This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I've only read the lead so far and since the last sentence contradicted the mainstream zoonotic view, suggesting that only some scientists consider the lab leak scenario less likely, I checked the cited source. It doesn't support the sentence, in fact it reminds readers of The Lancet's conclusion that "the evidence to date supports the view that Sars-Cov-2 is a naturally occurring virus rather than the result of laboratory creation and release" and that the idea was mostly pushed by conspiracy theorists, although it of course remains part of scientific investigations. [1] — Paleo Neonate – 02:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
References
PaleoNeonate, I was just wondering why you tagged the Washington Post as an unreliable source? That particular article was published by the Washington Post's own editorial board as part of the The Post's View section, not a guest blogger post. The Post published another article on the topic more recently, which I would like to include too. ScrupulousScribe ( talk) 02:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
.
Considering the other article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 that currently enjoys more scrutiny for being in mainspace, this draft becomes a WP:POVFORK of both that article as well as of Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic... — Paleo Neonate – 19:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This article has WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:PROFRINGE problems. Especially since a WHO official released a statement today debunking this. [1]
This article also has WP:PROSELINE problems.
The title may also be problematic. I don't know if it's correct to call a fringe theory a "hypothesis".
There's also the question of whether a fringe idea deserves its own article. Perhaps the section in COVID-19 misinformation is sufficient to cover this idea.
The bottom line is that mainstream scientists have not given this idea any credence, but the lay press has become obsessed with it, similar to how they are obsessed with ivermectin. We really need to ask ourselves if these fringe ideas deserve more than a small section in their respective parent articles. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing, since you are the original author of Wikipedia:Biomedical information it would be good to get your feedback on how you think MEDRS applies for sourcing the topic of Covid-19 origins. From what I recall of the discussion at the WP:RSN Noticeboard [2], you seemed to agree with ScrupulousScribe that MEDRS may not apply here at the moment. Other editors agreeing with that position include Guest2625, Normchou, Atsme, JPxG, Geogene, My very best wishes, Park3r, Adoring nanny and Forich. I've pinged them here in case they would like to offer an opinion again. Given that there is likely to be speculation around the lab leak hypothesis until we have some evidence for another scenario, it would perhaps be a good idea to determine how best to apply WP:PAG to this topic. Thanks, Arcturus ( talk) 20:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I've created a second redirect, COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory, also going to COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab leak story. - Darouet ( talk) 14:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The hypothesis that the COVID19 outbreak may have originated from a lab leak is not a conspiracy theory for the following reasons:
1: Lab leaks are not uncommon events, and there is precedence for leaks having lead to outbreaks. A historical review of outbreaks of potentially pandemic pathogens by the Scientist’s Working Group on Chemical and Biologic Weapons at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, lists at least five laboratory leaks from nationally funded laboratories since 1966 that caused real-world outbreaks.
2: The Wuhan Lab was studying similar viruses in 2018 from samples collected from bats in southern China.
3: At said lab, they studied a version of SARS-COVID that was transmissible from bats to humans. [3].
4: This research was funded by the National Institute of Health.
5: Because a leak would have been accidental, a lab leak does not classify as a conspiracy theory.
6: The lab leak has not been disqualified as a possible source of the outbreak.
Proposed Edits
Include the removal of some inflammatory language, correction of some sources cited in misleading ways, and additional links to primary sources. Original citation numbers were otherwise left unchanged.
---Start Proposed Edit---
Wuhan Lab Leak Hypothesis
One Hypothesis is that the outbreak originated by a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wuhan Institute had been conducting research on viruses collected from bats in southern China. [4] Funded in part by grants from the National Institute of Health, [5] in 2018, this research included a version of SARS-CoV-2 that was transmissible to humans. At the lab, SARS-CoV-2 was also engineered for gain-of-function studies to understand cross-species transmission risk where in vivo experiments demonstrated replication of a chimeric virus in mouse lung with notable pathogenesis. [6]
While there have been at least 5 pathogenic outbreaks caused by lab leaks since 1966 [7], there is no conclusive evidence yet linking the COVID19 outbreak to a lab leak. On February 9, 2021 a team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic for the World Health Organization rated the lab leak theory as "extremely unlikely",[44][45][46] with the WHO mission chief saying in a subsequent interview that the hypothesis is "not impossible" and "still being discussed openly and accepted."[47]
Engineered Bio Weapon Theory
Conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation have gained popularity during the pandemic. One such narrative says the virus was engineered as a bio-weapon.[28][27][25][29] Believers are dedicated to trying to unearth "evidence" which supports the position, while attacking science which does not fit their beliefs, suggesting an ideological basis to their activities.[27]
One early source of the bio-weapon narrative was former Israeli secret service officer Dany Shoham, who gave an interview to The Washington Times about the Wuhan laboratory.[31][32] A commentary in The Epoch Times posed the question, "is the novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan an accident occasioned by weaponizing the virus at that [Wuhan P4 virology] lab?"[33][34] One scientist from Hong Kong, Li-Meng Yan, fled China and released a preprint stating the virus was modified in a lab rather than having a natural evolution. Peer-reviewers determined the paper "did not demonstrate sufficient scientific evidence to support its claims."[35]
US politicians began spreading the conspiracy theories, including GOP Senators Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn especially President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.[36][37][38][39] Many scientists and authorities debunked the theories, including NIAID director Anthony Fauci and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.[40][41][42]
---End Proposed Edit--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.84.173 ( talk) 07:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
If you don't think this incredibly notable subject exist on wiki. Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 07:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I just saw an article in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on the COVID lab leak hypothesis. This follows on scientists calling for investigation of the lab leak and analysis in a WHO report. Clearly, this is not a FRINGE theory the way that "caused by a meteor" or "caused by the Jews" is a Fringe theory. And the topic of a lab leak is clearly notable enough for stand-alone coverage, whether or not it happened. I intend to restore this as a stand-alone article in the near future; however I certainly will not restore the February revisions, as much of the 52KB of content there is problematic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
My BOLD re-target was reverted; I will start a WP:RFD discussion in about 12 hours if I'm happy with the new target at that time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
This is an area I'm not at all familiar with, but I'd recommend not deviating from the official line too much here. This is a fascinating theory and one that may very well in the future be vindicated, but for now it remains in the realm of pseudoscience. Sorry I can't help further, and keep up the good work. Daedalus 96 ( talk) 19:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Per my comments above and the discussion there, I've copied text and sources (but have not transcluded) from Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and origin to this article, COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis#Scientific consensus on likely natural zoonosis from bats. I or other editors might copy additional material, and possibly modify it slightly, from that article into into one in order to contextualize the discussion about a possible laboratory origin with strong scientific references.
Per User:ProcrastinatingReader, I am copying rather than transcluding, so that we can decide what to include at a more granular level. I'm hesitant to take this approach because it can be used to shift text away from what scientific editors have added at SARS-CoV-2 and towards a pro-leak viewpoint that is right dismissed by most scientists. Nevertheless I'm adopting the copying approach in the hopes that we can avoid that pitfall. - Darouet ( talk) 12:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
You can see the diff of the copying here [8]. - Darouet ( talk) 12:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and COVID-19 lab leak theory redirect to two separate pages. That can't be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jikybebna ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Following this discussion [9], I am unblanking this page. Pinging involved admins CambridgeBayWeather, ToBeFree, HighInBC and DGG. Courtesy pings to involved editors: Arcturus, Jweiss11, Extraordinary Writ and Jclemens, Loksmythe, Hobit, SmokeyJoe, Robert McClenon, 力, Goszei, Adoring nanny, Almaty, Forich, Terjen Empiricus-sextus, My very best wishes, Kashmiri, SMcCandlish, Drbogdan Geogene, Dream_Focus, and Guest2625. I have also written an essay on why Wikipedia should have a page on this hypothesis, regardless of whether it is proven or disproven in the end. Happy editing. CutePeach ( talk) 11:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@ ToBeFree:, this version of the article is different to the deleted one [10]. I was just about to start making improvements and then it got blanked again. Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress? Some of the sections in the body need rewriting for style and clarity, but otherwise the article is largely faithful to the sources cited.
RoySmith, were you aware that this version of the draft was published as an article? Unblanking was clearly alluded to in the deletion review. CutePeach ( talk) 12:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
There was a running thread about the proper use of mainspace vs draft vs userspace vs POVFORK for controversial new article; I don't see any particular consensus there, which in turn means I'm not going to make any statement about where such a new attempt should be written.Draftspace is also not mandated by any policy, for anything, about anything.
POVFORKindicates that you fundamentally disagree with the consensus established at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 7 and will not accept any article at this title. You cannot simply ignore a community consensus as closed by an uninvolved administrator. If you think it's a POVFORK, gain consensus for your view at WP:AFD. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I've only read the lead so far and since the last sentence contradicted the mainstream zoonotic view, suggesting that only some scientists consider the lab leak scenario less likely, I checked the cited source. It doesn't support the sentence, in fact it reminds readers of The Lancet's conclusion that "the evidence to date supports the view that Sars-Cov-2 is a naturally occurring virus rather than the result of laboratory creation and release" and that the idea was mostly pushed by conspiracy theorists, although it of course remains part of scientific investigations. [1] — Paleo Neonate – 02:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
References
PaleoNeonate, I was just wondering why you tagged the Washington Post as an unreliable source? That particular article was published by the Washington Post's own editorial board as part of the The Post's View section, not a guest blogger post. The Post published another article on the topic more recently, which I would like to include too. ScrupulousScribe ( talk) 02:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
.
Considering the other article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 that currently enjoys more scrutiny for being in mainspace, this draft becomes a WP:POVFORK of both that article as well as of Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic... — Paleo Neonate – 19:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This article has WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:PROFRINGE problems. Especially since a WHO official released a statement today debunking this. [1]
This article also has WP:PROSELINE problems.
The title may also be problematic. I don't know if it's correct to call a fringe theory a "hypothesis".
There's also the question of whether a fringe idea deserves its own article. Perhaps the section in COVID-19 misinformation is sufficient to cover this idea.
The bottom line is that mainstream scientists have not given this idea any credence, but the lay press has become obsessed with it, similar to how they are obsessed with ivermectin. We really need to ask ourselves if these fringe ideas deserve more than a small section in their respective parent articles. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing, since you are the original author of Wikipedia:Biomedical information it would be good to get your feedback on how you think MEDRS applies for sourcing the topic of Covid-19 origins. From what I recall of the discussion at the WP:RSN Noticeboard [2], you seemed to agree with ScrupulousScribe that MEDRS may not apply here at the moment. Other editors agreeing with that position include Guest2625, Normchou, Atsme, JPxG, Geogene, My very best wishes, Park3r, Adoring nanny and Forich. I've pinged them here in case they would like to offer an opinion again. Given that there is likely to be speculation around the lab leak hypothesis until we have some evidence for another scenario, it would perhaps be a good idea to determine how best to apply WP:PAG to this topic. Thanks, Arcturus ( talk) 20:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I've created a second redirect, COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory, also going to COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab leak story. - Darouet ( talk) 14:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The hypothesis that the COVID19 outbreak may have originated from a lab leak is not a conspiracy theory for the following reasons:
1: Lab leaks are not uncommon events, and there is precedence for leaks having lead to outbreaks. A historical review of outbreaks of potentially pandemic pathogens by the Scientist’s Working Group on Chemical and Biologic Weapons at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, lists at least five laboratory leaks from nationally funded laboratories since 1966 that caused real-world outbreaks.
2: The Wuhan Lab was studying similar viruses in 2018 from samples collected from bats in southern China.
3: At said lab, they studied a version of SARS-COVID that was transmissible from bats to humans. [3].
4: This research was funded by the National Institute of Health.
5: Because a leak would have been accidental, a lab leak does not classify as a conspiracy theory.
6: The lab leak has not been disqualified as a possible source of the outbreak.
Proposed Edits
Include the removal of some inflammatory language, correction of some sources cited in misleading ways, and additional links to primary sources. Original citation numbers were otherwise left unchanged.
---Start Proposed Edit---
Wuhan Lab Leak Hypothesis
One Hypothesis is that the outbreak originated by a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wuhan Institute had been conducting research on viruses collected from bats in southern China. [4] Funded in part by grants from the National Institute of Health, [5] in 2018, this research included a version of SARS-CoV-2 that was transmissible to humans. At the lab, SARS-CoV-2 was also engineered for gain-of-function studies to understand cross-species transmission risk where in vivo experiments demonstrated replication of a chimeric virus in mouse lung with notable pathogenesis. [6]
While there have been at least 5 pathogenic outbreaks caused by lab leaks since 1966 [7], there is no conclusive evidence yet linking the COVID19 outbreak to a lab leak. On February 9, 2021 a team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic for the World Health Organization rated the lab leak theory as "extremely unlikely",[44][45][46] with the WHO mission chief saying in a subsequent interview that the hypothesis is "not impossible" and "still being discussed openly and accepted."[47]
Engineered Bio Weapon Theory
Conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation have gained popularity during the pandemic. One such narrative says the virus was engineered as a bio-weapon.[28][27][25][29] Believers are dedicated to trying to unearth "evidence" which supports the position, while attacking science which does not fit their beliefs, suggesting an ideological basis to their activities.[27]
One early source of the bio-weapon narrative was former Israeli secret service officer Dany Shoham, who gave an interview to The Washington Times about the Wuhan laboratory.[31][32] A commentary in The Epoch Times posed the question, "is the novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan an accident occasioned by weaponizing the virus at that [Wuhan P4 virology] lab?"[33][34] One scientist from Hong Kong, Li-Meng Yan, fled China and released a preprint stating the virus was modified in a lab rather than having a natural evolution. Peer-reviewers determined the paper "did not demonstrate sufficient scientific evidence to support its claims."[35]
US politicians began spreading the conspiracy theories, including GOP Senators Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn especially President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.[36][37][38][39] Many scientists and authorities debunked the theories, including NIAID director Anthony Fauci and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.[40][41][42]
---End Proposed Edit--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.84.173 ( talk) 07:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
If you don't think this incredibly notable subject exist on wiki. Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 07:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I just saw an article in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on the COVID lab leak hypothesis. This follows on scientists calling for investigation of the lab leak and analysis in a WHO report. Clearly, this is not a FRINGE theory the way that "caused by a meteor" or "caused by the Jews" is a Fringe theory. And the topic of a lab leak is clearly notable enough for stand-alone coverage, whether or not it happened. I intend to restore this as a stand-alone article in the near future; however I certainly will not restore the February revisions, as much of the 52KB of content there is problematic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
My BOLD re-target was reverted; I will start a WP:RFD discussion in about 12 hours if I'm happy with the new target at that time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
This is an area I'm not at all familiar with, but I'd recommend not deviating from the official line too much here. This is a fascinating theory and one that may very well in the future be vindicated, but for now it remains in the realm of pseudoscience. Sorry I can't help further, and keep up the good work. Daedalus 96 ( talk) 19:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Per my comments above and the discussion there, I've copied text and sources (but have not transcluded) from Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and origin to this article, COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis#Scientific consensus on likely natural zoonosis from bats. I or other editors might copy additional material, and possibly modify it slightly, from that article into into one in order to contextualize the discussion about a possible laboratory origin with strong scientific references.
Per User:ProcrastinatingReader, I am copying rather than transcluding, so that we can decide what to include at a more granular level. I'm hesitant to take this approach because it can be used to shift text away from what scientific editors have added at SARS-CoV-2 and towards a pro-leak viewpoint that is right dismissed by most scientists. Nevertheless I'm adopting the copying approach in the hopes that we can avoid that pitfall. - Darouet ( talk) 12:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
You can see the diff of the copying here [8]. - Darouet ( talk) 12:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and COVID-19 lab leak theory redirect to two separate pages. That can't be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jikybebna ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Following this discussion [9], I am unblanking this page. Pinging involved admins CambridgeBayWeather, ToBeFree, HighInBC and DGG. Courtesy pings to involved editors: Arcturus, Jweiss11, Extraordinary Writ and Jclemens, Loksmythe, Hobit, SmokeyJoe, Robert McClenon, 力, Goszei, Adoring nanny, Almaty, Forich, Terjen Empiricus-sextus, My very best wishes, Kashmiri, SMcCandlish, Drbogdan Geogene, Dream_Focus, and Guest2625. I have also written an essay on why Wikipedia should have a page on this hypothesis, regardless of whether it is proven or disproven in the end. Happy editing. CutePeach ( talk) 11:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@ ToBeFree:, this version of the article is different to the deleted one [10]. I was just about to start making improvements and then it got blanked again. Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress? Some of the sections in the body need rewriting for style and clarity, but otherwise the article is largely faithful to the sources cited.
RoySmith, were you aware that this version of the draft was published as an article? Unblanking was clearly alluded to in the deletion review. CutePeach ( talk) 12:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
There was a running thread about the proper use of mainspace vs draft vs userspace vs POVFORK for controversial new article; I don't see any particular consensus there, which in turn means I'm not going to make any statement about where such a new attempt should be written.Draftspace is also not mandated by any policy, for anything, about anything.
POVFORKindicates that you fundamentally disagree with the consensus established at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 7 and will not accept any article at this title. You cannot simply ignore a community consensus as closed by an uninvolved administrator. If you think it's a POVFORK, gain consensus for your view at WP:AFD. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)