides411: @Terjen: @Forich: @力: @Pkeets: to see where other editors stand how the WHO-convened report should be handled as a source. The last thing I would want to do is argue for the sake of my own ego if there truly was a consensus against me.KristinaLu (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a WP:CANVAS violation to ping selectively. my suggestion would be to ping everyone who has posted here or edited the article in the last 3 days or so. thanks.

EDIT: notifying every unpinged user who has contributed to this talk page and article in the last 72 hours: @Novem Linguae:, @Hyperion35:, @Hemiauchenia:, @ProcrastinatingReader:, @NightHeron:, @Adoring nanny:, @Thepigdog:, @Hob Gadling:, @HighInBC:, @Davemck:--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC) (Edited 12:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC) & 23:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC))

Please note I am only involved in this page in an administrative capacity. Please do not include me in the content dispute. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS applies to "intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" so it doesn't apply here. I will look to page history for another couple editors to ping, thanks for the suggestion.KristinaLu (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused what the question is. The report generally shouldn't be used as an inline citation because it's a primary source, but if other RS discuss it then it should be mentioned as those sources portray it. If this is about whether to call it the "WHO report" or the "WHO-China report" then I think it would be better to look towards the RS (ideally peer-reviewed journals, and if that's unavailable then long-style news reporting from HQRS) and call it whatever they do? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, Re: how to refer to the report, we already have that discussion. I would like to emphasize that, to the best of my knowledge, we do not cite the report in this article other than as a statement for how experts think about X thing (per MEDRS, and for uncontroversial statements which are also cited with other secondary sources.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

So what's the question in this section? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, honestly unclear. I think this is a 10 minutes hate on the report. And I guess KristinaLu wants us to talk about the criticisms of the report every time we mention it or cite it. Which, imo, would be undue.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue with these discussions is that they're very unfocused and keep rehashing the same settled issues, such as the Segretto paper. It becomes very difficult to extract what specific issue is being discussed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, Agreed. I am sometimes guilty of making this worse, as are many on this page, by discussing the topic instead of the article. I guess that often happens in contentious articles. As in all things, it's a work in progress. However, I have often wondered if an FAQ would help, as is sometimes seen on other heavily trafficked pages. But I also don't want to go too deep into that, as I'm quite sure it would be a long and drawn out and horribly convoluted discussion that would repeatedly get off track. Maybe it's worth it to avoid having as many of these discussions in the future. We also should just more frequently point to talk page archives when discussions are repeated. I think that would help.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

A "Current Consensus" list, such as at Talk:Donald Trump or Talk:COVID-19, would be appropriate for the entire "Origins of COVID-19" I think. I've usually been critical about these lists, but these issues are split across so many talk pages and noticeboards and keep being rehashed that I think such a list would really help with institutional memory and dialing down the repetitiveness. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I started Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus). Feel free to add & improve it if it might be a useful concept. I don't have a list on hand of every disagreement but I found a couple major issues/discussions and added. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, Definitely! Like it so far, and will add more as I am able.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I have multiple concerns about the WHO-China report. The greatest is that raw data were not given to the international team,[14] and China has made it clear that raw data related to the origin of COVID-19 are to be treated like "a game of chess".[15] That's not an appropriate attitude for science. However, the issue is unlikely to be decided on this page. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and made sure that every place we have the report cited, it's either an extremely uncontroversial statement (e.g. which scientists were on the investigative team) or we have multiple other secondary sources to back up the claim. Does that resolve this?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

No, but it's still an appropriate step to take, so thanks. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, Happy to help. What other specific unresolved concerns do you have? --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Wikipedia policies are not set up to handle a situation where the official opinion of a body like the WHO is based in part on data provided by someone who is playing games. Furthermore, the report itself shows no recognition of that fact. They did note that some data were not provided, but they didn't look at the big picture of why not. A scientist should be concerned with the integrity of their data, correct??? This is a new situation. But there is a fine line to tread. I think that rewriting policies for an unusual situation could be harmful. But I do think that, in the appropriate forum, we should have a community-wide discussion about what we think of the reliability of the WHO report. For example, should it be used to support WikiVoice statements or not? My personal answer is that the WHO report is not a scientific document. Garbage in, garbage out. But we need to ask the community. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, could you be more specific and less general? If you have concerns about wiki policy, my suggestion would be to take it to the talk page of that policy. But I agree that is not advisable at this time. Better to look into it and see how things age after this controversy calms down.

As far as I can tell, you don't have any specific concerns about how we currently use the report in this article, since it's only used for statements of non-controversial non-scientific fact and of summarizing expert opinion. But I may be wrong about that, please let me know. At present, I can't find any instances where it is used solely and strictly to support statements of science. Or if it is, it's because the report cites others that we also cite. In that capacity, the report is acting as a secondary source, bolstered by other peer-reviewed or otherwise robust RSes that we cite.

What specific statements do you have a problem with in the article text? I find that broad generalizations don't tend to be as productive as specific criticisms. Thank you--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the WHO report is "garbage". I've only read portions of it, but it remains a report from the World Health Organization, which is an established and reputable body. However, it is a primary source, and thus falls under WP:MEDREV even if it were peer-reviewed. It also has to be remembered that this report is pretty much the only comprehensive scientific discussion on the origins. Media sources don't go into this level of depth, and other journal sources generally don't investigate the origins comprehensively, so it wouldn't be appropriate to cut the information out. It would be appropriate to use it to source uncontroversial statements in wikivoice, and controversial statements should be attributed in-text. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess what bugs me is the pattern of repeating debatable statements without any counterpoint. The example of this that jumps of the page for me is the following (actually not from the WHO): WIV virologist Shi Zhengli said in 2020 that, based on an evaluation of those serum samples, all staff tested negative for COVID-19 antibodies.[126] Sure, she said that, but she is forced to participate in Xi Jinping's chess game under the threat of being arrested and/or disappeared. Therefore, the evidentiary value of this statement is zero. But the article simply repeats the statement, without noting that she is speaking under threat. Maybe the article needs to discuss the fact that while everyone else is attempting to do science, the Chinese side is playing chess? Adoring nanny (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, your comment would be more appropriately placed in the sections below about Zhengli and your theorizing of her having a COI, instead of this section, which is about the WHO report.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:Thank you for the cleanup/organization that you did! @ProcrastinatingReader: said: I'm confused what the question is. The report generally shouldn't be used as an inline citation because it's a primary source, but if other RS discuss it then it should be mentioned as those sources portray it. If this is about whether to call it the "WHO report" or the "WHO-China report" then I think it would be better to look towards the RS (ideally peer-reviewed journals, and if that's unavailable then long-style news reporting from HQRS) and call it whatever they do?

@ProcrastinatingReader:I'll do my best to explain using an example. @Adoring nanny:Perhaps the following will address your concerns as well. The WHO report is used 16 times in the article. The fourth instance is the following highly contentious sentence:

Available scientific evidence and findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin.

This sentence has 4 inline citations. The first two are both the WHO-convened report. The third source which directly quotes the WHO-report is a correspondence piece, likely not peer reviewed as is the convention of the journal. The fourth source is an article. The most decicive claim in that article comes directly from the WHO report: This hypothesis has been considered as “extremely unlikely” by the official WHO investigation team. I propose the following resolution:

According to the WHO-convened report, available scientific evidence and findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin.

The above treatment of the source is how it would be most responsibly handled in an academic context, I can't speak for Wikipedia but I can't imagine why it would be any different in this case. The point is that if all we're dealing with here is one singular claim, it gives a false impression to the reader to have the claim with four inline citations as though all of those sources came to this conclusion independently. Adding the key language about where the claim comes from is both honest and clear. Thanks for reading. Thanks for reading.KristinaLu (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, oh the issue there is that this is actually partially a transcluded statement from a different article. That's why you see multiple citations etc. I'll try and clean it up a bit, but that's why it's like that.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder why you would engage in so much clean-up, rather than simply be transparent with the readers.KristinaLu (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, ...huh? How exactly am I not being transparent? Please be more specific.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, Okay I've added some review articles and peer-reviewed research pubs to the citations for that statement, removed the commentary, and removed the WHO report from citing that statement. Every citation there firmly supports the article text.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I checked your first new source, the Wacharapluesadee et al. 1) Nothing in that article remotely resembles the sentence in question (so at the very least this is WP:SYN and 2) This is a primary source. Do I have to go over every one of your sources like this? Please don't edit in such a way (in haste or otherwise) that causes other editors to have to scan through jargon-filled primary sources behind a paywall just to find out that a claim isn't even supported. All I asked for is to attribute the claim to the source it came from. What we have now is WP:OR. Please change the sentence to say it comes from the WHO-report and call it a day.KristinaLu (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you please not be adversarial? We are working together to build an encyclopedia, and you are not my employer, you don't even pass the 30/500 rule. You are a relatively new editor here who is very convinced they know better than quite a few editors with more experience. I would remind you, humility is a virtue in wiki. You raised an issue with the WHO source, so I found better sources. Primary sources may be used, with caution. Especially when a review paper backs up the assertions in the primary article. It's common practice to cite both for a controversial claim. So that's what I have done, and in fact provided several review sources that are also right there supporting the claim. That sentence is supported by the Wacharapluesadee source. The Wacharapluesadee source is peer-reviewed. It's published in a very well-regarded and reliable journal. But okay, because you have raised an issue with it, though I disagree, I will remove it. I went ahead and replaced it with a review published in a pretty well-regarded journal. Not as good as the others there, but pretty good.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, The reason there aren't more citations for that statement is that we have had too many at various points and wanted to avoid over-citing. But there are many more scientific peer reviewed sources (and journalistic RSes, which I'm not a fan of using in this context) which support the statement. I'll see if I can add some scientific literature sources and clean up that citation list. But no, it would be inappropriate in my opinion to make that statement attributed to the WHO report, since there are many excellent non-WHO sources which support it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's another idea as opposed to using several primary sources (that would have to be thoroughly vetted to watch for WP:OR).

Just use this sentence:

According to the WHO-convened report, available scientific evidence and findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin.

Cite with secondary sources. Done. Please consider editing in such a way that makes Wikipedia transparent, accessible to non-expert editors, and free of WP:OR (including WP:SYNKristinaLu (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you please indicate which sources that are currently cited for the sentence are "primary" ? or contribute to WP:OR? I think it's probably useful also to say that every single currently cited source for the sentence is open access. No paywalls.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, I would direct you to the following explanatory supplements to WP:OR -- SYNTH is not summary, SYNTH is not important per se, and SYNTH is not explanation. I would ask that if you would like to criticize one of my edits as SNYTH, please in the future provide which two (or more) ideas I am combining to create a new thesis. I will then gladly either A) provide you quotes to show I am not doing WP:OR, or B) agree with you and self-revert or change my edits so that they are not OR. This will save us both a lot of time and headache. Thank you. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:[>This edit here.]. When you added the Wacharapluesadee et al source. Were it a stand alone source, it constitutes WP:OR as far as I can tell. And yes, you removed the article but of course only after I complained about it. Technically, if I added the King James Bible to the list of citations would that be WP:OR? Maybe not if the content was covered in other sources but it makes everything an impossible task for other editors. Other editors shouldn't have to vet primary sources in this way, especially when there is a perfectly reasonable solution that has already been suggested. No time at the moment to check the other sources. Hopefully another editor can. (Also, you're right I forgot about the paywall thing.)KristinaLu (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@KristinaLu: The reason I directed you to "SYNTH is not important per se" is because it is particularly relevant here. "What matters is that all material in Wikipedia is verifiable, not that it's actually verified. By this we mean that it is important that a suitable reliable source that supports this material has been published in the real world, not that someone has gotten around to typing up a specific bibliographic citation in the article. Citations are not an end in themselves." Now typically for controversial statements, it's important to have citations, because otherwise they will get challenged and removed. But there's no WP:PAG that says "because you added a source somebody disagreed with one time, the entire statement must be removed, you aren't allowed to keep it with good sources." At least not one I've ever heard of. The importance of the project is to have encyclopedic verifiable information. And that means saving statements that are verifiable, even if the source isn't right at the moment. In practice, that means it's okay to revert an added sentence and say in the edit summary "source doesn't support, provide good quality source" and then when somebody comes back and re-adds the sentence with a good source, that's also okay. That's just the process in action. Wikipedia is not about winning, it's about making a good encyclopedia.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

WHO-China report as a source, cont.

Creating a break here.KristinaLu (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

My crude attempt at a synopsis of what was discussed above:

The reliability of the WHO-convened report (this is the name that was agreed to, right?) has been called into question by experts as well as by the international community. We have talked about how to treat all contentious claims (made in this article) which are currently sourced to the report by treating them in one of the three following ways:

1)Introduce wording such as "According to the WHO-convened report..."

2)Replace with other RSs if all of the other peer-reviewed and other RSs agree and I would argue generally that they do not, otherwise the claim would not be contentious

3)Delete said material.

Looking forward to what the community has to say.KristinaLu (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, Your option 2 does not make sense with WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE.

It doesn't matter if one or two sources from unqualified non-experts say A, when the majority of available HQRSes (peer-reviewed review articles in topic-relevant and well-regarded journals) say B.

We don't elevate viewpoint A to a worthwhile inclusion in the article if most available secondary sources don't even mention it. We treat A with due weight, which to a WP:FRINGE or extremely minority viewpoint, is to say we do not mention it. And we certainly do not just delete B because A exists. For instance, Deigin and Segretto's viewpoint can be understood as fringe when we examine the fact that no HQRSes even mention the existence of their paper.

So instead we include the statement B as supported by HQRSes, with due weight to the mention of B in available HQRSes. We do not include minority viewpoints just because they exist, only if they are mentioned by others as notable and worth giving minority weight.

For scientific claims, the relevant guideline on what counts as a HQRS is WP:SCHOLARSHIP. This would tell us that we defer to scientific review articles in topic-relevant and widely-circulated journals. They determine the weight we give viewpoints.

You also left out Option 4) Adjust the statement until it is compatible with what secondary RSes say, ignoring the WHO report altogether.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I addressed a similar issue as the one raise by KristinaLu in this [[16]] discussion, abruptly closed without consensus. I believe it has aged well because other editors and readers have pending concerns on the reliability of the report. I propose we revisit the discussion at RSN if evidence keeps mounting up against the report' credibility. Forich (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Forich, why does the credibility of the report matter if we don't use it to make statements of controversial unattributed fact? And if we also discuss the many pitfalls and concerns that have been expressed with the report in the appropriate sections with the appropriate weight? (which I believe we already do)--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: [I see.] Your post did indeed age well. What a curious move it was to close that conversation. I should be clear here; to me what is at issue are the contentious claims made in the WHO-China report. On the other hand, what is conspicuously missing at key points in this article is the fact that the WHO study came up short on all of the investigations they did do (ie. found nothing at the market, found no reservoir species, found no link to frozen foods, etc.). The report could be useful (along with secondary sources of course) to illustrate that point. Well, I would gladly be willing to help compile a list some of the developments that have happened since then.

Here are four names that come to mind: Ralph S. Baric David Baltimore Robert R. Redfield David Relman

KristinaLu (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:, If the WHO did not wanted journalists and wikipedians to discuss the extent of credibility of its origin report they should not have endorsed the flawed version that came out. I have no responsibility in that, I'm just calling it out. Authority is not perennial, that's why we regularly bring hot topics to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. It took Wikipedia five years to realize that CGTN was not very reliable on some topics (it was launched in 2016 and only by 2021 user Hemiauchenia raised concerns about it, see this thread. In the case of Xinhua News, editors soon advocated for some filter (e.g. User Peregrine Fisher said Xinhua is a reliable source. Just be careful if your using them for something that the PRC would want slanted.. I hope that a proper discussion would eventually lead us to some filter of the sort of: do not trust a WHO-report that repeats political statements about Taiwan's sovereignity, or do not trust a WHO-report that repeats COVID-19 death figures that have been shown to be statistically unrealistical, or do not trust a WHO-report that repeats Chinese claims that frozen foods is more likely than a lab leak origin. These are just arbitrary examples to show that some narrow areas of distrust can be drawn. And maybe I am wrong on all of them, I just don't want the discussion to be closed within 24 hours with an explanation of "its political nonsense". Forich (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Forich, What specific changes would you like to achieve consensus on? This feels like more arguing in a ten minutes hate about the report. We cover many criticisms against it, from several different people. We also cite it only for where expert opinion is being referenced, as it is a professional body of experts. It's not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, or somehow depict the "true" nature of reality. it's our job to depict the world through the lens of verifiability and using the best available sources. So please explain, how are we not doing that in the current article text?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I've made specific diffs that have been reverted:

1. strongly questioned adjective
2. Reuters and CNN deserve to be cited
3. not seen as credibly adjective
4. A new point is this specific point on the hierarchy wikivoice -> MEDRS -> RS: I propose we prevent to put in wikivoice anything that is seen to be influenced by the documented Chinese control of information that could have transpired into the report (if it can not be substantiated by a second source). Examples: a laboratory origin of the pandemic was considered to be extremely unlikely (p. 120), / Transmission within the wider community in December could account for cases not associated with the Huanan market which, together with the presence of early cases not associated with that market, could suggest that the Huanan market was not the original source of the outbreak (p. 7), / introduction through cold/ food chain products is considered a possible pathway (p. 9.

This four points are specific, have made them before (at least the first 3, including justification on talk page). These edits got watered-down to the current paragraph that has upfront that Tedros "called for more studies" with a timid "Doubts over the report were also echoed by some media commentators". I propose to change the balance, by putting less weight on Tedros call for more studies and more weight on the lack of credibility cited in RS. Forich (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Forich, point by point:

1. My gut reaction is "not NPOV" and particularly WP:UNDUE since we already have your 30 scientists, the WSJ investigation, and multiple multiple politicians and scientists criticizing it in the article. I don't think this one particular sentence adds much of anything. In the current article, we actually describe the criticisms and who has said them, instead of making broadly uncitable pronouncements. I also don't think your citations actually support the statement you've attached them to, particularly the White House citation and the Reuters citation do not say that. The New York Times article supports what we already have in the article text: criticisms about transparency and access to samples/raw data. The Atlantic article does not even refer to the WHO-convened report on COVID's origins, instead referring to the Joint Mission that examined transmission dynamics and how to control the spread of disease [17]. Totally different report, I've made that mistake myself. I believe you've accidentally synthesized "China withheld data" and "WHO said the virus was likely zoonotic" to produce the WP:SYNTH "credibility has been questioned due to a "proclivity to side with China." I don't see that thesis anywhere in those citations, except from Matt Ridley as an opinion. And I can't find other citations talking about this Ridley piece, so I think including it even as an opinion of his would be undue. The Telegraph is well known for its very very opinionated bend towards conservatism. Ridley also has no relevant expertise other than having written some books about genetics (which I greatly enjoyed). He has no formal training in virology or epidemiology or international relations, though, and for that reason we should not cite it as even an expert opinion.

2. not NPOV, there are already a ton of references in NPOV language, why add the one quote that is a paraphrase of a paraphrase? We've already cited 30 scientists and a ton of other individual experts. Quickly becomes a race to win king of the COATRACK.

3. Of these 4, this is the one I am most sympathetic to. It's a good source, with a good non-picked quote. However, that being said, we already have specific people questioning credibility, and also joint statements, individuals, countries, scientists, and the WSJ questioning the credibility, plus others I have definitely forgotten. This very quickly becomes a WP:COATRACK where the end result is "let's put as much negative criticism as we can find here" instead of "let's duly weight the criticism in proportion to its actual coverage in the secondary sources." We need to be very careful about that tendency, I have felt it myself. I could be convinced on this one, but overall I am pretty confident it's UNDUE.

4. This is again an opinion-based argument, that has no bearing on MEDRS or statements from an expert body. If the American Heart Association all got together and made a statement, "Jumping off bridges is actually good for your heart health," then we would duly report that very statement as an attributed expert opinion. It's important to include because it's an expert body making a claim, and a claim that is covered extensively by secondary sources, showing that our depiction of it is also WP:DUE. We may not like that claim, we may find it troublesome, but that isn't what matters. It doesn't matter how much Reuters says "The AHA has been taken over by aliens!" It doesn't matter how much Matt Ridley doesn't like it.

Bungee jumping is in season, or rather, "The AHA has decided that bungee jumping is in season."--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:, user Darouet has been Wikipedia: Bold and did a major rewrite of the reactions to the WHO report. It seems to me he ignored most of the talk page discussion. We can follow the discussion starting from his new version, or revert it and invite him to join the previous productive discusssion. I can work either way, I'll let you take the call on what to do. Forich (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Reactions" section reverses scientific consensus

The current "Reactions" to the WHO report section is, with the exception of one sentence, wholly dedicated to criticizing or dismissing its findings. From the way the reactions section is written a fully scientifically naïve reader will naturally come to the opposite conclusion of the current scientific consensus: our text strongly indicates that the conclusions of the report are fundamentally flawed.

This is a deeply disingenuous method of describing the report - rather than attacking the conclusions directly, attempting to emphasize doubts about report credibility overall - and does not convey how scientists have reacted to it. I think we need to just rewrite this whole section and I've attempted to so. -Darouet (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I would agree that it seems like there was a POV WP:COATRACK here. Over time, we had hung every criticism on this section, until it completely changed the meaning and obscured what our sources were telling us about the overall reaction to the report. I support your rewrite, I think it's much closer to NPOV.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Darouet, are you aware that the Reaction section is not about the report, but about reactions to the report? The reactions to the WHO-convened study have largely been critical, which is exactly why the Reactions section is largely critical. Your rewrite fails WP:FALSEBALANCE as it puts a positive spin to it. Please note also that there is no scientific consensus on the origins of the virus, yet. CutePeach (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the negative reactions to this scientific report overewhelmingly come from scientific nobodies. You may not be interested in the difference between competent criticism and ignorant disagreement, weighing them both using a head count instead, but that is your personal problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh wow Hob Gadling, so Tony Fauci and Francis Collins are scientific nobodies? Ignorant disagreement? What? Francesco espo (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Francesco espo, Could you provide a RS on Fauci's and Collins' response to the WHO report? From what I've seen, the only RS we have on Fauci's opinion is that he wanted to "reserve judgment" back at the end of March [18]. And of course that he thinks "more investigation is needed" but so do most scientists [19]. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, there are so many sources from Fauci saying this, like here. Here is a source from today with Collins. I also saw Fauci say it on Television here in Italy so it must be also on American television. Collins is his boss, so more relevant. How can Hob Gadling call them scientific nobodies? Why is this page protected? Francesco espo (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Francesco espo, Could you provide quotations which demonstrate that? Because I read the WashPo article before you linked it even, searching for ones where he comments on the report. And, to be honest, I don't see him commenting on the report anywhere in there. The FoxNews segment (your second link) is not a RS. And where it directly replays his statements or interviews him, he isn't commenting on the WHO report, he's commenting on how the NIH did not fund GoFR for coronaviruses and how more investigation is needed. I was asking for quotations about the report.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Independently of the actual truth of your claims about who said what, go get someone to explain to you the difference between "overwhelmingly" and "exclusively". But maybe it is not independent: maybe the same difficulties you have understanding what I wrote in plain English also made you misunderstand what Fauci and Collins said. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink The quote from the WaPo is: “Because we don’t know 100 percent what the origin is, it’s imperative that we look and we do an investigation,” Fauci said. Why is Fox News not a reliable source? It is just airing an interview with Collins? Is there something wrong with their reporting? Is it contradicted by something we have in other reliable sources? Most of the reactions to the report have been negative, including the WHO DG. He is scientists too. Is he not? Francesco espo (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Francesco espo, See WP:FOXNEWS for why Fox is likely not reliable for this, outside of direct attributed quotations. Which in this case, would need to be about the report. And that quote appears to be about how "more investigation is needed," not criticizing the report. It does not use the words "report" or "WHO" in any way.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't look at the Fox News article that can be ignored, but from what is quoted, there is nothing particularly interesting here... Policy that relates to the original post from Darouet is WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV: it's important to attribute as opinions what is, to distinguish it from more authoritative statements that can often be made in Wikipedia's voice and where undue, opinion can simply be omitted to avoid presenting a false balance. —PaleoNeonate – 00:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

New Lancet letter

Update from last year's letter. [20] Bakkster Man (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting. With the new letter, the conspiracy theory is dead in the western world. The authors no longer speak of its existence. We should delete the conspiration saga in all related WP articles. It's history. If there is any evidence of the laboratory hypothesis - these scientists would run the risk of sustaining massive reputational damage not only concerning their research and personal reputation - also for science at all. The German magazine Spiegel published a very large cover story on the Wuhan Institute this week. --Empiricus (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

We believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer-reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory-leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journals. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It´s the old argument with "scientific literature" - but there is no empirical evidence. As long as the transmission animal has not been found, there is no evidence. Sure, the laboratory-leak has also no validated evidence (until now) but the serious difference is that the authors can no longer exclude this hypothesis or discriminate the laboratory option as a conspiracy theory. This position is history with the new letter.--Empiricus (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

This sentence massively relativizes the old letter: "Careful and transparent collection of scientific information is essential to understand how the virus has spread and to develop strategies to mitigate the ongoing impact of COVID-19, whether it occurred wholly within nature or might somehow have reached the community via an alternative route, and prevent future pandemics."--Empiricus (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

the old argument with "scientific literature" is still good. It is to be found in WP:RS too: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources

Your WP:OR about empirical evidence is worthless in Wikipedia. We go with RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because it has always been the case does not mean that it is the case now. For laboratory accidents e.g. with SARS there is a lot of evidence in the literature or e.g. Marburg, etc.. The origin question can only be answered by empirical evidence - scientific, also in Wikipedia. Otherwise, we would not need any investigations, which everyone also the Lancet Group - is demanding now. It´s not WP:OR - it´s simply science.--Empiricus (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Empiricus-sextus: With the new letter, the conspiracy theory is dead in the western world. The authors no longer speak of its existence. We should delete the conspiration saga in all related WP articles. Related purely to the WHO-evaluated lab-origin (WIV gathers bat viruses, accidental infection of staff), I agree. But there are other conspiracy theories which are still very much conspiracy theories per reliable sources.

• The conspiracy theory it was being developed by WIV as a bioweapon
• The conspiracy theory it was being developed at Fort Detrick as a bioweapon
• The conspiracy theory the virus was manufactured so to promote the sale of vaccines
• The conspiracy theory Bill Gates asked them to manufacture the virus to control the world's population

And those are just the conspiracy theories relating to a laboratory origin (add meteorites and 5G). So while we need to carefully word to not imply every lab origin is a conspiracy theory, there remain lab origin scenarios accurately described as conspiracy theories. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but this are studip fring theories -like the frozen food thesis - without any public relevance, that's not even worth talking about. Maybe only as missinformation. It will be very interesting to see what the Biden report says about the laboratory, since a senior official, China's deputy security minister, is said to have deserted to the United States. --Empiricus (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but this are studip fring theories -like the frozen food thesis - without any public relevance, that's not even worth talking about. Stupid? Absolutely! "Without public relevance"? Seems pretty relevant to me if multiple US representatives are repeating the bioweapon claim.[21][22][23] Bakkster Man (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The sources say more about "Facebook censorship". As far as the possibility of military preventive research under the Biological Weapons Convention is concerned - it is not unusual and it is also legal (Source: - Role of Chinese military lab, page 3)."The United States has a number of high-containment laboratories in which viruses can be studied safely with engineering controls, including negative air pressure. Some of these labs are located at military laboratories, such as the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in Frederick, Maryland. China, France, Germany, India, Russia, the United Kingdom, and many other countries similarly have laboratories operated by military researchers that are declared to the Biological Weapons Convention in confidence building measures. Scientific investigation in military laboratories is not uncommon; coronavirus research performed in a Chinese military research institute is not in itself suspicious, as asserted". The only problem for years is that these experiments are not transparent. The German government and others have long called for clarification here. There are X programs, also in the US also China - where "quasi bioweapons" are developed - with the aim to protect against them.--Empiricus (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You didn't read this source, then. It doesn't mention Facebook a single time, and the headline is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene suggests COVID-19 was 'bioweapon,' demands Fauci be held accountable. So I again assert that three members of the US congress claiming in public that China developed COVID as a weapon makes that repeating of the conspiracy theory of great public relevance. Want to change my mind? Address that directly. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Although I'm on wikibreak, since I logged in for another reason I just resist as I saw this discussion earlier when looking to see if the latest pre-print [24] to make the news [25] [26] [27] [28] has made it here yet. Interesting enough AFAICT it hasn't yet although I can't help thinking it would have if it were in the opposite direction.

@Empiricus-sextus: "since a senior official, China's deputy security minister, is said to have deserted to the United States" you seem to be referring to Dong Jingwei but I'm fairly sure only crazy people are still saying this so I suggest if you're reading such sources you may want to discard them at least for when it comes to editing Wikipedia. As per our article, an unnamed senior US official took the unusual step of definitively denying it only a few days after the reports began to spread (and over 2 weeks ago). This was followed soon after by a photo of Dong doing his official duties after this alleged defection.

So it can only be true if there is some crazy stuff going e.g. body doubles or China manipulating photos to hide a truth which will surely be self evident if true, sometime in the near future. That's the sort of stuff which North Korean and perhaps Comical Ali may pull or *cough* *cough* a former US president I won't name, but China? Whatever their flaws, yeah, nah.

And the US for some reason is also seemingly wishing to hide something which China (the only ones they have good reason to want to hit from) surely already knows if true, rather than just let it remain in mystery until they reveal all. The other even crazier possibility is that he defected for a few days but then went back and was allowed to serve in his old role, at least publicly. Again, any source which believes all this probably shouldn't be trusted.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The addendum adding Peter Daszak's conflicts of interest to the original Lancet letter is revealing. A bit more than a year late High Tinker (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that the typical argument that if not all sources mention it, it's not relevant (like that it was and remains also pushed by conspiracy theorists), is flawed. —PaleoNeonate – 00:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

WHO Report and Responses in Lead

Following this post from Forich [29], I have rewritten the portion of the lead detailing the chronology of events surrounding the March 30 2021 WHO report, the WHO DG’s same day response, and the WHO members nations’ same day response - as well as the more recent news from July 15 2021 with the WHO DG’s statement of "premature push" and yesterday's response from China calling off the second phase.

1. I have taken out the Los Angeles Times, which was cited WRT deploying additional missions, which is something that was said in the WHO DG’s March 30 statement. I used a Nature source for citation of that earlier statement, as I thought it was better and more relevant. I would not oppose adding back the Los Angeles Times piece for that statement, if any editor wishes to do so.
2. If there are any WP:MOSLEAD or WP:FALSEBALANCE concerns in the way I have presented the order of events, I would ask Shibbolethink and Mikehawk10 to collaborate in formulating an RFC, to make sure it is WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Editors are reminded that deleting content for WP:NPOV concerns is WP:POVDELETION.
3. I have deleted the POV loaded sentence Echoing the assessment of most virologists, as most virologists didn't actually make an assessment, as they didn't have the data to do so.

CutePeach (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Deleting content for POV reasons" is a correct application of WP:ONUS. If you are aware your changes might be contentious, caution dictates you should seek consensus first, instead of pointing to an explanatory supplement which in no way actually prohibits removal of particularly contentious material. Collaboration is required, because this is a collaborative project. You should follow the advice of WP:BRDD and try to find compromise instead of making unilateral changes. I've partially reverted, since your explanation about the "assessment of other virologists" is OR. Please cite a credible source which makes the same point if you disagree. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It is also ironic that you point to POVDELETION, yet do the exact same thing you are claiming we shouldn't do, by removing content which has long-standing consensus for inclusion because of POV concerns. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)