Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41

Article out of date - WSJ - FBI believes it was a lab leak

This article is out of date. A number of sources throughout 2024 have pointed to the lab leak origin of Covid including the NYT and WSJ. Many experts believe that the virus showed artificial gain of function.

Even if the editor disagrees, this should at least get a mention on the page. Moreover, there is no definive proof that Covid was from zoonosis. 2600:6C40:4C00:463:C807:F1DD:CB00:1E53 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The consensus here states that claims about the origin of Covid-19 do not need to clear Wp:medrs. The only problem is that we have been blocked from including anything from an authoritative source (e.g., FBI) due to the so-called “undue” impact that the prestige of that source would lend to a position that is considered fringe. Basically that boils down to: “if the source has a good reputation, then we can’t include it unless it agrees with the NPOV. We can only acknowledge LL proponents that have a bad reputation.” Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Here is a more narrow excerpt from the article:
"Three scientists there—John Hardham, Robert Cutlip and Jean-Paul Chretien—conducted a genomic analysis that concluded that the virus had been manipulated in a laboratory. Specifically they concluded that a segment of the “spike protein” that enables the virus to gain entry into human cells was constructed using techniques developed in the Wuhan lab that were described in a 2008 Chinese scientific paper. That was an indication, they argued, that the Chinese scientists were conducting “gain of function” research to see if the virus could infect humans. " 2600:6C40:4C00:463:C807:F1DD:CB00:1E53 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
That would count as biomedical information, so we have to wait 'til it gets picked up in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal. So if the scientific establishment steamrolls it then it will never get in here. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
What about other circumstantial data such as a patent application for a COVID in China by Zhou Yusen in February, 2020 on the virus (author, mysteriously died a couple months later). Yusen had ties to both the PLA and the WIV. Many say that the extent of the research would have been impossible if the virus was just discovered in January of 2020. 2600:6C40:4C00:463:C807:F1DD:CB00:1E53 (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
What are the best quality sources you can cite for all that? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Fairly bad ones, I'd guess. I remember seeing sources debunking that claim early in the pandemic. Reduction to practice is the standard for a patent, and when it comes to high-level biotech content, it doesn't require much research. In fact, I'll do it right now: Whatever the next scary new virus is, I hereby invent a vaccine for it. The key ingredient in the vaccine will be a fragment of a protein from the virus, preferably a fragment of a spike protein on the surface of the virus, and preferably a fragment that is a unique antigen with a linear sequence of at least 30 amino acids. There you go: one new vaccine reduced to practice. Call me when my royalty check is ready. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
So, what I'm gathering from your comments here is that the entire point of you making an account on Wikipedia is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and to push your personal opinion on this fringe subject area. That certainly explains the multiple discussion sections you've made on the page above. SilverserenC 21:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I think this article has a few issues that need to be dealt with. I'm not trying to do anything about great wrongs. I believe that the scientific establishment has a conflict of interest on this issue that calls into question their reliability for the purposes of this resource. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately by design Wikipedia relies on the sources you believe have a conflict of interest. If you have evidence of falsification or fraud I would suggest trying to get a major news organisation to publish the details. Otherwise the article will be based on the sources you distrust, because they are (until shown otherwise in reliable secondary sources) the best quality sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The evidence of a conflict of interest is prima facie: virology experts rely on funding from the same policymakers whose decisions are then based on the research outcomes. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
That's great, but what does it have to do with anything? As ActivelyDisinterested has said our reliable sourcing requirements are our requirements. I mean you could go to WT:RS or something and try to get them changed, but this is incredibly unlikely to happen. In any case, until it does, you talking about how you want it to change here isn't helping. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Ideally this would be true, but the reliable sourcing requirements are applied very selectively on this and related articles.
A month or so ago we had a senior editor insisting that WSJ was "a crap source" for reporting on the US intelligence community (editor in question is well aware of RS/P, which has WSJ listed as GREL).
It is frequently asserted that anything relating to this subject is BMI subject to MEDRS, despite the explicit consensus notice to the contrary at the top of this page (editors in question are regulars in the topic area, and several of them participated in that RFC). This is so common that there an example of it in this very section.
The article's maintainers will try to argue that quotes from scientists who have published in this area are UNDUE. Vague references to FRINGE are used to exclude reliable sources, though there has been zero process to designate this area as fringe. In fact, given the published surveys showing that around 20% of scientists (and 70% of americans at large) believe in a lab leak of some kind, it is clearly a "minority scientific viewpoint".
People arguing for agnosticism on the subject are consistently lumped in with bioweapons conspiracy theorists for rhetorical purposes. And a couple of the senior editors like to spice things up with aspersions that would get a newbie a solid spanking but are overlooked for editors with enough "social capital". Any junior editor who hasn't gotten the message at that point can be assumed to be a sealion, warned of disruption, and taken to AE.
In this context I hope you can see why an explanation of "our reliable sourcing requirements" is unsatisfying. This page is a battleground, gaming is rampant, and oversight has been sparse at best. - Palpable (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
This point about RS is specific to the lab leak topic, not necessarily the whole site. Certain sources we use, such as virologists like Shi Zhengli, Peter Daszak, or public health authorities like Anthony Fauci, do have vested interests in the outcome of the debate on the lab leak theory. We should at least describe the full context when citing such authors. For example, Shi and Daszak are involved with virology research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and their professional reputations and future opportunities are tied to the perception that the lab leak theory is implausible. Similarly, public health officials like Fauci are involved in shaping public policy and scientific consensus at the same time, and their positions on the debate could be influenced by a desire to maintain public trust and funding in their respective fields. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Certain sources [..] do have vested interests in the outcome of the debate Every scientist has such "vested interests" because LL undermines trust in science. Let's just make the text frown at all the sources from scientists, shall we? Let's trust Donald Trump and his brown-nosers instead, they have no vested interest at all.
Irony aside, aspersions such as yours are exactly the reason why LL is a conspiracy theory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling, your comment does not contain irony, but rather sarcasm, which is uncivil and will not be tolerated going forward. Furthermore, the comment is pure fallacy and should have no weight in this discussion. Strawman Argument: suggesting I am proposing distrust in all scientists and advocating for reliance on political figures like Donald Trump. My comment does not imply this at all; it focuses on specific individuals (whose works this article cites) with clear ties to the issue at hand. Ad Hominem: You dismiss the point by labeling it as an "aspersion" and aligning it with conspiracy theories, rather than engaging with the substance of the argument. False equivalence: Your reply implies that every scientist has the same "vested interests," which is false and oversimplifies the matter. My comment distinguishes between general scientific biases and specific conflicts of interest related to the lab leak debate. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
suggesting I am proposing distrust in all scientists I stopped reading at this point because this alleged strawman is actually a malicious strawman on your side. Expanding your "vested interest" bullshit to all scientists was clearly a reductio ad absurdum and not an accusation. I see no point in having a discussion with someone who stoops to such methods. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
You literally said Let's just make the text frown at all the sources from scientists, shall we? as if that were implied by my argument, which it is not. I clearly specified a direct financial and professional interest that specific authors have to the issue under investigation.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
"suggesting I am proposing distrust in all scientists" I stopped reading at this point because this alleged strawman is actually a malicious strawman on your side.
You said, sarcastically and flippantly, less than 24 hours ago, about his argument:
Every scientist has such "vested interests" because LL undermines trust in science. Let's just make the text frown at all the sources from scientists, shall we?
Are you aware your comments are public and other people can verify what you did and did not say? You go onto claim:
Expanding your "vested interest" bullshit to all scientists was clearly a reductio ad absurdum and not an accusation.
So are we supposed to take this argument seriously or not? If not, then that's all your comment contained, aside from an ad hominem argument. So you haven't actually challenged the point, you've just name-called. If it's not an argument or an accusation and you're just name-calling and being sarcastic you're violating the rules of conduct.
If it is a proof by reductio ad absurdum, and you are using it to show how ridiculous the other side's point is, then it can't be a strawman. Your actual argument cannot be a strawman. You can't both claim something is a "malicious strawman of your real argument," but also demand it to be taken as your real argument.
In short, if you want it to be taken seriously as a real argument, you have to stop claiming it's a strawman. If it is not supposed to be taken serious as a real argument, then you've presented no challenge to the original post. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Unproven doubts about sources should be ignored. Otherwise people could make up anything to undermine the usability of any source. Unless the doubts come from other reliable secondary sources of equal quality of course. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The article cites works by individuals who have direct involvement in virology labs in Wuhan, which is well-documented--an obvious conflict. We should at least disclose the relationships that the authors have to the subject. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
If that's the case then finding reliable secondary sources discussing it shouldn't be an issue, otherwise the article will remain based on the secondary sourcing it currently uses. That's the fundamental nature of Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
OK, check out this source. An article that meets your criteria describes the conflict of Dr. Shi, whom we cite in this article (Lab leak theory) Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
So one article questions the impartiality of work by Shi, it's a very small start but hardly proves a vested interest of all virology experts and policy makers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
While the majority view is that COVID started in animals, it is far from settled and a large source of debate in politics and science at the moment. In that sense, this article is fringe by purporting that the theory has been dismissed and dismissing the lab leak as fringe seems more of a way to unnecessarily raise the bar on evidence. The US government will likely leave WHO over this next month over this. While they may be merely foolish, corrupt or have an ulterior motive, not even reporting the other side of the side is pompous. 2600:6C40:4C00:463:B3F1:B0A3:3D9D:9B4C (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Nearly all reporting on the lab leak theory will be removed by Wikipedia until it comes from a major scientific journal. Editors have already pre-emptively banned sources regarding it from The US House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus, the FBI, the Department of Energy, CNN, Science, Ars Technica, and implied that any future journalism from non-scientific journals would be removed and the user potentially banned. Read that discussion here and various discussions here.
You might say "but there are plenty of citations in the article to some of the very same sources that are now being classified as unreliable." And to that I have no real answer. You're out of luck on this one until if and when a major science journal covers it. BabbleOnto (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes all sources for scientific information should come from scientific sources, although more stringent standards apply if the content related to medical matter (per WP:MEDRS). The statements of US politicians or government bodies are of little weight when it comes to a global issue like COVID. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Nearly half of the sources in this article are not from scientific sources, they are from sources like CNN, The Guardian and the New York Times.
If you say that those sources proper because they are citing scientists, then you're defeating your own point, because the proposed WSJ article also is directly citing and quoting scientists.
If a CNN source is allowed to be used on a source on this scientific subject because it's directly quoting scientists with expertise, then I see no reason a WSJ source can be used in that exact same manner.
(For example, see citation 207, which a clearly MEDRS statement, "a declassified report from the National Intelligence Council likewise said that the fact the researchers were hospitalized was unrelated to the origins of the outbreak," is cited to CNN which is quoting a primary source. Why can this same process not be followed with the WSJ article? It is a double standard to allow such a citation to a CNN article but not a WSJ article.) BabbleOnto (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
And also we use Snopes to support a claim that virologists wrote a letter saying the lab leak theory is not supported by evidence. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Snopes requires attribution in fringe areas per WP:RSNP 107.115.5.100 (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Actually not what RSP says. It says on one hand, attribution may sometimes be necessary, and then SEPARATELY, that WP:PARITY of sources is relevant in fringe topics. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Snopes is cited with no further attribution three times in this very article.
This is becoming borderline trolling. BabbleOnto (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
for scientific information Yes if you ignore this point then your response makes sense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I didn't ignore it. I directly addressed it with an example. I suppose I can repeat myself if you missed it the first time.
(For example, see citation 207, which a clearly MEDRS statement, "a declassified report from the National Intelligence Council likewise said that the fact the researchers were hospitalized was unrelated to the origins of the outbreak," is cited to CNN which is quoting a primary source. Why can this same process not be followed with the WSJ article? It is a double standard to allow such a citation to a CNN article but not a WSJ article.) BabbleOnto (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
My opposition to the over use of sources relying on US government institution should be clear at this point, one bad source doesn't necessite more of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
To be doubly clear I would support cutting the article back to remove such sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, we should not be citing a single WP:PRIMARY government source anywhere in the article - they have no relevant expertise and therefore no weight on medical issues. The positions taken by politicians, political appointees, and by intelligence services or other organizations that operate under the direction of the executive branch may sometimes be relevant when discussing their own views as it is relevant to politics of a situation, but even then, for complex or controversial aspects it is best to rely on secondary sourcing. For medical questions they have no value at all and can only be cited via a secondary source; and even then the weight and overall framing needs to come from the WP:BESTSOURCES, which in this case would be academic ones with relevant medical expertise. If such medical sources treat a position as fringe then it is fringe even if every politician in the government disagrees. --Aquillion (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Please see the consensus statement at the top of this page.
* There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
In addition to the notice that has been on this page for years, it is particularly odd to be reminding Aquillion of this since they were the original proposer of the RFC in question. - Palpable (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Why are we not simply confronting this head on in the lead. Something along the lines of....."the theory has remained prominent in society due to media coverage (insert recent study) and non-medical evaluations such as (insert FBI here)." Moxy🍁 04:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that addressing this directly is probably the right choice. It may help people who hold that POV feel like they're not being overlooked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, even if you have to give a really deprecating attribution, the political attention given to the lab leak hypothesis by the United States House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic is very notable and needs to be mentioned. This is not a suggestion that we use them as a source to verify biomedical information. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
No we should not be giving US politics an undue prominence in a global issue. I like Moxy's idea though, dependent on wording. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed as said, this is not solely a USA topic, so USA findings should not have undue prominence. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Governmental investigations are DUE in proportion to the degree that they exist. The US investigation is going to end up dominating, not because of nationalistic bias but because:
(a) It's the only serious investigation that's been done.
(b) The US has the largest intelligence gathering apparatus in the world.
(c) The US has more internal evidence than other countries because the research program at the heart of the gain-of-function-gone-wrong theory was funded and coordinated from within the US.
By analogy, note that the major papers favoring zoonotic origin were written almost entirely at US institutions, but thankfully nobody is arguing that they are UNDUE because of this. - Palpable (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Or we could say:
(a) All the other investigators and countries that investigated are feeling insulted by you declaring their work to be frivolous.
(b) The Chinese might disagree with you, especially wrt to what happens inside their own country.
(c) This would be the research that did not get funded, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
(a) I have not seen anything from any other country that approaches the volume of hearings, transcribed interviews, and FOIA responses from the US investigations. If you have similar reports from other countries, those would be DUE, but speculation about what other countries might have obviously shouldn't make the US investigation UNDUE.
(b) I agree - if you have access to verifiable intelligence reports from inside China, those would certainly be DUE as well. Can you take a moment and reread what I wrote? I thought it was clearly a statement about what's available and therefore VERIFIABLE.
(c) By "research program" I was intentionally referring to something broader than DEFUSE, though that is the most detailed plan I know of. But, to your point, Daszak committed in email to finding other funding for that work, was subsequently funded by NIAID for a more open-ended grant, and had earlier reported on successful gain of function experiments in, I think, humanized mice at WIV. This is all on the US side. On the WIV side, Shi Zhengli refused to answer a question about whether any of the DEFUSE work was done.
Again, we are not talking about proof here, just about a "lab leak" article that accurately describes the evidence, such as it is, for some kind of lab involvement. Written plans to test viruses very like SaRS-CoV-2 at WIV are hardly proof, but in a court of law they would certainly be evidence and indeed adverse inference could be be drawn from the fact that the proposal leaked instead of being disclosed by the investigators soon after it became relevant. - Palpable (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
All the other investigators and countries that investigated are feeling insulted by you declaring their work to be frivolous
They're probably more insulted that you couldn't even name a single one of them.
And now that you're going to name them, why is the solution "don't add any of the sources," instead of "let's add the US source as well as other countries' sources?" BabbleOnto (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
That point makes it seem like you have not read the section on political attention in the article. Please take a look at it. The section weaves together a global narrative consisting of notable events in politics and media from the US, China, UK, WHO, etc. Even Tucker Carlson gets a mention for his impact on the public discourse. Omitting the info I mentioned would be a conspicuous inconsistency. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
We mention the FBI. Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Wouldn't this defeat your previous point of:
Agreed as said, this is not solely a USA topic, so USA findings should not have undue prominence.
Why is the FBI, a US government institution, allowed to be cited, but the US House, a US government institution, not allowed to be cited, because it represents only the US's point of view? BabbleOnto (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The FBI has not been a political institution since Hoover. (Although the new appointee has said he will make it one again.) They are profession investigators. The committees of the House are extremely political groups. At the present time, they do not even represent the US POV. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
At the present time, they do not even represent the US POV
Just do be clear, you think the FBI represents a global point of view?
The FBI has not been a political institution since Hoover.
Just to be clear, you think the FBI is not a political institution?
So the FBI's report relating to Iran, Syria, Operation Desert Storm, and Jihadist insurgencies are all both a.) apolitical and b.) represent the global point of view.
This has to be sarcasm that I'm missing. BabbleOnto (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
They represent the FBI investigational findings. Of course politicians may attempt to frame the findings politically. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes different organisations across the global are mentioned, that's how it should be. Rather than giving undue prominence to the machinations of the US political system. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It’s due to briefly mention the subcommittee as part of the whole narrative. We already mention another instance of House of Reps. activity. I’m not saying to give it an excessive or “prominent” coverage. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The mention of US institutions should be brief, along with any to other countries. Less would be the way to go, not more. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
We could mention QANON too. It would be just as reliable. I'm serious. The House spent massive amounts of time investigating what they called the "Biden Crime Family" and claiming they had strong evidence based primarily on an informer who the FBI eventually arrested and convicted of perjury. Why would we consider a political entity a source for an encyclopedia on a subject that they were politically motivated to besmirch? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
They are not a source for the article in my proposal, but rather a part of the story. Our article already has a whole section covering the politicization of the lab leak theory, the 2021 congressional committee which suggested a lab leak was likely, citing circumstantial evidence, and how it was heavily criticized, and another report in 2023. We would use reliable sources to bring this up to date, mentioning the select subcommittee and its 2024 report, how it continued to promote the view, which contributed to more attention on the theory, and how it was criticized. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyways, let's get back to this idea of Moxy's. If you all are good with doing that, it could be an incremental edit that we could make right now and take it from there. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I support Moxy's idea. Just10A (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree. - Palpable (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Would you agree if the sentence that is eventually added is one that says the FBI's findings have been politicized, or that scientists reject them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I think mentioning the FBI assessment in the lead is an improvement over not mentioning it.
The form you're describing is pretty common in the article: each stanza starts with one voice making a carefully cited statement, followed by the chorus responding with three lines about the bad moral character of the previous speaker. It's not NPOV, but at least it's better for the reader that the article wears its POV on its sleeve. - Palpable (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Repetition and posts like this are not inducive to collaboration. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe it's ok to respond to a direct question by an admina user about my opinion. - Palpable (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
(I'm not an admin.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
My mistake, will strike. - Palpable (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
He was literally asked a direct question by another user. It is the epitome of collaboration. This is laughable, I would strike this. Just10A (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
A phenomenon we see in some articles is that if we don't mention something that's in the news/going around social media, then people assume we are unaware, and they helpfully try to add it.
If we address it, even if we address it in a dis-affirming way, then (a) they know that we're aware of it, and (b) they might learn something.
But with more experienced editors, I find that sometimes they would rather not have it mentioned at all, than to have the m:Wrong™ Version in the article. There is a certain element of "be careful what you wish for" when you wish to have something contentious mentioned in the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I suspect the hypothetical lab-leak curious reader is well aware of what Science thinks about it.
I do think that when phrasing Wikipedia's smackdown of the FBI you should keep in mind that they have many scientists on staff (Federal Bureau of Investigation#Personnel) and are empowered to interview many others. FBI was the point agency in the 2001 anthrax attacks investigation for example. - Palpable (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Anthrax bacterium was discovered in the 19th century and is easily identifiable. The locations were also in the US (a few blocks from me) and the FBI is a domestic agency. Not a good comparison to a novel virus originating on the other side of the planet. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The most important question about whether or not to include the FBI assessment in the lead is: "What does the scholarly literature think? Do scholars care about the FBI here?"
If the answer is: "yes, see all these RS scholarly sources that mention the lab leak and the FBI assessment together" then, yes, we should add it in the form Moxy suggests.
If the answer is: "well, who cares what scholars think, all these news agencies care a lot about the FBI!!" then no, we should not add the FBI more prominently. Because it would not be WP:DUE. Scholars, scientists, professors, and researchers determine what is and is not DUE on wikipedia, as these are the WP:BESTSOURCES — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
If the answer is: "yes, see all these RS scholarly sources that mention the lab leak and the FBI assessment together" then, yes, we should add it in the form Moxy suggests.
This is not the policy at all. We do not include secondary sources only if scientists mention them in their scholarly articles. That is not what determines if a source is WP:DUE. For someone who constantly cites it, you seem to have to have a poor grasp of what it means.
And there is no better evidence of the fact that this is not case than your proposes than this article features dozens of non-scholarly non-scientific sources which are never justified by being in a scholarly source. See in the article citations 1, 17, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36.... I could go on.... BabbleOnto (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
For someone who constantly cites it, you seem to have to have a poor grasp of what it means.
I would suggest you avoid ad hominem attacks in the future, thanks.
Also you appear to be misunderstanding me saying "Scholarly" meaning "scientific". There are many disciplines in scholarship outside of the sciencies.
I would direct you to WP:SOURCETYPES, a wikipedia content guideline: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. and WP:RSUW, an explanatory supplement that details wikipedia's general culture on such things: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts...Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
BTW, I'm actually pretty sure you could find extremely high quality reliable scholarly sources which DO mention the FBI prominently in relation to the lab leak theory. Do you disagree? Do you think that wouldn't be possible? Why not? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
But what you said above was Scholars, scientists, professors, and researchers determine what is and is not DUE on wikipedia, as these are the WP:BESTSOURCES
What WP:DUE says is "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." - Palpable (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
so what you're saying is, you'd like to use lower quality sources to determine what is DUE for this article? Why?
I'm not opposed to using high quality news sources, e.g. longform journalism, newspapers of record, etc. I would prefer high quality sources.
But when I said "all these news agencies care a lot about the FBI" I was referring to the proliferation of extremely low quality reliable-only-for-basic-facts news-agency sources. Which love to publish schlock pulp journalism that simply reiterates what the FBI already said years ago, again. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
so what you're saying is, you'd like to use lower quality sources to determine what is DUE for this article?
No, I'm more concerned about senior editors misrepresenting PAGs. You wrote If the answer is: "well, who cares what scholars think, all these news agencies care a lot about the FBI!!" then no, we should not add the FBI more prominently. Because it would not be WP:DUE. Scholars, scientists, professors, and researchers determine what is and is not DUE on wikipedia, as these are the WP:BESTSOURCES. WP:DUE simply does not say that. - Palpable (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Also you appear to be misunderstanding me saying "Scholarly" meaning "scientific".
I'm not, and you've not identified any part of my comment which you're even alleging I'm doing this.
an explanatory supplement that details wikipedia's general culture on such things: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts...
This position is clearly not the majority position. Don't know why you felt it relevant to cite the rules for majority opinions. Since this is clearly a minority viewpoint, let's see what the rule is for minority viewpoints:
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
Well, I can name a few prominent adherents. The FBI. The US House subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. The Department of Energy. The Wall Street Journal appears to at least entertain the idea. So, clearly it has prominent adherents. So, if the rule was actually applied, clearly this viewpoint should be mentioned. Yet you disagree. Seeing as you've cited the wrong rule I'm curious your explanation.
BTW, I'm actually pretty sure you could find extremely high quality reliable scholarly sources which DO mention the FBI prominently in relation to the lab leak theory. Do you disagree? Do you think that wouldn't be possible? Why not?
It's already been determined by consensus that no sources at all mentioning the FBI report or US House report will be allowed, unless a scientific journal separately publishes their results. Not even scholarly mention of these reports, say in Ars Technica, is allowed. See extensive discussion here. If you disagree, feel free to take up your argument there and change their minds. Until then, your point is moot, because the consensus has decided has decided the answer is no. BabbleOnto (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, I can name a few prominent adherents
Actually, you're misunderstanding that part of RSUW. The point is if you can produce high quality reliable sources which name the minority adherents. Not if any random editor can just type their name into a text box. RSUW would then have us portion out mentions of minority viewpoint-holders in proportion to how prominently our high quality reliable sources mention them. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Not if any random editor can just type their name into a text box.
This is just not my point and I think you know that. This is the third time you're just misrepresenting my point. From now on if you're going to critique what I'm saying quote me directly.
The point is if you can produce high quality reliable sources which name the minority adherents.
This is just not what the rule actually says. All contentious claims require reliable sources, saying that is redundant. Then, you're just inserting "High-quality" and then defining "high-quality" as whatever you want for the current argument. There's nothing in WP:DUE that says something like "All sources for minority viewpoints must come from scholarly journals or academic sources." Perhaps you wish it did say that, but as of right now, it doesn't.
If you want your rules to be the policy, consider starting a discussion on the WP:DUE discussion. Otherwise, the policy is very clear, and it does not say what you're claiming it says. Quote it directly if you think I'm misrepresenting anything. BabbleOnto (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you clarify what policy you are citing for this "scholarly" requirement you mentioned? Many newspapers including the WSJ are considered reliable sources. - Palpable (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
We really shouldn't talk about sources being "reliable" separately from what they're "reliable for".
Shibbolethink, I'm not finding much right now that addresses the FBI directly. For example, this paper says:

"Intense debate continues to evolve on the incrimination of a potential laboratory leak for the outbreak in Wuhan of a genetically engineered “gain of function virus” with a footprint that had never been observed in natural coronavirus. 5,11-13 Some scientists and government officials ascertain that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential laboratory leak.128,129 However, other either support a zoonotic origin of the virus 129,130,131 or remain undecided, like the CIA and other US government agencies. The laboratory leak hypothesis as the origin of the outbreak is not universally accepted, has no scientific basis, and remains purely speculative."

in its conclusions. Some of the footnotes are to news reports about the FBI's claims. (It's also a middling-at-best journal publishing something outside its main subject area, which is not usually a good sign.) But I can't find anything that talks specifically about the FBI for more than a sentence or two. This source has a long paragraph about whether early speculation should have been formally considered 'disinformation' (as opposed to, e.g., ordinary speculation), but it only has one sentence about the FBI:

Some US intelligence offices, such as the FBI, agree and give more credence to the lab leak theory, while others and most of the scientific community cling to the natural spillover theory

In other words, the FBI's view itself doesn't seem to be very important to scholarly sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
this "scholarly" requirement
I'm sorry, did I ever use the word "requirement?" — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
See above - Palpable (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree in principle with Shibbolethink that we must always closely follow the WP:BESTSOURCES, which would per WP:SOURCETYPES be academic and peer-reviewed publications etc., when available (emphasis added). But as an argument against mentioning the FBI in the lead of this article it's worthless without also citing such sources and reviewing what they are (not) saying. Moreover, if scholarly sources are not contradicting lesser sources, or even repeating lesser sources (some US intelligence offices, such as the FBI, agree and give more credence to the lab leak theory), and there are a plethora of such lesser-but-still-reliable sources, what these lesser sources are saying might well be WP:DUE for a short mention, even in the lead. It often is. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Balancing scientific works with the opinion of an agency from one country in an article about a global issue is probably undue in the lead. The last thing this article needs is more details from US agency or political institutions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
It depends on how it's handled. For example, the existing sentence Though some scientists agree a lab leak should be examined as part of ongoing investigations, politicization remains a concern could be expanded to say something like "such as statements from the US House Subcommittee in 2024" or "For example, the Trump-appointed head of the FBI said that he believed a lab leak was more likely than a natural origin". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I think what's DUE is the conclusion reached by the FBI as a whole rather than the personal opinion of the director.
I agree that the House Subcommittee statements are not worthy of mention in the lead, the useful thing that came out of that was the transcribed interviews with experts rather than the political grandstanding. - Palpable (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
That's again just placing undue attention on US political matters, which are only important a small part of the global population. It would be better suited to an article about failing US-China relations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't want to rehash my full comment above, but I did give three reasons why the US had more relevant intelligence on this than the rest of the world.
If the point is specifically that Wikipedia should never platform Republicans, that seems iffy but in any case I think it's well established that Federal employees overwhelmingly vote Democrat and unless someone has more specific info I'd guess that's true of the FBI as well. - Palpable (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Not only is that your opinion, it's a rather odd one.

...every single director of the F.B.I. has been a Republican-aligned official, going all the way back to its creation.

Historically, though, the F.B.I. has been arguably the most culturally conservative and traditionally white Christian institution in the entire U.S. government. It’s an institution so culturally conservative, even by the standards of law enforcement, that Democratic presidents have never felt comfortable — or politically emboldened — enough to nominate a Democrat to head the bureau.

Its current director, Christopher Wray, who oversaw the agents conducting last week’s search of Mar-a-Lago, was nominated by Mr. Trump himself and came to the job with sterling Republican credentials: He was the head of the criminal division in George W. Bush’s Justice Department, a member of the conservative Federalist Society and a clerk for Judge J. Michael Luttig, a Republican judicial icon.

[1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks - that's new to me and very relevant to my second point. It's a "guest essay", but I'm sure it was fact-checked. I stand corrected.
I guess if American politics is that big a factor in what is DUE here, this is a dead end conversation. - Palpable (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
But can we agree that most of FBI is Republican, and most of CIA is Democratic? I don't think that Republicans own both the FBI and CIA. The latter is definitely Democratic.84.54.70.119 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
No idea where you get that from. All FBI directors have been Republican. I don't know if the current CIA director is registered with any party. He has worked for both Democratic and Republican presidents. It's not a political position and is focused on overseas intelligence. It has little to do with US domestic intelligence and has no law enforcement power. In the US, law enforcement in general has been conservative. Been that way for as long as I can remember. In any case, no one "owns" the FBI and CIA. Well, at least in the past. That looks like it's about to change. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I found the PAG I was looking for:
per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE: "When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements." — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
(We've been talking about rearranging some bits of that policy, and that sentence probably belongs under WP:BESTSOURCES. If you agree, you could suggest that at WT:NPOV.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_40&oldid=1271602464"