This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alina Chan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GermanKity draftified this page on 18th June. Although I think this article then was factual and had enough WP:BASIC-quality sources to survive an AfD then, I think this is right, because Chan achieved prominence on what is a WP:BATTLEGROUND topic through her interaction with Peter Daszak. The more well-rounded and complete this bio is when it enters mainspace, the easier it will be to maintain it. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Chan's first mention in a wide-audience publication was, I think Newsweek in April 2020 with The Controversial Experiments and Wuhan Lab Suspected of Starting the Coronavirus Pandemic. Some care should be taken with the contents. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Matthew Yglesias has a few choice words about Chan in The media's lab leak fiasco, which as a Substack would not normally be an RS, but it has been widely picked up, e.g., in the NYT. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd hoped we could get the article into a good shape before it reentered mainspace. The article did see gradual improvements over several months; unfortunately in a series of non-neutral, poorly sourced edits by SacrificialPawn on the 25th August ( this diff has the edits I'm talking about, but also includes one unproblematic edit by 力), together with a note that the article was ready for main space, this was all undone and the article entered mainspace in pretty bad condition. I entirely sympathise with RC's deep cuts to the artice in [1], although there is content there I think worth saving. Since this is a battleground topic, I want to lay out things first rather than trust the WP:BRD cycle. If you like, I plan to follow a Discuss-CautiousEdit-HopefullyAvoidRevert cycle.
The single most interesting point in the content from before SP's edits that didn't survive RC's prune is the two unpublished preprints by Chan & al. Chan claimed on Twitter that her article attacking the pangolin transmission thesis led to two retractions in high-impact journals: I found one of these retractions (PLOS Pathogens) but not the other (Nature). Normally we do not cover preprints on WP, but before SP's edits, I thought the treatment of the two preprints was fairly good: they are interesting as a thing that has generated noteworthy coverage, including in good quality RSes. The pangolin transmission thesis isn't quite dead today, but it is certainly far less prominent than when Chan & al wrote their article.
Edits to follows once I've digested all the changes since SP's edits. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Do any of our RS refer to her as "promoting" the lab leak hypothesis? I have tagged that as CN. 79.70.179.144 ( talk) 00:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The Broad Institute's Alina Chan believes coronavirus could have escaped from a Chinese lab." [2]
“I was like, ‘They are very mistaken,’” says Chan. “They haven’t thought of all these other plausible ways for a lab leak to occur.” Her view is now widely held. That’s due partly to her Twitter account. Throughout 2020, Chan relentlessly stoked scientific argument and doubts, sometimes adding a unicorn GIF to highlight research she found implausible." [3]
Question: You published this paper back in May 2020 where you said maybe we should consider the idea that this coronavirus came from a lab. At the time, what was the main theory about where COVID had come from? Answer: It had been announced by the Chinese government and in January that most likely this virus had come from illegally sold wildlife in a wet market. But over time, that story seemed to disintegrate. And by May, about two or three weeks after my paper came out, the Chinese CDC director actually announced that the market was a victim. He said it was most likely a cluster." [4]
Ymblanter, there was no personal attack as you said in this edit summary. To the contrary, Science Magazine described it as a very civil debate. Chan's question to Wang about the FCS wasn't described as a personal attack by Salon or New Yorker, which also covered the debate. LondonIP ( talk) 03:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Shibbolethink, you reverted more than the text you are concerned about, and you didn't describe how LondonIPs edit ran afoul of WP:FRINGE, which is required of you for a second revert. WP:FRINGE should not be cited to delete content citing secondary sources, unless it is in the voice of Wikipedia, which this edit was not. Abuse of WP:FRINGE in this manner is a concern many editors have noted in a Village Pump discussion here, a discussion you have participated in, denying any abuse of the policy. Citing WP:FRINGE to delete pre-prints has already been discussed in this topic area before [5], and called a "red-herring". LondonIP's edit specifically mentioned "non-engineered virus", which many say is the most plausible of the many different lab leak scenarios, and there are more than just two RS covering Chan’s pre-print. Gimiv ( talk) 05:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
We shouldn't based our coverage of science on pre-prints, the subject's own claims, or how the topic is covered in the press (what I asssume the "noteworthy coverage" is). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC). All of the concerns of that post still apply, to the letter, here. Newspapers coverage is simply not an accurate indicator of scientific matters (although, I do see it as an accurate indicator, here, that this is a topic which is mostly discussed in the USA. We should not give it undue prominence simply because it has gained a lot of attention in one country - WP:BIAS also applies, on top of all the other issues). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
"The preprint was not formally accepted by a scientific journal but received a significant reception in the popular press."I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of others. Firefangledfeathers 20:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
suggesting a lab origin as one possible way to explain the emergent virus's apparent adaption to humans without leaving an environmental trail. Italics on the portion that appears to support Chan's theory in wikivoice, as a real thing that Chan has a theory to explain. Would you like to keep discussing this and ONUS? You addressed my wikivoice concerns in your very next version, and I am supporting at least one part of it. Firefangledfeathers 01:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views, and I don't think something as obvious about the virus as this can be describes in that way, and those opposing Chan et al haven't challenged that (see Eisen's comment in the MTR piece). Besides for Chan et al, other papers such as Makino et al; Baric et al, Dudas and Rambaut; and Forni et al describe the rapid evolution of novel viruses in new hosts, so this phenomenon is well known to science. Furthermore, as I described in my edit, Chan et al offered lab origins as only one of three theories to explain their observation, providing quotations so that the reader can understand what it was that she wrote. Since I noted also that it was in relation to a "non-engineered virus", the WP:ONUS is really on Shibbolethink and RandomCanadian to build consensus here that a any kind of lab accident is WP:FRINGE. Otherwise it is just another misapplication of the WP:FRINGE guideline in this contentious topic area. LondonIP ( talk) 00:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
any kind of lab accident is WP:FRINGE." We said the specific ideas you're pushing here in her article are FRINGE. Perhaps most importantly, it matters more if the ideas you're attempting to introduce are WP:DUE in the form you'd like to introduce them. I contend they are not, as they are not represented in that degree by secondary sources. Your edits would over-represent them out of proportion with their lack of mainstream acceptance. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
"The preprint was not formally accepted by a scientific journal but received a significant reception in the popular press."The popularity of the preprint is a major contributor to Chan's notability and I think it's demonstrably due based on the sourcing. If we're going to keep rehashing the past, I would like to clarify that Shibbolethink explained his point about FRINGE on December 1. You may not have been satisfied with his explanation, but there's no need to pretend it doesn't exist. I also would like to avoid giving undue prominence to Chan's fringe views. Firefangledfeathers 20:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Chan became known during the COVID-19 pandemic for co-authoring preprints and op-eds claiming the virus was "pre-adapted" to humans and suggesting COVID-19 could have escaped from a laboratory.[5][6] Chan wrote opinion pieces on the subject with science journalist Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal and in The Daily Telegraph.[7][8] Chan later signed open letters together with other scientists published in the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, calling for full and unrestricted international forensic investigations into all possible origins of the virus.[9][10]; into four paragraphs (some of them single-sentence, but nevermind). Yet those paragraphs still essentially say the same thing, except now you've plastered the first one full of quotes from the pre-print. An encyclopedia is a summary, not a quote-collection. If we can convey the most important information to the reader in 20 words instead of 200, and maintain a more academic and detached tone by not having to quote the subject at length, then the version with 20 is far superior. That less is more is not a particularly controversial position to take, I don't see why you're already being pessimistic about this. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Whether it's science or pseudoscience, pre-prints have no place on Wikipedia. Anyone familiar with the process of peer review and publication can easily make that determination, making this discussion moot. 174.193.136.71 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I support inclusion in the context of journalistic dueness, rather than a scientific one. Reliable sources that are DUE regarding a preprint that doesn't meet scholarly standards is a perfectly acceptable basis for inclusion. The only primary source cited is the sciencemag letter. Secondary sources are demonstrating DUEness. SmolBrane ( talk) 05:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Chan became known during the COVID-19 pandemic for co-authoring preprints and op-eds claiming the virus was "pre-adapted" to humans and suggesting COVID-19 could have escaped from a laboratory.). The only problem here is that people want to make it more verbose, and quote at length without providing required context... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This edit broke the sentence about Chan's preprint from the Eisen critique. The judgement that Chan's hypothesis being largely negative is redundant with the quote from the New York Times that follows it. Please fix. 103.255.6.93 ( talk) 14:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faiqaqazi844 ( talk • contribs) 09:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Two policies (
WIKIVOICE and
IMPARTIAL) tell us that Wikipedia aims to describe disputes
. And Chan has
famously disputed (most specifically) EcoHealth's views and the PRC's views.
Question: Do at least some of their disputed views differ from what Wikipedia considers
mainstream expert understanding?
Because we can go ahead and describe (and specifically attribute) those views. (And we won't have to keep arguing about FRINGE violations!) – Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
undue weight toMINORASPECTs of our subject.
An article should strive to treat each aspectof its subject
with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.
Chan sent me a copy of her slide deck from the State Department briefing, with a listing of “Top 10 Points.” ... Six relate to allegedly suspicious behavior on the part of Chinese scientists, including the failure to mention the miners who died in 2012 and the furin site on the virus genome.
Many senior virologists ... said ... that her statements would alienate China, hampering any future investigations. A Chinese news outlet accused her of “filthy behavior and a lack of basic academic ethics”...
She wrote, “I think Daszak was misinformed.” ... Daszak says that indeed he had been misinformed and was unaware that that virus found in the mine shaft had been sequenced before 2020.
presented and discussed infairly reliable sources listed on the first page of search results. – Dervorguilla ( talk) 19:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
policy(like NEUTRALITY),
sources, and common sense. – Dervorguilla ( talk) 23:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
had been misinformed and was unaware that that virus found in the mine shaft had been sequenced before 2020.He apparently accepts Chan's viewpoint on this specific question.
plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.
accepted academic scholarship." When/if it is, we should describe it in that way without describing the minority opinion, as this is not an article about the minority view.I welcome any/all evidence that Chan's position is the majority view or scientific consensus. Because I think the NIH and the National Academies of Science might have something to say about that. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 05:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
we should contextualize them in "what the Chinese govt has said."No, with the analysis and summary of RS, as opposed to echoing a list of arguments (even if they were pro/con, to avoid WP:GEVAL and the problems when disregarding WP:YESPOV). — Paleo Neonate – 00:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
with the analysis and summary of RSYes I would support this approach. Many RSes describe the Chinese govt position. Which means it is WP:DUE as an attributed statement. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
We're (finally) addressing the fundamental issue concerning our subject's dispute with China's position.
Shibbolethink has helpfully phrased it this way:
Facts:
had refused to allow some extremists and cultists supported by anti-China forces in the US and the West to pollute [Chinese] Wikipedia on various topics related to China.Geng, "Is Wikipedia Starting a 'Purge' of Chinese People?"
extremists and cultistsprevailed.
Implications:
Our non-negotiable
GEVAL policy now rules again over all Wikipedias worldwide—even over this 'polluted' article. The Chinese government's plausible but currently unaccepted theories
need not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship
—or through otherwise re-hosting those theories wherever we "re-host Chan's arguments". –
Dervorguilla (
talk) 07:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public.Since her recent paper on the FCS was accepted in MBE, it is accepted scholarship. It should be noted that it was in response to Holmes et al, which was published before ECH's DARPA proposal was leaked. LondonIP ( talk) 00:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I am only suggesting that we say what Chan believes, and then what the Chinese government's position is, what the american government's position is, or what the scientific community's position is (depending on the dispute).. This debate can't really yield a productive result if people go for cheap tricks and attack strawmen instead of the actual issues. No evidence [beyond a paper written by Chan herself, of course] has been presented that Chan's views are anything but a (tiny) minority. Her views (and other relevant ones) can be mentioned in this article (since it is, one hopes, discussing them), as allowed by policy and common sense, so long care is taken to put them into appropriate context with the mainstream and not to go to excessive length quoting them. Now, please get back on track before this minor derailment turns into a major time-wasting pile-on? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't know why Chan et al are being treated as fringe viewholders when their efforts were directly related to the rightful reassessment of the lab leak as an impossibility to a possibility. Furthermore, I don't even think their views are being fairly characterized. They're by and large skeptics (with convictions), as those who favor a natural spillover would/should be, because the required intermediate host is still unknown. As someone familiar with the academic/research apparatus that would have led to the "consensus" view that the natural spillover is the most likely, I'm skeptical of the opinions of these "experts" whose ability to make a living often depends on good Chinese relations. I don't just mean grant money...Chinese students pay a boatload to study in the West, whether at the graduate or undergraduate level, but you don't need to rely on my anecdotal experience. There is reliable sourcing with observations by qualified scientists and academics noting the "biting hand that feeds you" issue that may prevent many academics from speaking out against China. Perhaps this could be in the article. 2600:1012:B05B:1B69:6CF4:FE24:D57:D9DE ( talk) 16:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
There is reliable sourcing with observations by qualified scientists and academics noting the "biting hand that feeds you" issue that may prevent many academics from speaking out against China. Perhaps this could be in the article.I believe it is already present and well-sourced in the Chinese government response to COVID-19 article. Such information would be off-topic or WP:UNDUE in this biographical article about Alina Chan. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
See:
[22]
Why should we remove these quality citations and replace it with unattributed POV opinion that is contradicted by our
WP:BESTSOURCES? —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕) 21:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Chan's fellow conspiracists are already reverting the edit adding "conspiracy theorist" to her description, but the fact remains that those who hypothesize conspiracies of governments and global health authorities to cover up the origin of a virus--and who do so in the absence of evidence recognized as compelling by the consensus of qualified experts--are conspiracy theorists.
She's not a virologist or immunologist and she hasn't published original research in peer-reviewed journals. She's a post-doc who wrote a general audience book promoting a conspiratorial explanation of SARS-CoV-2's origins. If she had compelling evidence of a laboratory origin for the virus, she would easily sail through peer review at Science, Nature, or the New England Journal.
She hasn't. Because she's a conspiracy theorist. Inoculatedcities ( talk) 22:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
"this very flimsiness makes the lab leak conspiracy theory so hard to eradicate".
"despite their performance of neutrality, the authors’ allegiances clearly lie with some version of a lab leak".
"would require improbably large and durable conspiracies"
"rely on people poking holes in the official narrative without committing to a single plausible alternative"
"matter only if they convince us there’s a major cover-up afoot".
"Viral also shows why the very weakness of the lab leak case is also its greatest strength: The great part about suspicions—from a conspiracy theorist’s perspective—is that they don’t have to gel into any coherent theory."
she became known for questioning the prevailing consensus regarding the origins of the virus and publicly advocating a laboratory escape hypothesisis very bad. Something along the lines of
she became known for questioning the scientific consensus that the virus was not from a laboratory leak.Just because we shouldn't label BLPs without sourcing doesn't mean we should give credence to minority views. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 19:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
For clarity, a letter she co-write is mentioned in this paragraphtext:
but while you could say this is effectively criticism of Chan (of sorts) since it criticised a letter she co-wrote, it does not say anything about what Chan is known for and the specific criticism of the letter seems sourced and reasonable. It may or may not be reasonable to also mention that letter and that criticism in this article assuming it isn't already. However it does not come close to support the change you wish to make.In a letter published in Science, a number of scientists, including Ralph S. Baric, argued that the accidental laboratory leak hypothesis had not been sufficiently investigated and remained possible, calling for greater clarity and additional data.[205] Their letter was criticized by some virologists and public health experts, who said that a "hostile" and "divisive" focus on the WIV was unsupported by evidence, was impeding inquiries into legitimate concerns about China's pandemic response and transparency by combining them with speculative and meritless argument,[18] and would cause Chinese scientists and authorities to share less rather than more data.[32]
Edit to add: Note that AFAIK there is no question that the scientific consensus remains that a SARS-CoV-2 did not come from a laboratory leak. That is not the issue here. The issue here is what Chan is known for rather than what the scientific consensus on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 is.
Nil Einne ( talk) 02:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC) 02:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
At this stage, there is no scientific consensus on the origins of the virus other than "we don't know",
What sources? The WHO, former and current heads of national CDCs and all eight intelligence agencies asked to look into this by the Biden administration all say we don't know the origin and need to investigate further.
This is very relevant, as it is the first many people will have heard of Chan. I have added a link. Tuntable ( talk) 02:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alina Chan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GermanKity draftified this page on 18th June. Although I think this article then was factual and had enough WP:BASIC-quality sources to survive an AfD then, I think this is right, because Chan achieved prominence on what is a WP:BATTLEGROUND topic through her interaction with Peter Daszak. The more well-rounded and complete this bio is when it enters mainspace, the easier it will be to maintain it. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Chan's first mention in a wide-audience publication was, I think Newsweek in April 2020 with The Controversial Experiments and Wuhan Lab Suspected of Starting the Coronavirus Pandemic. Some care should be taken with the contents. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Matthew Yglesias has a few choice words about Chan in The media's lab leak fiasco, which as a Substack would not normally be an RS, but it has been widely picked up, e.g., in the NYT. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd hoped we could get the article into a good shape before it reentered mainspace. The article did see gradual improvements over several months; unfortunately in a series of non-neutral, poorly sourced edits by SacrificialPawn on the 25th August ( this diff has the edits I'm talking about, but also includes one unproblematic edit by 力), together with a note that the article was ready for main space, this was all undone and the article entered mainspace in pretty bad condition. I entirely sympathise with RC's deep cuts to the artice in [1], although there is content there I think worth saving. Since this is a battleground topic, I want to lay out things first rather than trust the WP:BRD cycle. If you like, I plan to follow a Discuss-CautiousEdit-HopefullyAvoidRevert cycle.
The single most interesting point in the content from before SP's edits that didn't survive RC's prune is the two unpublished preprints by Chan & al. Chan claimed on Twitter that her article attacking the pangolin transmission thesis led to two retractions in high-impact journals: I found one of these retractions (PLOS Pathogens) but not the other (Nature). Normally we do not cover preprints on WP, but before SP's edits, I thought the treatment of the two preprints was fairly good: they are interesting as a thing that has generated noteworthy coverage, including in good quality RSes. The pangolin transmission thesis isn't quite dead today, but it is certainly far less prominent than when Chan & al wrote their article.
Edits to follows once I've digested all the changes since SP's edits. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Do any of our RS refer to her as "promoting" the lab leak hypothesis? I have tagged that as CN. 79.70.179.144 ( talk) 00:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The Broad Institute's Alina Chan believes coronavirus could have escaped from a Chinese lab." [2]
“I was like, ‘They are very mistaken,’” says Chan. “They haven’t thought of all these other plausible ways for a lab leak to occur.” Her view is now widely held. That’s due partly to her Twitter account. Throughout 2020, Chan relentlessly stoked scientific argument and doubts, sometimes adding a unicorn GIF to highlight research she found implausible." [3]
Question: You published this paper back in May 2020 where you said maybe we should consider the idea that this coronavirus came from a lab. At the time, what was the main theory about where COVID had come from? Answer: It had been announced by the Chinese government and in January that most likely this virus had come from illegally sold wildlife in a wet market. But over time, that story seemed to disintegrate. And by May, about two or three weeks after my paper came out, the Chinese CDC director actually announced that the market was a victim. He said it was most likely a cluster." [4]
Ymblanter, there was no personal attack as you said in this edit summary. To the contrary, Science Magazine described it as a very civil debate. Chan's question to Wang about the FCS wasn't described as a personal attack by Salon or New Yorker, which also covered the debate. LondonIP ( talk) 03:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Shibbolethink, you reverted more than the text you are concerned about, and you didn't describe how LondonIPs edit ran afoul of WP:FRINGE, which is required of you for a second revert. WP:FRINGE should not be cited to delete content citing secondary sources, unless it is in the voice of Wikipedia, which this edit was not. Abuse of WP:FRINGE in this manner is a concern many editors have noted in a Village Pump discussion here, a discussion you have participated in, denying any abuse of the policy. Citing WP:FRINGE to delete pre-prints has already been discussed in this topic area before [5], and called a "red-herring". LondonIP's edit specifically mentioned "non-engineered virus", which many say is the most plausible of the many different lab leak scenarios, and there are more than just two RS covering Chan’s pre-print. Gimiv ( talk) 05:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
We shouldn't based our coverage of science on pre-prints, the subject's own claims, or how the topic is covered in the press (what I asssume the "noteworthy coverage" is). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC). All of the concerns of that post still apply, to the letter, here. Newspapers coverage is simply not an accurate indicator of scientific matters (although, I do see it as an accurate indicator, here, that this is a topic which is mostly discussed in the USA. We should not give it undue prominence simply because it has gained a lot of attention in one country - WP:BIAS also applies, on top of all the other issues). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
"The preprint was not formally accepted by a scientific journal but received a significant reception in the popular press."I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of others. Firefangledfeathers 20:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
suggesting a lab origin as one possible way to explain the emergent virus's apparent adaption to humans without leaving an environmental trail. Italics on the portion that appears to support Chan's theory in wikivoice, as a real thing that Chan has a theory to explain. Would you like to keep discussing this and ONUS? You addressed my wikivoice concerns in your very next version, and I am supporting at least one part of it. Firefangledfeathers 01:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views, and I don't think something as obvious about the virus as this can be describes in that way, and those opposing Chan et al haven't challenged that (see Eisen's comment in the MTR piece). Besides for Chan et al, other papers such as Makino et al; Baric et al, Dudas and Rambaut; and Forni et al describe the rapid evolution of novel viruses in new hosts, so this phenomenon is well known to science. Furthermore, as I described in my edit, Chan et al offered lab origins as only one of three theories to explain their observation, providing quotations so that the reader can understand what it was that she wrote. Since I noted also that it was in relation to a "non-engineered virus", the WP:ONUS is really on Shibbolethink and RandomCanadian to build consensus here that a any kind of lab accident is WP:FRINGE. Otherwise it is just another misapplication of the WP:FRINGE guideline in this contentious topic area. LondonIP ( talk) 00:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
any kind of lab accident is WP:FRINGE." We said the specific ideas you're pushing here in her article are FRINGE. Perhaps most importantly, it matters more if the ideas you're attempting to introduce are WP:DUE in the form you'd like to introduce them. I contend they are not, as they are not represented in that degree by secondary sources. Your edits would over-represent them out of proportion with their lack of mainstream acceptance. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
"The preprint was not formally accepted by a scientific journal but received a significant reception in the popular press."The popularity of the preprint is a major contributor to Chan's notability and I think it's demonstrably due based on the sourcing. If we're going to keep rehashing the past, I would like to clarify that Shibbolethink explained his point about FRINGE on December 1. You may not have been satisfied with his explanation, but there's no need to pretend it doesn't exist. I also would like to avoid giving undue prominence to Chan's fringe views. Firefangledfeathers 20:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Chan became known during the COVID-19 pandemic for co-authoring preprints and op-eds claiming the virus was "pre-adapted" to humans and suggesting COVID-19 could have escaped from a laboratory.[5][6] Chan wrote opinion pieces on the subject with science journalist Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal and in The Daily Telegraph.[7][8] Chan later signed open letters together with other scientists published in the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, calling for full and unrestricted international forensic investigations into all possible origins of the virus.[9][10]; into four paragraphs (some of them single-sentence, but nevermind). Yet those paragraphs still essentially say the same thing, except now you've plastered the first one full of quotes from the pre-print. An encyclopedia is a summary, not a quote-collection. If we can convey the most important information to the reader in 20 words instead of 200, and maintain a more academic and detached tone by not having to quote the subject at length, then the version with 20 is far superior. That less is more is not a particularly controversial position to take, I don't see why you're already being pessimistic about this. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Whether it's science or pseudoscience, pre-prints have no place on Wikipedia. Anyone familiar with the process of peer review and publication can easily make that determination, making this discussion moot. 174.193.136.71 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I support inclusion in the context of journalistic dueness, rather than a scientific one. Reliable sources that are DUE regarding a preprint that doesn't meet scholarly standards is a perfectly acceptable basis for inclusion. The only primary source cited is the sciencemag letter. Secondary sources are demonstrating DUEness. SmolBrane ( talk) 05:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Chan became known during the COVID-19 pandemic for co-authoring preprints and op-eds claiming the virus was "pre-adapted" to humans and suggesting COVID-19 could have escaped from a laboratory.). The only problem here is that people want to make it more verbose, and quote at length without providing required context... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This edit broke the sentence about Chan's preprint from the Eisen critique. The judgement that Chan's hypothesis being largely negative is redundant with the quote from the New York Times that follows it. Please fix. 103.255.6.93 ( talk) 14:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faiqaqazi844 ( talk • contribs) 09:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Two policies (
WIKIVOICE and
IMPARTIAL) tell us that Wikipedia aims to describe disputes
. And Chan has
famously disputed (most specifically) EcoHealth's views and the PRC's views.
Question: Do at least some of their disputed views differ from what Wikipedia considers
mainstream expert understanding?
Because we can go ahead and describe (and specifically attribute) those views. (And we won't have to keep arguing about FRINGE violations!) – Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
undue weight toMINORASPECTs of our subject.
An article should strive to treat each aspectof its subject
with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.
Chan sent me a copy of her slide deck from the State Department briefing, with a listing of “Top 10 Points.” ... Six relate to allegedly suspicious behavior on the part of Chinese scientists, including the failure to mention the miners who died in 2012 and the furin site on the virus genome.
Many senior virologists ... said ... that her statements would alienate China, hampering any future investigations. A Chinese news outlet accused her of “filthy behavior and a lack of basic academic ethics”...
She wrote, “I think Daszak was misinformed.” ... Daszak says that indeed he had been misinformed and was unaware that that virus found in the mine shaft had been sequenced before 2020.
presented and discussed infairly reliable sources listed on the first page of search results. – Dervorguilla ( talk) 19:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
policy(like NEUTRALITY),
sources, and common sense. – Dervorguilla ( talk) 23:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
had been misinformed and was unaware that that virus found in the mine shaft had been sequenced before 2020.He apparently accepts Chan's viewpoint on this specific question.
plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.
accepted academic scholarship." When/if it is, we should describe it in that way without describing the minority opinion, as this is not an article about the minority view.I welcome any/all evidence that Chan's position is the majority view or scientific consensus. Because I think the NIH and the National Academies of Science might have something to say about that. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 05:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
we should contextualize them in "what the Chinese govt has said."No, with the analysis and summary of RS, as opposed to echoing a list of arguments (even if they were pro/con, to avoid WP:GEVAL and the problems when disregarding WP:YESPOV). — Paleo Neonate – 00:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
with the analysis and summary of RSYes I would support this approach. Many RSes describe the Chinese govt position. Which means it is WP:DUE as an attributed statement. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
We're (finally) addressing the fundamental issue concerning our subject's dispute with China's position.
Shibbolethink has helpfully phrased it this way:
Facts:
had refused to allow some extremists and cultists supported by anti-China forces in the US and the West to pollute [Chinese] Wikipedia on various topics related to China.Geng, "Is Wikipedia Starting a 'Purge' of Chinese People?"
extremists and cultistsprevailed.
Implications:
Our non-negotiable
GEVAL policy now rules again over all Wikipedias worldwide—even over this 'polluted' article. The Chinese government's plausible but currently unaccepted theories
need not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship
—or through otherwise re-hosting those theories wherever we "re-host Chan's arguments". –
Dervorguilla (
talk) 07:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public.Since her recent paper on the FCS was accepted in MBE, it is accepted scholarship. It should be noted that it was in response to Holmes et al, which was published before ECH's DARPA proposal was leaked. LondonIP ( talk) 00:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I am only suggesting that we say what Chan believes, and then what the Chinese government's position is, what the american government's position is, or what the scientific community's position is (depending on the dispute).. This debate can't really yield a productive result if people go for cheap tricks and attack strawmen instead of the actual issues. No evidence [beyond a paper written by Chan herself, of course] has been presented that Chan's views are anything but a (tiny) minority. Her views (and other relevant ones) can be mentioned in this article (since it is, one hopes, discussing them), as allowed by policy and common sense, so long care is taken to put them into appropriate context with the mainstream and not to go to excessive length quoting them. Now, please get back on track before this minor derailment turns into a major time-wasting pile-on? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't know why Chan et al are being treated as fringe viewholders when their efforts were directly related to the rightful reassessment of the lab leak as an impossibility to a possibility. Furthermore, I don't even think their views are being fairly characterized. They're by and large skeptics (with convictions), as those who favor a natural spillover would/should be, because the required intermediate host is still unknown. As someone familiar with the academic/research apparatus that would have led to the "consensus" view that the natural spillover is the most likely, I'm skeptical of the opinions of these "experts" whose ability to make a living often depends on good Chinese relations. I don't just mean grant money...Chinese students pay a boatload to study in the West, whether at the graduate or undergraduate level, but you don't need to rely on my anecdotal experience. There is reliable sourcing with observations by qualified scientists and academics noting the "biting hand that feeds you" issue that may prevent many academics from speaking out against China. Perhaps this could be in the article. 2600:1012:B05B:1B69:6CF4:FE24:D57:D9DE ( talk) 16:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
There is reliable sourcing with observations by qualified scientists and academics noting the "biting hand that feeds you" issue that may prevent many academics from speaking out against China. Perhaps this could be in the article.I believe it is already present and well-sourced in the Chinese government response to COVID-19 article. Such information would be off-topic or WP:UNDUE in this biographical article about Alina Chan. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
See:
[22]
Why should we remove these quality citations and replace it with unattributed POV opinion that is contradicted by our
WP:BESTSOURCES? —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕) 21:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Chan's fellow conspiracists are already reverting the edit adding "conspiracy theorist" to her description, but the fact remains that those who hypothesize conspiracies of governments and global health authorities to cover up the origin of a virus--and who do so in the absence of evidence recognized as compelling by the consensus of qualified experts--are conspiracy theorists.
She's not a virologist or immunologist and she hasn't published original research in peer-reviewed journals. She's a post-doc who wrote a general audience book promoting a conspiratorial explanation of SARS-CoV-2's origins. If she had compelling evidence of a laboratory origin for the virus, she would easily sail through peer review at Science, Nature, or the New England Journal.
She hasn't. Because she's a conspiracy theorist. Inoculatedcities ( talk) 22:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
"this very flimsiness makes the lab leak conspiracy theory so hard to eradicate".
"despite their performance of neutrality, the authors’ allegiances clearly lie with some version of a lab leak".
"would require improbably large and durable conspiracies"
"rely on people poking holes in the official narrative without committing to a single plausible alternative"
"matter only if they convince us there’s a major cover-up afoot".
"Viral also shows why the very weakness of the lab leak case is also its greatest strength: The great part about suspicions—from a conspiracy theorist’s perspective—is that they don’t have to gel into any coherent theory."
she became known for questioning the prevailing consensus regarding the origins of the virus and publicly advocating a laboratory escape hypothesisis very bad. Something along the lines of
she became known for questioning the scientific consensus that the virus was not from a laboratory leak.Just because we shouldn't label BLPs without sourcing doesn't mean we should give credence to minority views. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 19:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
For clarity, a letter she co-write is mentioned in this paragraphtext:
but while you could say this is effectively criticism of Chan (of sorts) since it criticised a letter she co-wrote, it does not say anything about what Chan is known for and the specific criticism of the letter seems sourced and reasonable. It may or may not be reasonable to also mention that letter and that criticism in this article assuming it isn't already. However it does not come close to support the change you wish to make.In a letter published in Science, a number of scientists, including Ralph S. Baric, argued that the accidental laboratory leak hypothesis had not been sufficiently investigated and remained possible, calling for greater clarity and additional data.[205] Their letter was criticized by some virologists and public health experts, who said that a "hostile" and "divisive" focus on the WIV was unsupported by evidence, was impeding inquiries into legitimate concerns about China's pandemic response and transparency by combining them with speculative and meritless argument,[18] and would cause Chinese scientists and authorities to share less rather than more data.[32]
Edit to add: Note that AFAIK there is no question that the scientific consensus remains that a SARS-CoV-2 did not come from a laboratory leak. That is not the issue here. The issue here is what Chan is known for rather than what the scientific consensus on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 is.
Nil Einne ( talk) 02:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC) 02:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
At this stage, there is no scientific consensus on the origins of the virus other than "we don't know",
What sources? The WHO, former and current heads of national CDCs and all eight intelligence agencies asked to look into this by the Biden administration all say we don't know the origin and need to investigate further.
This is very relevant, as it is the first many people will have heard of Chan. I have added a link. Tuntable ( talk) 02:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)