Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 16:11, 22 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about COVID-19 lab leak theory. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about COVID-19 lab leak theory at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 18, 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis → COVID-19 lab leak theory, Moved, 26 July 2021 (discussion) COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy, Not moved, 15 August 2023 (discussion) COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 Lab Leak Conspiracy Theory, Not moved, 2 October 2023 (discussion) COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory, Not moved, 20 February 2024 (discussion) COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 lab leak theories, Speedy close with one-year moratorium on any page move requests, 1 March 2024 (discussion)

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

COVID-19 High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Emergency / Society / Pulmonology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Molecular Biology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Viruses Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jackson Ryan (27 June 2021). "Misplaced Pages is at war over the coronavirus lab leak theory". Cnet. Retrieved 21 February 2022. Rhys Blakely (11 November 2021). "The Covid-19 lab-leak theory: 'I've had death threats'". The Times. Retrieved 21 February 2022. When she first spoke out, the lab-leak theory was dismissed – in public, at least – by senior virologists as a fantasy of populist politicians and internet cranks. Facebook and Misplaced Pages banned any mention of the possibility that the virus had escaped from a Wuhan lab, branding it a conspiracy theory. Renée DiResta (21 July 2021). "Institutional Authority Has Vanished. Misplaced Pages Points to the Answer". The Atlantic. Retrieved 21 February 2021. The "Talk" page linked to the Misplaced Pages entry on the origin of the coronavirus provides visibility into the roiling editing wars. Sock-puppet accounts descended, trying to nudge the coverage of the topic to reflect particular points of view. A separate page was created, dedicated specifically to the "COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis," but site administrators later deleted it—a decision that remains in dispute within the Misplaced Pages community. Julian Adorney (6 November 2023). "Is it possible to save Misplaced Pages?". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 13 November 2023. The Misplaced Pages page for the COVID-19 lab leak theory, for instance, calls it a "conspiracy theory" that is "informed by racist undercurrents" and "fed by pseudoscientific … thinking." That's in spite of the fact that a 302-page Senate report found credible evidence for the theory.

• v
• t
• e

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
2. 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)
3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources () which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi 's emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

• v
• e

Lab leak theory sources

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

References

WIV did perform genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses

The current version of article contains a phrase: "There is no evidence that any genetic manipulation or reverse genetics (a technique required to make chimeric viruses) of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was ever carried out at the WIV."

It is FALSE. There is (at least one) publicly available paper which proves the contrary.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698 is an article from 2017 with (among others) authored by Daszak and Zheng-Li Shi (the head of the WIV). "Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus".

It contains this passage:

"Construction of recombinant viruses

Recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat SARSr-CoVs and the backbone of the infectious clone of SARSr-CoV WIV1 were constructed using the reverse genetic system described previously (S9 Fig). The fragments E and F were re-amplified with primer pairs (FE, 5’-AGGGCCCACCTGGCACTGGTAAGAGTCATTTTGC-3’, R-EsBsaI, 5’-ACTGGTCTCTTCGTTTAGTTATTAACTAAAATATCACTAGACACC-3’) and (F-FsBsaI, 5’-TGAGGTCTCCGAACTTATGGATTTGTTTATGAG-3’, RF, 5’-AGGTAGGCCTCTAGGGCAGCTAAC-3’), respectively. The products were named as fragment Es and Fs, which leave the spike gene coding region as an independent fragment. BsaI sites (5’-GGTCTCN|NNNN-3’) were introduced into the 3’ terminal of the Es fragment and the 5’ terminal of the Fs fragment, respectively. The spike sequence of Rs4231 was amplified with the primer pair (F-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-AGTCGTCTCAACGAACATGTTTATTTTCTTATTCTTTCTCACTCTCAC-3’ and R-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-TCACGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTGACACCCTTG-3’). The S gene sequence of Rs7327 was amplified with primer pair (F-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’-AGTGGTCTCAACGAACATGAAATTGTTAGTTTTAGTTTTTGCTAC-3’ and R-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’- TCAGGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTAACACCCTTG-3’). The fragment Es and Fs were both digested with BglI (NEB) and BsaI (NEB). The Rs4231 S gene was digested with BsmBI. The Rs7327 S gene was digested with BsaI. The other fragments and bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) were prepared as described previously. Then the two prepared spike DNA fragments were separately inserted into BAC with Es, Fs and other fragments. The correct infectious BAC clones were screened. The chimeric viruses were rescued as described previously ."

^^^^ This is exactly "genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.165.236.120 (talk • contribs)

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

Seems like an unambiguous error. It's still there.

Please add after the sentence.

Visual editor doesn't work on this page. Why? RememberOrwell (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

What part of "Please add after the sentence" do you not understand? RememberOrwell (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done The visual editor doesn't work because you don't have access to edit this page. Ultraodan (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

(Today I can edit this page. E.g. at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ACOVID-19_lab_leak_theory&section=1&veaction=edit Switching to "Visual Editor" was disabled and greyed out but today I realized I was able to get around that by removing "source" from the end of the URL. I'm not sure what is or what was preventing it the other day. And I was and am still talking about this - the talk page. I'm not talking about using "Visual Editor" for the article page at all. I suppose using the visual editor can backfire, so perhaps that's why it's greyed out.) RememberOrwell (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, Thanks. RememberOrwell (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie, the request was DONE, contrary to your stated belief otherwise. Stop being disruptive. "Please add after the sentence" was done, and points to this section when clicked on. So obviously (to me anyway) it should stay here. If you disagree, present an argument that isn't nonsense. @TarnishedPath:, you see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1269486117 was a premature archive now? RememberOrwell (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou for drawing my attention to a template that should not be there. TarnishedPath 07:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The only disruptive thing would seem to be the improper use of a donotarchiveuntil template. We don't need to keep a discussion section on this page for 10 years because you're unhappy with a particular sentence. MrOllie (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in the quoted passage above that states that occurred at WIV. TarnishedPath 07:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Why should the template not be there? What? "that states that occurred at WIV"? Not English. RememberOrwell (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Shi says her WIV lab did the work: "Are bat coronaviruses grown at the institute? A: We have only isolated three strains of live SARS-related coronaviruses (SARSr-CoV) from bats, which shared 95-96% genome sequence similarity with SARS-CoV and less than 80% similarity with SARS-CoV-2. These results were published in Nature , the Journal of Virology and PLoS Pathogens , respectively."

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

Seems like an unambiguous error. It's still there.

Please restore after the sentence. IP provided unchallenged evidence that while the current version of article contains a phrase: "There is no evidence that any genetic manipulation or reverse genetics (a technique required to make chimeric viruses) of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was ever carried out at the WIV."

It is false.

${\displaystyle {\frac {-}{-}}}$

Suggested resolution of

Add "There is evidence in Shi's published work that genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was carried out at Shi's WIV lab." after the dubious sentence. Add the citations above; include the quote.

Worth keeping in mind: Kristian G Andersen lied to Congress, per https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-leak/. #cite_note-DEFUSE_NewYorker-117 doesn't support the dubious statement, as it talks only about the DEFUSE proposal. #cite_note-CriticalQuote_Experiments-142 is a paper authored by Andersen, and the dubious statement is a leap from its questionable claims. RememberOrwell (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Please provide the exact quote that would be used to support that text. I've looked briefly at the article and it is exceedingly clear that WIV1 to WIV16 are used to refer to different strains of SARS-CoV which have been found naturally in horseshoe bats in caves in Yunnan. Not once did I catch the any wording that supports the statement "genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was carried out at Shi's WIV lab". TarnishedPath 10:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Scientists at the WIV have created chimeras, or combinations, of SARS-like coronaviruses through genetic engineering, attempted to clone other unrelated infectious viruses, and used reverse genetic cloning techniques on SARS-like coronaviruses. from the June 2023 DNI report. Of course that needs a real source in support which would need to be tracked down and the discrepancy between SARS-like coronaviruses and SARS-related bat coronaviruses resolved.

Probably the simplest solution here is to look at the surrounding text which concerns furin cleavage site and what that sentence should be saying is along the lines of: "Further, there is no evidence of prior research at the WIV involving the artificial insertion of complete furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses" from the Origins paper which is used as a ref. fiveby(zero) 21:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me if I take statements from a document published by a rival government of China with a grain of salt. TarnishedPath 23:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that with COVID denialists now firmly in charge in the US, we will see more and more of this, but this is Misplaced Pages, not Conservapedia, so we will stick with what science says. Which is, as it stands, that a lab leak is vastly less likely than zoonotic origin. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I know it's a primary source, but IMO it's difficult to interpret "In contrast, when Vero E6 cells were respectively infected with the two successfully rescued chimeric SARSr-CoVs, WIV1-Rs4231S and WIV1-Rs7327S, and the newly isolated Rs4874, efficient virus replication was detected in all infections (Fig 7)." as well as the earlier mentioned Recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat SARSr-CoVs and the backbone of the infectious clone of SARSr-CoV WIV1 were constructed using the reverse genetic system described previously (S9 Fig). .......... Then the two prepared spike DNA fragments were separately inserted into BAC with Es, Fs and other fragments. The correct infectious BAC clones were screened. The chimeric viruses were rescued as described previously . to refer to anything other than construction of a recombinant virus. To be clear, while WIV1 is a natural bat coronavirus, the chimeric WIV1-Rs4231S and WIV1-Rs7327S seem to be to be clearly recombinant viruses and the techniques to produce them seem to be to be what can reasonably be called genetic modification. And the paper suggests at least the authors considered the original WIV1 as a "bat SARS-related coronavirus". The only possible objection I can see is that that the paper doesn't specifically say this recombinant work occurred at the WIV AFAICT. Being a primary source, I definitely don't think we should be saying it did happen, but I think it's fair to say we should consider rewording it along the lines suggested by fiveby(zero). I don't particularly understand the relevance of Guy's point. Sticking with the science means we shouldn't mislead readers by telling them stuff so blatantly misleading that many people capable of reading can see we're wrong. There is no way saying something which seems to so clearly misleading helps convince readers of the clearly correct claim that a lab leak is vastly less likely than zoonotic origin. Instead it just makes them less likely to believe the rest of the article when it correctly points this out. Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

BTW, is there any evidence that even the government of China denies this happened? I'm guessing they don't given that it was published. I mean perhaps they allow some of their crazy papers to publish bullshit just like when they say it came from a US biolab, but I'm guessing their official stance if you're able to weed it out of them is something along the lines of "yes this happened, but it's very different from the SARS-CoV-2 and our labs never did anything remotely like the work that would be involved to make something like that from RATG13 (or whatever nonsense Americans say SARS-CoV-2 came from)". Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, the biggest thing I noticed from the source is as you state. Nowhere in it does it state that anything occurred at WIV. That said I see no major issue with the wording suggest by fiveby Further, there is no evidence of prior research at the WIV involving the artificial insertion of complete furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses, however I don't think that will suffice to satisfy those pushing fringe stuff. TarnishedPath 12:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An alternative might be to concentrate on gain-of-function research although IMO that's a lot more wishy-washy as we've seen how there's a lot of dispute over what constitutes gain-of-function research. I'd note that while the paper doesn't specifically say the recombinant/chimeric research happened at WIV, it doesn't seem to mention any other institution where it could have happened and all the authors with affiliations listed seem to be at WIV. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

That cleaves a bit close to WP:OR for my comfort on a page at the intersection of medicine and international politics. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Nil Einne, the paper everyone points to seems to be: Menachery, V.; Yount, B.; Debbink, K (2015). "A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence". Nature Medicine. 21: 1508–1513. with: Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone. They are a virology lab working with coronaviruses, it doesn't seem very extraordinary or surprising that they did such work. Why not just avoid the issue, the paragraph is about the furin cleavage site and there is a good source which says there is no evidence of prior work on insertion of those which i quoted above. fiveby(zero) 13:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

We could also easily do something along the lines of your second suggestion and state that there is no evidence of work on any progenitor or backbone virus for SARS-CoV-2, but i'm pretty sure the article already has that elsewhere, if not it should. fiveby(zero) 13:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

After looking thru the article it seem it does not explicitly state such, so should probably say both: no evidence for any prior work on furin site and no evidence for any prior work on possible progenitor of SARS-CoV-2. fiveby(zero) 16:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Use of "misplaced suspicion" in lead

TarnishedPath, you are insisting here on the word "misplaced" before "suspicion", which is not in the source relied on in the lead and is treating the whole question as settled and certain – although taken as a whole the page does not do that. I can't find a reliable source in the article for "misplaced suspicion" could you please give it here? Even if the claim is cited somewhere else, given the lack of any certainty any such source must be POV. Moonraker (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Moonraker, the word misplaced was placed in at Special:Diff/1262010139 by @Bon courage. My edit prior to yours was in relation to updating a link target and nothing else. TarnishedPath 05:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You are right, TarnishedPath, I have pinged the wrong user. Bon courage, the question is for you. And you say in your edit summary "The lede summarized the body, which explains this is a fallacy" – what is a fallacy? I do not see one. Moonraker (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You can search for the word "fallacy" with a browser's search functionality. This is the "too much of a coincidence" line of argument and we need to call it out as faulty for reasons of neutrality. Bon courage (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, Bon courage. What I find is this:

Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues write that the location of the Institute near the outbreak site is "literally a coincidence" and using that coincidence as a priori evidence for a lab leak typifies a kind of conjunction fallacy.

The link to the source given for this is dead. We can agree on what is said about evidence, but if it did state any certainty, that would be highly unscientific, so I doubt that it does. Can you give us the exact quotation, please? In any event, it is surely the word "misplaced" which offends against neutrality, taking the article as a whole, and I see nothing about "misplaced suspicion". Moonraker (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No, for WP:FRINGESUBJECTS we are obliged to call fringe notions what they are (such as the "too much of a coincidence" middle-brow reckon). I'm not sure why you call this correction from well-published actual experts in their field "highly unscientific" - surely the opposite is true. I have no issue replacing "misplaced suspicion" with "fallacious reasoning"; both seem a fair summary of our good sources. T&F seem to be having technical issues; I'm sure they'll be back soon. Bon courage (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Moonraker, I've updated the DOI for the reference. You can find an open access version of the book at https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-edit/10.4324/9781003330769/covid-conspiracy-theories-global-perspective-michael-butter-peter-knight, although the links to the chapter PDFs seem not be working. The book is listed on Google at https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Covid_Conspiracy_Theories_in_Global_Pers/NASqEAAAQBAJ?hl=en and you can probably see a lot of it from there. TarnishedPath 06:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems to come up a lot so I wonder if we should expand on it. One source (can't remember which) posited a scenario where COVID started in Beijing, and how the argument would then be "Beijing has more virology labs than any city in China, so it stands to reason a lab origin in likely". Bon courage (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If that quote is from the book, I think that would clarify why reasoning that there's a connection, between a lab being in Wuhan and the outbreak seemingly staring from there, is faulty/misplaced/fallacious/whatever other synonyms there are. TarnishedPath 07:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's in this source, though it does explain why you'd expect outbreaks to coincide with where virology labs are, for perfectly innocent reasons. Bon courage (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it's perfectly understandable reasoning, however as is clear to anyone who's done the tiniest amount of study in formal logic it's completely misplaced/fallacious/etc. Unfortunately we need sources to cover that sort of stuff or we're engaging in WP:OR TarnishedPath 07:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup. Fortunately the Lewandowsky et al source has it covered in sufficient detail (though not enough for there to be constant questions about this, it seems). Bon courage (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyway I've added both a correct DOI and a link to the book from Google Books, to the reference. Moonraker should read the chapter if he wants to dispute this further. TarnishedPath 08:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Moonraker, I've just had a look at google books at it seems the whole book (a the very least the first two chapters are, which is when I stopped scrolling) is available from https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Covid_Conspiracy_Theories_in_Global_Pers/NASqEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1, which is no surprise I guess given that Francis & Taylor have released it under a free license. TarnishedPath 07:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you, TarnishedPath, but I still can't get through to it. And even if I could, reading the whole chapter is unlikely to take us anywhere. What is claimed (rightly or wrongly) on our page to be in the source makes sense, and it says nothing about a "misplaced suspicion" – nor can what it is claimed to say infer one. So that term is not cited. You say "reasoning that there's a connection, between a lab being in Wuhan and the outbreak seemingly starting from there, is faulty/misplaced/fallacious" - agreed. And what the source is claimed to say ("the location of the Institute near the outbreak site... using that coincidence as a priori evidence for a lab leak typifies a kind of conjunction fallacy") is fine too. But no one here or anywhere else is trying to use it as hard evidence for anything. It's circumstantial and feeble, all that comes from it is a suspicion. To go on from that to say that the suspicion is "misplaced" is to judge the whole question in a way that the page does not, based on no citation and no evidence. That is also fallacious, which is why the word "misplaced" needs to come out. Do you not agree? Moonraker (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Moonraker, if you click on the link for the DOI from the reference that takes you to Taylor & Frances page for the book. After discussions here last night I was successfully able to download chapters. I read the 2nd chapter last night and I believe more than adequately supports the material in the article. TarnishedPath 02:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• The "misplaced suspicion" phrasing is problematic as it suggest a definitive judgment, biasing readers against considering the proximity of the lab to the initial COVID-19 outbreak site as significant factor. I am agreeing with @ Moonraker argument that such language undermines the neutral tone that NPOV requires. I also don't think it's appropriate to go into such detail in the lead with so many citations on the issue. IntrepidContributor (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Newimpartial, you reverted my edit . Please can you show how the "misplaced" is supported by sources? Frutos et al offer innocent reasons for why a virus may break out in proximity of labs, but doesn't call the suspicion misplaced, literally or figuratively. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  To answer your question: like TarnishedPath, I find that the second chapter linked above (by Lewandowsky, Jacobs and Neil) provides more than sufficient support for "misplaced suspicion". Newimpartial (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Lewandowsky et al is a completely unsuitable source due to their lack of relevant expertise, with only one minor exception among the authors, while Frutos et al are recognized experts and their work is a review article. The term 'misplaced suspicion' is thus unsupported by appropriate sources, which must be review articles at the very least. Since Frutos et al. do not describe the suspicion as 'misplaced,' using this term violates Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Please undo your revert. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am not understanding your concern about the source: perhaps you believe "misplaced suspicion" is biomedical information to which WP:MEDRS applies, but I do not believe the community agrees with that interpretation. Newimpartial (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  The concern is primarily NPOV, not RS (or MEDRS). We cannot rise Lewandowsky et al to the level of review articles like Frutos to dismiss the relevance of lab's proximity to the outbreak as 'misplaced', particularly when expressed in Misplaced Pages's voice. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I see no NPOV issues. WP:WEIGHT is clear that we go with the majority viewpoints as expressed in reliable sources and that we don't pander to WP:FRINGE. TarnishedPath 09:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  But can you provide a specific text excerpt that directly states that the argument about the proximity of the labs to the outbreak is based on misplaced suspicion? If not, this would be original research, that is, taking what the sources say and applying an editor's unique synthesis. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  To answer your question, I do not need to WP:SATISFY you about this. It is simply not the case that a paraphrase with which you do not personally agree is therefore WP:SYNTH. At least two editors who have read the chapter in question are convinced that it supports the current article text. Newimpartial (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath, you reverted my attempt to combine two sentences in one, making the counterargument to the proximity suspicion clearer . As per WP:LEAD, the lead should be concise and summarize the article, yet this proximity issue is hardly even covered in article. It hardly even belongs in the lead at all. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I see no weighting issues with the lead given the size of the article. TarnishedPath 09:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you don't see the issue other editors do, then we might benefit from putting this to the community through an RfC. IntrepidContributor (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  The only other editor besides you pushing your position has been Lardlegwarmers, who notably has been recently topic banned from COVID-19. I don't see that a RFC is needed. If you want to go ahead though knock yourself out. Might be best to wait until the current one is finished if you do wish to go ahead as this talk page is quite crowded. TarnishedPath 22:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Calling for adherence to WP:NPOV is not "pushing," and Lardlegwarmers not only editor advocating this position here. Mentioning his topic ban, which you had hand in, looks very much like flexing muscles, which doesn't belong on this talk page. We are WP:HERE to improve this article. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  @IntrepidContributor, you might want to go re-read the AN/I discussion because you will find I've had zero involvement in it. I'll await your retraction. TarnishedPath 09:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am mistaken and will duly retract my statement when you retract your statement that I and Lardlegwarmers are only ones advocating a position when it is very clearly three editors including Moonraker. IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  @IntrepidContributor my read of Moonraker's comments was that they were asking questions. I couldn't see a position from that. If I'm wrong my apologies, but I didn't read that they had a position. TarnishedPath 10:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  In most topic areas, where cooperative editing is the norm, editors raise concerns calmly and gently, exactly like Moonraker does. But I think you knew that already. IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Noting that ExtraJesus.. blocked as sock of Raxythecat, Intrepid Contribuor topic banned from this area, Lardlegwarmers blocked for a week - for violation of their TBan from this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we mention in the lead the "increased anti-Chinese racism."

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Do sources support retention of "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism."

Or should we remove it (as unsourced) or re-write it to only say ""the lab leak theory increased anti-Chinese racism."?

• A Keep
• B Remove
• C Re-write

Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Should we mention in the lead the "increased anti-Chinese racism.")

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• B. Remove

The sentence, "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism," does not appear in any of the sources, nor does anything categorically similar. That conclusion appears to be one editor's opinion based on the sources, not what the actual sources say, therefore it is WP:OR, and should not stand in its current form.

I'm against the proposed rewrite because none of the sources actually say this conclusion, it's just an assumption based on the actual source material. If there are sources which support this conclusion then it may be worth keeping. But the current source just flat-out never mention this conclusion at all. Obviously can't be attributed to the current source because it's not from that source. Also don't know how it could be kept if unsourced; it is a statement which very clearly implies some sort of empirical data or study behind it, which would have to be sourced somewhere. BabbleOnto (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Question: What are the best sources that support the assertion that the lab leak theory increased anti-Chinese racism? Right now I'm leaning towards remove per WP:VOICE. The sentence attributing the idea to David Gorski is fine, however. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Locking in my option B !vote. The sources presented thus far are pretty weak. Primary sources, opinions, and sources that themselves attribute this idea to individuals. But keeping the attributed statement in the body is fine by me. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• B. Remove (Summoned by bot) The source attached to this claim, which reads more like a blog than a MEDRS article, assumes that lab leak is driven by racism and racists, but doesn't go very deep into it, and certainly doesn't support the precise claim made here, nor the proposed correction. I would expect such a claim, even in the lead, to be cited to actual research with polling, or something else with a rigorous methodology. I note with concern that a similar claim later in the article is cited via Pubmed to a journal article that uses reports of hate incidents to a monitor group as its evidence for increasing anti-Chinese racism. Anecdotal reports are something worth paying attention to, but not strong-enough support for stating in wikivoice "the lab leak theory increased anti-Chinese racism" (or "The use of xenophobic rhetoric also caused a rise in anti-Chinese sentiment", the other claim). Without careful research, how would racism be determined to be specifically caused by the lab leak theory, as opposed to general racist feelings about China as the origin of the virus? Remove unless and until sourced to something rigorous. Vadder (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Since there have been about 25,000 words added to this RFC since I weighed in, I want to reaffirm my B. remove !vote. I've read most of what has transpired since, and I remain unconvinced by the arguments for A and C. Subsequent discussion seems to hinge on on what the Park and Lee Kim and Park source means. That source says

Given that politically conservative individuals are already familiar with the lab-leak theory from their ideological circles, more in this group believe the theory. Because of their familiarity with the information, their perceptions of the China threat may not be substantially changed by the conspiracy theory.

which makes it clear that even Park and Lee Kim and Park aren't convinced that lab leak itself (vs. COVID discourse generally) is the source of increased racism. Vadder (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Kim and Park source? Because their Findings section reaches quite different conclusions; it says that intensified exclusionary sentinent results from belief in the lab leak theory, according to their study. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I got the names of the authors wrong (corrected). I was quoting from the Findings section. Later in that section it does say "supporting restrictive immigration control, particularly among liberals" resulted from lab leak, but I don't think that's necessarily synonymous with racism. (Yes, I know people have argued about that elsewhere here.) Thanks again for pointing out the mistake I made with the authors' names. Vadder (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

B. Remove

None of the sources currently cited in either this sentence or other statements elsewhere in the Misplaced Pages article claim a causal relationship between the lab leak theory and an increase in anti-Chinese racism. For that reason, the proposed re-write does not solve the problem. Dustinscottc (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Remove from lead AND BODY. As per extensive discussion already in the this talk page. One thing not mentioned so far is that there is a higher bar for sourcing reputation-damaging statements. The article insinuates that lab leak supporters are motivated by racism, and this serious accusation applies to a significant minority of scientists and a majority of Americans. There's no way this should be in wikivoice. Also if I may say so the phrasing of this RFC is very odd, the unsupported text should be removed from both lead and body per WP:BURDEN. Why was it phrased this way? Is the idea to have a separate RFC later to bring the body into compliance with WP:V? - Palpable (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven? RememberOrwell (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Remove. The sources only verify that Donald Trump made racist innuendoes to refer to SC2 which was correlated with an increase in racist tweets, and that extremist messageboards used similar racist language and promoted conspiracy theories about covid being a bioweapon attack. It doesn’t have anything to do with the scientific hypothesis that a biosafety incident could have caused the pandemic. Speculating about “Researchers might have infected themselves with Covid in a bat cave while sampling guano” doesn’t need to involve racial hate. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

B. Remove from lede along with any mention of racism increase in article main/body. As already discussed. No reliable sources to tie anti-Chinese racism specifically to lab-leak theories. References currently limited to opinion pieces that don't provide any measurement showing an increase either in any local country or globally. I suspect any tangible increases in anti-Chinese racism would be difficult to determine as being associated with lab-leak theories as opposed to simply the origin of the virus being identified in China, spreading out of Wuhan/China initially, and the lack of Chinese Government timely response to cooperate with international experts and authorities, and stop the spread internationally. Aeonx (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• It's a little premature to comment in an RFC without looking at the sources. Finding a source that explicitly says the early pushing of the lab leak prior to any evidence reinforced racism is embarrassingly easy, see for example Perng, Wei; Dhaliwal, Satvinder K. (May 2022). "Anti-Asian Racism and COVID-19: How It Started, How It Is Going, and What We Can Do". Epidemiology. 33 (3): 379–382. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000001458. ISSN 1044-3983. PMC 8983612. PMID 34954709.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link): Since the early days of the pandemic, politicians promoted the unsubstantiated hypothesis the virus was developed in a laboratory in Wuhan, referring to COVID-19 as “foreign,” “Chinese,” and “the Kung Flu.” Use of such language led to an 800% increase of these racist terms on social media and news outlets, and redirected fear and anger in a manner that reinforced racism and xenophobia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  This problems with using this source to support the statement in question have been thoroughly discussed on this talk page. The quoted section links the use of rhetoric like "foreign", "Chinese", and "Kung Flu" by politicians led to an increase of the use of those terms by others on social media—not that the discussion of the theory itself. Dustinscottc (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not particularly keen about debating grammar, but when you have two clauses separated by a comma, it is unusual to read them as entirely independent. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know how you could read "use of such language" to mean discussion of a theory. The phrase pretty clearly refers to the words used, not the concepts.

  But even if you could read the phrase to include simple discussion of the lab leak theory, it is still impossible, based on this source alone, to disentangle the use of "Kung Flu" rhetoric from discussion of the lab leak theory. If a source says A plus B caused X, it is misleading to use that source to say that A caused X without mentioning B. Dustinscottc (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how you expect people to discuss a theory without using language. "Such" language would refer to the language the politicians promoting the hypothesis use, which include the obviously xenophobic rhetoric. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  An analogy would be: “Johnny was driving and texting at the same time. The texting caused an accident.” Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  No Lardlegwarmers, an "analogy" is supposed to share elements with the thing being analogised to. A driving sentence sharing the comma construction used in the source would be Johnny drove recklessly towards the laboratory, with erratic and dangerous maneuvers. Use of such driving techniques led to several collisions and forced many other road users off the road. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  I see what you’re saying. So I would repeat my original suggestion that we (C) edit it to say: “Politicians weaponized the lab leak theory, leveraging and increasing hatred.” It’s still kind of vague but at least it’s not implying that the hypothesis itself, but rather the conduct of certain politicians, that triggered the increased hatred. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  That analogy doesn't work because erratic and dangerous maneuvers are a subset of driving recklessly. A more parallel analogy would be: "Johnny was driving a Hummer, using erratic and dangerous maneuvers. Such driving led to an accident." Whether the Hummer is part of the cause is syntactically ambiguous, although, with context, one could easily conclude that the Hummer was not the cause of the accident. In either case, it would misconstrue the statement to say that the Hummer caused the accident. Dustinscottc (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  The more that I look at it, I concede that the words “promoted the unsubstantiated hypothesis” are analogous to hazardous driving, like running a red light and going the wrong way down a one-way street. So the source is actually saying that the lab leak theory is itself a brand of racism. I don’t like it, but that is what the author is saying. The thing is, I think she’s wrong and there are plenty of people who don’t hold racist beliefs and yet promote LL. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  How is it not SYNTH from the quoted passage?

  Furthermore, if a source was saying that the lab leak theory is itself a brand of racism, it would be absurd, IMO. Absurd enough that if mentioned at all, VOICE would need to be steered well clear of. Why? The earliest notable evidence of a lab leak theory was in records of a February 1, 2020 call during which "virologists Michael Farzan and Robert Garry told Fauci and Collins the virus might have leaked from the Wuhan lab." "It might have been genetically engineered it could have been evolved in the lab through a process known as serial passage." Per https://theintercept.com/2022/01/12/covid-origins-fauci-redacted-emails/. But still, labeling virologists Michael Farzan and Robert Garry racist or racism fomenters would be inappropriate. Fomentation of racism is an extraordinary claim, the evidence must be free of SYNTH if the claim is to be leveled in VOICE. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  B. Remove We must not be labeling the comments of the above virologists as fomenting racism - doing so violates wp:living. And what Palpable said. Per Dustinscottc's arguments and pointing out holes in sources purported to back the defended language and notable lack of sound argumentation and sources and/or claims of phantom sources from Objective3000 (Blaming politicians' speech is not the same as blaming a theory), Extra_Jesus_Hold_The_Satan!!, and Bluethricecreamman in defending it. RememberOrwell (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed @RememberOrwell--this unqualified generalization that the hypothesis is racist implies that the statements of Christopher Wray, Tedros Ghebreyesus, and Nicholas Wade have leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism, which is libel. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Anyway, I don't actually see anyone objecting to either of the revised wordings by Horse Eye's Back (Some of the lab leak theories have both been influenced by and increased anti-Chinese racism, especially when weaponized by politicians.) and Lardlegwarmers (The weaponization of the lab leak theory by politicians leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism), so I'm going to propose a C along those lines. I would suggest that if an explicit backreference is made, instead of theory, we refer to it as "scenario" or "idea", reserving the words "lab leak theory" to refer to the broader scope of the article. For the lead, if there is any doubt whether anti-Asian or anti-Chinese would be better (as raised by Horse and O3000) we can actually just drop the specifier and go into more detail in the body. Therefore, I'd go with something like their weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased racism . Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not specifically "anti-Chinese" racism (instead it refers to anti-asian, focusing on specific areas as opposed to a global trend), it's again largely opinion and not reputable science. Aeonx (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• C it is clear that there are sources that described an increase in anti-chines racism due to the lab leak theory ]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  The closest your source gets to discussing this issue says the opposite:

  "Another reporter at The Times, Apoorva Mandavilli, got in hot water Wednesday when she tweeted that the coronavirus lab leak theory had “racist roots.” Mandavilli later deleted the tweet after it was widely criticized. “I deleted my earlier tweets about the origins of the pandemic because they were badly phrased,” Mandavilli explained in a follow up tweet. “The origin of the pandemic is an important line of reporting that my colleagues are covering aggressively…”" Dustinscottc (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ditto on Dustin's comment. I'm having trouble seeing where Slater's source directly says the theory increased anti-Chinese racism. Slatersteven - Can you highlight the exact text that supports your assertion? Can you highlight other sources? NickCT (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)