Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 34

characteristic of conspiratorial thinking

[1] This change should be discussed on the talk page

This seems to be a proper and fitting characterization, sourced to a good source. What is the problem with it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

My primary concern is that the statement made was too broad. By my reading, it calls all arguments made in support of the lab leak conspiratorial. I would prefer language that is more hedged Poppa shark (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe get your opinion published in WP:RS and come back then? Bon courage (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

What Bon added was proper and fitting characterisation and backed by WP:RS. I'm thinking it stays. TarnishedPath^talk 23:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Quite clearly this is a controversial (if not fringe) view, so should not be stated in Wikivoice. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:CLEARLY eh? Why's it "controversial"? Is there any comparable source saying the LL arguments are anything other than conspiratorial? If not WP:YESPOV leads us to assert the knowledge. (In fact, this needs expanding from the source since the precise nature of the conspiratorial thinking has a different flavour for each constituent fallacy.) Bon courage (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

See the WHO, all US intelligence agencies etc. etc. who all say lab leak is a plausible scenario. Are they all conspiracy theorists? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Merely saying it is "plausible" is not the same as advancing "arguments used in support of a laboratory leak". That is rather the point. Bon courage (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. It's plausible that I might live to 200. It's exceedingly unlikely though. TarnishedPath^talk 10:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No it's not, you're mixing up the words plausible and possible. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

They are synonyms. So, no I'm not mixing them up. TarnishedPath^talk 01:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Other "synonyms, antonyms and similar words" Google shows me are "believable" and "convincing". I have never heard before that it is a synonym of "possible". It seems that the word is used in a huge range of meanings.

As a consequence, when someone says something is "plausible", we simply do not know exactly what they mean, and we should not use it as a source without giving further details. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The notion that "plausible" and "possible" are indistinguishable in meaning is one that cannot stand. Let's first understand that to say that two words are "synonyms" is not to claim they are identical in meaning. It is probably fair to say that they have overlapping meanings. Per google's definition, "plausibility" is "the quality of seeming reasonable or probable", while "possibility" is "a thing that ... may be the case". Saying something is "plausible" is really to say that it's "not implausible", i.e. you are willing to admit that it could be true, and that the likelihood of it being true is not so low that we should completely ignore it. One cannot "plausibly" assert that they consider something to be plausible and implausible at the same time, yet both would imply the "possibility", unless it were deemed to be impossible, in which case, calling it "implausible" would be understating your position.

I would consider it not to be very plausible that you will live to be 200, precisely because that would be highly unlikely, but the fact that words have a range of meaning doesn't mean they have no meaning at all, and we are not obliged to discard statements which use such terms. In the instant case, what we are discussing is speculative, but there can be a basis for having a belief about the relatively likelihood of two explanations. You can compare this to "possible" and "impossible", but one should be somewhat loathe to claim something is "impossible" without qualification, unless there is some well-grounded basis for such a belief. Fabrickator (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Definition from the OED, the principal historical dictionary of the English language, plausible: "(of a person) skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive. 'a plausible liar'" O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Not a response to what I said. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, that it is not a word that should be taken to mean anything technical and I find it's use in that context to be a kind of mischief. A deliberate deployment of ambiguity. I wonder how many additional man hours were justified because words such as plausible were used rather than speaking in terms of likelihoods. TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hob Gadling wrote: "... when someone says something is 'plausible', we simply do not know exactly what they mean ...".

When someone says something is "plausible", we know that the person is evaluating their understanding of the situation and expressing their opinion that the statement is worthy of consideration. OTOH, if they say it is "probable" (without any modifiers), they are making an assertion that it is "more likely than not". This might be based on objective data or it might just be their own opinion. To my knowledge, WP does not have a rule prohibiting opinion, but opinion should be attributed and that should be sourced. Fabrickator (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I have a watchlist, I do not need pings. And we know? Maybe you and somebody else, so, "we", but I do not know that, since there are obviously people who use a different meaning, as has been noted in this thread. Can we stop this IDHT stuff? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I am not sure why my edit caused you to receive a ping.

I don't think that plausible is unique in terms of having multiple meanings, but we must consider it in context.

In this context of "we know", the meaning is that the speaker is expressing their opinion. No need (or point) to objecting to the "we know" phrasing. When someone states that something is plausible, they are expressing their opinion. Actually, more generally, when someone makes a statement, they are implicity asserting the truth of that statement, but plausibility is implicitly a judgement call.

If some people have other understandings of the words used in this particular context, then perhaps their language skills are lacking. Perhaps the variation in usage of plausible makes this more complicated than some other terms, but the fact that some people find it challenging to understand is not a reason to reject a source that uses such wording. Fabrickator (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

When you write "Hob Gadling wrote", I get notified. Please do not get nitpicky and tell me that a ping is a different kind of notification than the one I got.

I don't think that plausible is unique Irrelevant to the matter in question.

In this context of "we know", the meaning is Irrelevant to the matter in question. Also, a collection of excruciatingly boring platitudes.

then perhaps their language skills are lacking Yeah, only your reading can be correct, and when a source uses the word, they must mean the same as you do when you say it because a reliable source's language skills are never lacking. I think we can stop this, it's pointless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's the Wiktionary definition: Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable. Your suggestion that it should be considered synonymous with possible ... I would suggest that that's implausible. Fabrickator (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

For from a source that isn't user generated Merriam-webster, plausible:- "superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often deceptively so", or the top thesaurus result at Cambridge dictionary - possible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

(following text is prior discussion from 16 September 2023)

The US intelligence agencies when releasing a summary of their intelligence recently said “We do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic”. There are many, many things in this universe which are "plausible", that does not make all of them remotely possible. TarnishedPath^talk 10:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

All the instances of the word "plausible" in the article which come from scientists and apply it to LL use the word in comparison: they say that an accidental lab leak is "more plausible" than an intentional one. (Jon Cohen is a science writer, not a scientist.) Are there any scientific sources that call the whole thing "plausible"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident"

https://www.intelligence.gov/publics-daily-brief/public-s-daily-brief-articles/1089-odni-releases-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins PieLover3141592654 (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

And it goes into say, 4 think most likely it was natural 1 thinks a lab leak, and 1 is undecided, so the consensus is it was most likely natural. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The point is they all think it's a plausible scenario i.e. not a conspiracy theory. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Not really, a conspiracy theory can be plausible ("seeming reasonable") and still have no evidence supporting it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Logic fail. The point at issue is "arguments in support of LL". They are not making such arguments. We're talking about arguments like "the furin cleavage site is a tell of biOWeapOn rESearCh" or "COVID originating next to the WIV is tOo MuCH oF a COiNcIDencE!". Bon courage (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Right, this is not just about the lad leak but all the other linked stuff, (the source above for example is clear, it is not man-made or a bioweapon). Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Your indenting is wrong, since you did not address my question. I asked for scientific sources. Secret services are the opposite of scientific, as they 1. work in secret and 2. have an agenda different from "find out what is likely true". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, they need a certain amount of paranoia for the job, aka, "conspiratorial thinking". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there are grounds to tar the intelligence agencies with "conspiratorial thinking" in the same way the as the source does for proponents of the theory. Just because some point to those assessments and misstate their findings in order to justify their beliefs does not mean those assessments are necessarily a result of paranoia. But i also don't know why discussion is continuing in this section, it an obviously solid source and needs expansion in the article text. fiveby(zero) 17:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps someone could close as this thread (like others before) is going nowhere. Bon courage (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The experts say it is, in RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

And this is all through the looking glass now. The source is just making the basic point that "arguments used in support of a laboratory leak" have the hallmarks of conspiratorial thinking. No rational source to my knowledge is using such "supporting" arguments (which is different to a statement about possibility/feasibility/plausibility). This is why the source also says (as we do) that the origin is not definitively known. Sheesh. Bon courage (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Right. People calling it "plausible" does not contradict the statement about "conspiratorial thinking". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggeseting that an outbreak resulted from a "lab leak" is not conspiratorial thinking, it is the common explanation for several outbreaks, such as the Taiwan and Beijing SARS outbreaks in 2003 and 2004 respectively. See https://gillesdemaneuf.medium.com/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-a-review-of-sars-lab-escapes-898d203d175d as well as published papers by NIH on these purported lab leaks. Fabrickator (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, AIDS and Lyme disease. Every new disease has likely been suspected by somebody of coming from a lab. It's the way people's brains work: "thing happened! Person must done it!" Also called "conspiratorial thinking". --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a massive motte and bailey fallacy going on, like saying that because it's reasonable to say "alien life might exist in the universe" it follows that it's legitimate to argue "an alien shot JFK is not a conspiracy theory because scientists says aliens might exist!". The source is not talking about a theoretical premise, but actual arguments supporting concrete conspiracist narratives. Bon courage (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Comparing the likelihood of a lab leak to space aliens assassinating Kennedy? Somewhere in the universe, there surely is (or has been or will be) other intelligent life. Of course, this is beyond being disprovable. But to compare the likelihood of a lab leak to an alien life form assassinating JFK, that's rather "jumping the shark", if that can be an appropriate analogy.

So far as I am aware, the "lab leak" theory does not presume intent. Of course, there could be a bad actor ... there are misanthropes out there, some of them could be employed in vaccine engineering and have the ability to do this willfully. For that matter, this could even be a strategy to improve corporate profits for businesses in this field. But those who suggest the possibility of a lab leak aren't coming up with these "conspiracy theory-like" ideas. They're just suggesting that a lab leak is somewhat plausible. I don't understand how this can be considered to be so highly implausible when we've purportedly seen this before. Fabrickator (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the lab leak theory is 20% likely. Maybe the aliens killed JFK is .01% likely. Still, we only cover the 80% here. Andre🚐 18:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Logic fail again. Likelihood is one thing (it is accepted there is some for LL); building an argument to "support" LL is another (the 'space aliens shot Kennedy' thing). This is the point of the source; I suggest reading it. Bon courage (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Evidence for you assessment that LL is 20% likely given that intelligence agencies have said “We do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic”? TarnishedPath^talk 01:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't trying to make that as an assessment, just for the sake of argument. Please don't take my statement as support for the lab leak theory. Andre🚐 01:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

That's good. Because given the amount of investigation that's occurred and the amount of evidence uncovered (zero) I'd put it closer to JFK/911 conspiracies being true (not the aliens bit). Not quite there but in that direction. TarnishedPath^talk 02:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

My point was that regardless of whether the lab leak theory is 20% likely or 0% likely, Wikipedia intends to describe reality on a pareto principle basis. Andre🚐 02:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been pretty up front about this, I believe the only rational way for treating this subject is acknowledging that it's all suppositions based on gaps in evidence, which is a hallmark of conspiracy theories. There is not a single shred of evidence for the lab leak theory beyond absurdly tenuous circumstantial facts like lab workers contracting COVID at the very start of the pandemic. As if the lab workers should have been magically immune form catching communicable illnesses spreading in the city in which they lived and worked. Big powerful institutions and learned people who really should know better engaging in this absurdity doesn't make it any less of a conspiracy theory. In the same way cults don't stop being cults when they become large, conspiracy theories don't stop being conspiracy theories when a lot of people or even powerful ones believe in them. This whole idea of "lab leaks have happened before therefore this is likely" is just absurd in the extreme and is indicative of conspiratorial thinking. TarnishedPath^talk 08:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Lab leaks have happened in the past; but for something to have leaked from a lab it needs to exist in the lab in the first place. This is a point the sources makes repeatedly. There is no evidence SARS-Cov-2 was in any lab prior to the pandemic. Bon courage (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. TarnishedPath^talk 09:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

So any theory that claims there was is (by its nature) a conspiracy theory and thus "characteristic of conspiratorial thinking". Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like we're all in violent agreement. My point was that even if a lab leak is theoretically possible, we still want to treat it as a very fringe, minority viewpoint with nothing going for it but a lot of hot air and bloviating from particular quarters along political lines. And folks coming along trying to insert that into articles cited directly to house committees and stuff like that. Andre🚐 20:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The reason the lab leak theory is not mainstream has little to do with science and more with politics and conflicted interests.

"For much of 2020, pursuing the lab leak theory was treated publicly as xenophobic, and, thanks in part to an open letter signed by 27 scientists and published in an influential medical journal in February 2020, scientifically unsound.[...]

It also became public that the open letter — whose signees wrote at the time that they “strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” — was not just signed but organized by a scientist involved in funding the kind of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that other scientists now believe could have spawned SARS-Cov-2.

According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, "both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting."

Therefore, according to the ABC News September article, "No definitive conclusion as to COVID's origins has yet been determined by the American intelligence or international public health bodies who have probed for answers." Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Politics is pushing to make the lab leak theory have mor legs than it really does. In scientific circles, it's generally not regarded positively. You demonstrate this by quoting news articles and political appointees, not scientists. Andre🚐 04:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

And this is all irrelevant in any case. The text being discussed is about "arguments used in support of a laboratory leak", not judgements about prior possibility. The "arguments for" that have been used have smell conspiracist (e.g. "the furin cleavage site looks like weapons design"). There is no evidence supporting LL; there is accumulating evidence in the other direction. Sources say this; Wikipedia reflects it. That editors here have their own pro-fringe take is irrelevant and disruptive (which is why so many have had to sanctioned when they insist on pressing that take). Bon courage (talk) 04:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I am going to raise a point of order. We are each attempting to advance our own position, and raise facts or make points to support our position. It is one thing to suggest that the other person's position is "pro-fringe", but keep in mind that we are still obliged to WP:AGF. Raising the spectre of sanctions is inappropriate and should be avoided. Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The point is nobody should be trying to advance their "own position". We are here to convey what the WP:BESTSOURCES say on the matter. Disruption begets sanctions, and that would be best avoided. WP:AGF has nothing to do with it, since nobody's "good faith" is in question. Bon courage (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There is obviously evidence of a lab leak, given that the FBI and the Department of Energy have stated (although with low confidence) that it is the most likely origin. WHO director-general has called for a new inquiry, saying: "All hypotheses remain open and require further study." The US ambassador to China called for the country to "be more honest" about Covid's origins. Whereas the Chinese Foreing Ministry stated, "The conclusions they have reached have no credibility to speak of". Certainly a lot of politics is in the way.

I have to point out as I stated before, I personally believe it is equally likely that it may have been zoonosis or a lab leak. But to me, what is evident is the extreme bias of many editors that even resort to insulting others' positions and trying to impose theirs instead of seeking consensus. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

There is obviously evidence of a lab leak ← that may be your personal view, but it's the opposite of what RS says. Airing such views while attacking other editors who are source-focused, is what's the problem. Your views about LL don't matter. Bon courage (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If one editor disagrees with another, then it is simply a matter of providing refutation, not a matter of saying their perspective is a problem. Per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, "Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise—with the understanding that the page is gradually improving—than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately."

Editors as can be seen in the history of this talk page have resorted to insulting others' positions and that is against the civility policy, it is not simply "source-focused". Ignoring the civility policy and the NPOV policy is what is the problem. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If one editor disagrees with another, and that disagreement is based on sources and policy, then fine. If however the "disagreement" is in fact an editor POV-PUSHING unsourced fringe personal opinions like "There is obviously evidence of a lab leak" and making thoughtless contributions to a talk page, then it is a problem. What is striking about this whole meandering thread is that editors arguing against the source's knowledge have produced no relevant sourcing themselves, on the precise topic at hand: the nature of arguments used in support of LL. Bon courage (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I will remind you to observe the civility policy and stop unhelpful comments, misleading accusations, and rudeness. I included a reliable source to back up my comment. If you think I misinterpret it you are welcome to refute it in a collegial manner without violating the civility policy. I will assume you are having a bad day. I hope things get better. But my days are not that good either. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but I'm struggling (hard) to think of a single example of something that is plausible yet impossible.

On the subject, the word 'plausible' is used to imply a level of believability (or appearance thereof) beyond the merely 'possible'. I've certainly never seen it used in any other fashion, and there doesn't seem much room for confusion in its usage in the DONI document. 'All agencies continue to assess that both a natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible hypotheses to explain the first human infection.'

https://www.dictionary.com/compare-words/plausible-vs-possible

https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/plausible-vs-possible

https://allthedifferences.com/possible-and-plausible/

https://strategiesforparents.com/plausible-vs-possible-whats-the-difference/ 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:F086:443D:3F49:9BCC (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I will just repeat myself and respectfully disagree... raising the spectre of sanctions constitutes an assertion that somebody is willfully violating the rules, which would presumably be the basis for imposing sanctions. I suggest that it's an implied threat and should therefore be avoided. Fabrickator (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't know where you got 'wilfully' from, not me anyway. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. That's the reality. It says so right at the top of the page. Bon courage (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Bon Courage... I have moved your comment to follow the one you were responding to. I specified "willfully", I'm hard-pressed to grasp your objection. In any case, we've had too many back-and-forths on this. You think it's okay to explicitly alert somebody to the risk of sanctions, I think this is bad form because it's an implicit accusation that they're acting in bad faith. This shows how one comment can generate a lot of noise. For now, I think we should (regarding this discussion of sanctions) agree to disagree. Fabrickator (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Logic fail again. Alerting somebody to the risk of sanctions assumes that they may have been unaware of the risk and need to be told. If you continue behaving in the same vein after that, then you are willful, and the risk increases. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Some editors alert in good faith, some editors threaten in the hopes of silencing those who don't agree with them. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Now we also have a WP:AGF fail. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Read the post again. It summarizes things that may happen. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Summarizing things that may happen is not what Talk pages are for. Can you please stop casting vague aspersions? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

That's an inappropriate accusation against me. It was a reply to your comment and I mentioned that some editors alert in good faith and others don't. It was intended to showcase there are two sides in the issue that you were talking about in this talk page. The issue, not an editor in particular. Maybe I overlooked the context of the thread. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I overlooked When I assume good faith, I conclude that you did, and that you forgot that this is not a forum where you blab about everything you can think of without any relation to improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let us both follow your advice and focus on improving the article. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a well-sourced insightful bit of info from a reliable source. We have no RSes which contradict it. I haven't read more than a dozen back-and-forths deep into the above (it's quite a few, folks), but it looks like most of the controversy is POV-based, not policy-and-guideline based...— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Nobody does comedy quite like the Brits

The story of the self-styled 'COVID hunters' has more than a whiff of Last of the Summer Wine maybe?

• Campbell D, Goodwin B, Taylor G. "Top science journal faced secret attacks from Covid conspiracy theory group". Computer Weekly (3 October 2003).

Probably worth covering. Bon courage (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Does Reference 14 Actually Say Most Chinese Cities have Coronavirus Labs

I have skimmed Reference 14 twice, Holmes EC, Goldstein SA, Rasmussen AL, Robertson DL, Crits-Christoph A, et al. (September 2021). "The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review". Cell (Review). 184 (19): 4848–4856. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017. PMC 8373617. PMID 34480864. I cannot find a quote where it claims "Most large Chinese cities have laboratories that study coronaviruses". Perhaps I am missing this. The closest I could find was in the Conclusion Section, "The suspicion that SARS-CoV-2 might have a laboratory origin stems from the coincidence that it was first detected in a city that houses a major virological laboratory that studies coronaviruses." However, this quote notes that COVIDs original Wuhan location housing a major virological lab is a coincidence that many people find a "suspicion." If someone might be kind enough to point out where reference 14 makes the claim that most Chinese cities have coronavirus labs, it would be very helpful. (If not, I feel this reference should be removed. (I'm sorry if this has been covered elsewhere, but I couldn't find it.) Many Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5c4:4301:217c:2132:4512:2b93:f6e4 (talk • contribs)

It's in the other (Garry) source:

Most lab leak proponents don’t mention that most major Chinese cities have one or more active coronavirus laboratories. The Chinese government established these laboratories after multiple spillovers of the first SARS-CoV in 2002 through 2004 ...

Incidentally, this fallacy is also covered in the Lewandowsky et al source.Bon courage (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis

This is a highly biased and controversial statement. By what measure do you count "most scientists"? The link is to a single paper, there has been no general survey on the matter to see what the real dominant opinion is in the scientific community. I propose changing the above to "some scientists believe that..." to more accurately reflet that it is one opinion of a number that need to be seriously considered. 83.33.197.248 (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Read the sources. This has been discussed ad nauseam. Bon courage (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering that for a while scientists around the world who dared to believe it was not zoonosis was branded conspiracy theorist and could have their grants and jobs in jeopardy... Thinker78 (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

What a wild concept that people who believe in things which have no evidentiary basis shouldn't work in the field of science. TarnishedPath^talk 05:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

What a wild concept that scientists should stick only to one theory and not dare to investigate other possibilities. That sounds more like dogma and not science. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Investigation is one thing. Belief in claims which have zero evidentiary basis is an entirely different thing. TarnishedPath^talk 04:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The essay linked above WP:NOLABLEAK cites the highly noted paper by Kristian Andersen et al which purports to rule out the lab leak idea entirely. This paper has been cited thousands of times and seems to be what people point to when they refer to the consensus on Covid-19 origin.

But the paper's lead author was not overly sure about lab leak being impossible. In private emails, he used the term "highly likely" to describe the scenario, and wasn't very impressed by the pangolin intermediate evidence. One particularly interesting quote is "The main issue is that accidental escape is in fact highly likely–it’s not some fringe theory."

His colleagues warned him off discussing the idea publicly because it could fuel conspiracy theories, and because it wouldn't do much good because any evidence for such an event would likely "never come out".

All this from The Intercept[2] which is a reliable source. Wizmut (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

"the paper's lead author was not overly sure about lab leak being impossible". So? That's not really the statement you think it is. Scientists are careful about using words like impossible. There's more things that are possible in the universe than impossible. That doesn't mean all things have equal likelihood. Again, the lab leak conspiracy has zero evidence. The intergalactic warlord Xenu from the Church of Scientology has at least some evidence (written about in a book, even if you think it's bad evidence). The existence of Xenu is also possible, but extraordinarily unlikely. Where as the lab leak conspiracy is founded on suppositions about gaps in evidence. I.e., a conspiracy theory. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's remotely likely. TarnishedPath^talk 10:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, ripping the words "highly likely" out of their context is probably misleading. Likelihoods always depend on preconditions; there are conditional likelihoods that can vary massively. Did he mean "this specific scenario is highly likely in this special case" or "leaks in general are highly likely"? Who knows?

Filtering a non-scientific source like a private e-mail through a journalistic source practically guarantees that you are playing telephone (US) or Chinese Whispers (UK). There is a reason why Wikipedia prefers scientific sources to journalistic ones when the subject is science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. TarnishedPath^talk 12:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It shows that the most cited person on "debunking" the lab leak theory was saying he was more certain of its dubiousness than he actually was, as he was being pressured by his colleagues and higher-ups not to seriously consider it because of the trouble it would cause to do so.

They didn't think it was a conspiracy theory, or a bad theory, they just didn't want to handle the question in the paper. In fact, they knew what conclusion they preferred before considering it. Andersen said "we all really, really wish that we could do that [rule out lab leak]... but unfortunately it’s just not possible given the data."[3]

Another author, Andrew Rambaut: "I literally swivel day by day thinking it is a lab escape or natural."

Andersen again, after publication: "I’m still not fully convinced that no culture was involved" and "we also can’t fully rule out engineering"

Andersen has since testified to Congress that he never considered the lab leak after publication of the paper, but this isn't so.

Rambaut didn't want to get in trouble: "Given the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus"

So again, the authors expressed serious fence-sitting in private while stating their certainty in public. If the most cited people in the world on this issue are not sure, Wikipedia should not be so sure either. Wizmut (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You should really read WP:RS. Wikipedia is based on sources that are as good as possible. You are trying to circumvent that requirement by using lesser sources that say that the statements in the good sources are somehow dubious. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources are quoting the same people, under different constraints (ie pleasing their boss vs casual conversation they thought wouldn't get out). They're equally reliable as far as quoting the exact same people. Wizmut (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You are still trying to circumvent that requirement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

this is just not true. there is a long list of very strong evidence suggesting that SARS2 came from a lab, see e.g. https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COVID-19-SARS-CoV-2 Vbruttel (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I just took the time to "read [one of] the sources." The Chas Donner Intelligencer article (1) Is not from a scientist. (2) Is not from a scientific journal. (3) has not been peer reviewed. (4) Is a political opinion piece. (5) Offers zero support for the opinion that "most scientists believe that the majority of available evidence indicates the virus jumped from animal to human." (6) Points to no study or survey (7) Provides no details, such as a percentage, as to how many "scientists" believe what (8) likely is not based upon any study or survey, as it mentions no details nor no names of any study. (9) Provides no discussion as to what non-biology scientists - such as particle physicists - know about the lab leak theory. (10) uses the smear of "conspiracy theory", (11) fails to note that many "scientists" involved in gain-of-function research at WIV are the same ones who, for example, signed Peter Dazaks political letter decrying anyone who supported open discussion of this issue.

In short, the "citation" is nothing more than a political opinion. It should be removed. Of course this won't happen, as the article is much more about pushing politics than discussion of the arguments from both sides. 2601:5C4:4301:217C:2132:4512:2B93:F6E4 (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM TarnishedPathtalk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Almost all of your sources quote virologists, not scientists. Virologists might be biased towards this pandemic not being the result of a virological experiment. Some of the sources have massive conflicts of interest, such as Eddie Holmes, who uploaded a 99.5% SARS2 protein identical sequence to NCBI in 2018 with Shi Zhengli and never mentioned this COI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824434). Vbruttel (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC) "Virologists are not scientists! News at 11!" This is typical anti-science rhetorics. We know it from climate change deniers, from quacks and from anti-GMO activists. Ignoring all the experts by claiming general "conflicts of interest" of the whole scientific field, and listening to clueless ignoramuses instead (who can be ascribed a "conflicts of interest" with as much, if not more justification) does not hold water. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Your argument does not make sense here. Asking for only scientific articles as sources is equivalent to allowing only VW-engineers to comment on VW cheat devices. We know from the leaked chat that Kristian Andersen suggested to "screen" bioRxiv, and many renowned scientist such as Istvan Csabai have had their papers rejected from bioRxiv, where Andersen was active in screening literature. Look at historic cases such as the Sverdlovsk Anthrax Leak. Communist governments have covered that up. Scientists have ignored obvious evidence (case distribution, airways, not intentines being infected) and confirmed a natural cause. I am author of a key preprint regarding COVID origins which has simply been rejected by journals such as science and not allowed to enter the review process. It may never be published. Trusting peer review makes sense, but not here, where reviewers would have to assess if their colleagues caused an accident that killed 20 million people. Vbruttel (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Ah, the 'scientists have a conflict of interest because they do science' argument. Seems to be a WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Read the talk page threads we already have you have brought nothing new to the table. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Also the CIA and the FBI have release a summary of intelligence which pretty much says nothing to see here. The way things stand at the moment this page should be renamed COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy. AlanS^talk 09:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your link is to an opinion article, but it links to a more neutral article[4] about the FBI/CIA's opinion, which is to say: no firm opinion. Wizmut (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The list of sources for this preposterous statement is weak. For example, here is one of the top-listed sources cited:

“Cell(Review). 184 (19): 4848–4856. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017. PMC 8373617. PMID 34480864. As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event...There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin. There is no evidence that any early cases had any connection to the WIV, in contrast to the clear epidemiological links to animal markets in Wuhan . . .”

This source is obviously outdated — for instance, the Wall Street Journal published an article in May 2021 stating that three investigators from the WIV became ill in November 2019 and had symptoms similar to those observed in COVID-19. Further, “clear epidemiological links” is a massive stretch — see, e.g., the persistent lack of evidence now years later regarding an intermediate animal host for SARS-CoV-2.

More to the point, flatly claiming to express the view of “most scientists” without citing to a carefully constructed scientific poll of same is inherently unscientific, and should be promptly deleted. 2601:243:CE80:E6F0:640B:F2EA:F1A5:3CD3 (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The WSJ is not a peer-reviewed academic paper. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Stating that investigators from the WIV became ill in Nov 2019 is meaningless when the virus is believed to started circulating in Wuhan in late October/early November 2019, when employees of WIV would have been able to catch anything else that the local population of Wuhan would have been able to catch. There is still no evidence of anything occurring in WIV. Evidence is kind of important. Despite FBI/CIA investigations nada, nothing, zilch. Just a bunch of hot hair from conspiracy theorists like Rand Paul et. al. TarnishedPath^talk 11:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does Wiki allow these kind of garbage attacks on the other side from TarnishedPath? "hot hair[sic] conspiracy theorists like Rand Paul", etc. What kind of "evidence" do the lab leak deniers have. - to use language much more mild than they use. Any article on this issue should note that there is no hard evidence on either side - but how often do those who wish to shut down debate do this? Never. It's non-existant, non-supported surveys about what "scientists" believe. Does TarnishedPath's screed add anything to this issue? If not, why is it allowed. 2601:5C4:4301:217C:2132:4512:2B93:F6E4 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

100 Spot on 2601. No poll. No survey. No reason why "scientists" who aren't intimately familiar with this issue should be able to "vote". `No reason why those personally involved in WIV should have their self serving statements considered as fact. Many of the sources listed are from political commentators or polticized advocacy writers. This is the level of "fact" pushed by those who seek to ignore the long, long list of reasons to think Covid came from a lab. 2601:5C4:4301:217C:2132:4512:2B93:F6E4 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, the statement is highly misleading, and all references refere to virologists, which may be biased here. A poll by Prof. Justin Kinney on twitter showed that ~90% of scientists do not consider this question solved. It suggest replacing the sentence with "many virologists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis". Vbruttel (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the guy who'll sell you a furin cleavage conspiracy beer stein[5] right? or a 'blameless pangolin'[6] rucksack? No bias there I'm sure. And with the proposal that Wikipedia bases something on a 'poll' from these crankier parts of Xitter, Wikipedia reaches its low point for the day. Cheers, everyone. Bon courage (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

So, you see no violation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Independent_sources when Peter Daszak's report saying a lab accident is "highly unlikely" is quoted despite Peter Daszak having received ~400k per year in salary from Ecohealth Alliance, which finances what he calls gain of function experiments on bat coronaviruses, and planned to add furin cleavage sites to human ACE2 binding viruses in Wuhan in 2018.

But a Professor and genetics expert that has not received any compensation whatsoever here is biased, because he helped to start a non-profit organisation to raise awareness to these risky experiments, or because that NGO sells some mugs? Vbruttel (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Having expertise is not a conflict of interest, and academic publishing has mechanisms for declaring & managing COIs and assessing scientific worth through peer review. Many cranks have a COI of belief, and/or are in it for the fame, thrills, adulation of other cranks, fantasies of future vindication, irrational quasi-religious belief in their 'cause', or grift. Per WP:MEDRS editors here have no standing to object to otherwise reliable sources because of personal objection to the funding source(s). Bon courage (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I am an expert molecular biology and immunology. This is about a potential scandal, not about medical advice, the concensus statement clearly says a potential lab accident is not a WP:MEDRS topic. The references given to support this statement come from virologists with huge conflict of interest. They have worked with the lab under suspicion and uploaded viral sequences that are 99.5% identical to SARS2. Or planned to introduce human-identical FCSs into bat-CoVs from S China in Wuhan in 2018 (SARS2 is the only one of ~300 Sarbecoviruses with a FCS, which furthermore is human-identical, related viruses are exactly from the mentioned regions, and in caused a pandemic exactly in Wuhan just one year after the research proposal). The statement is furthermore misleading as many of the cited virologists did not believe what they published, see e.g. https://www.commentary.org/articles/christine-rosen/covid-origins-kristian-andersen-media-coverage/. some of the cited virologists have been suspected to have caused lab-derived pandemics in the past: https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/did-west-africas-ebola-outbreak-of-2014-have-a-lab-origin/ Vbruttel (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a false description of the RfC outcome. WP:MEDRS applies to WP:BMI but not to WP:NOTBMI. No one cares that you (say you) are an expert; what matters here are reliable sources. Frankly, the stuff about virologists having a conflict of interest with virology is just conspiracist noise. You don't help your case by citing crappy sources like independentsciencenews.org. Basically, Wikipedia is not going to indulge conspiracy theories, and using this talk page as a forum for them is becoming disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS vs. WP:GNG

A conflict that often resurfaces for this topic is between WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:GNG. The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. It's a bit of a paradox:

1. Many reliable sources report "FBI favors the lab leak theory" (passes WP:GNG, i.e. many of the sources that lead to article inclusion are not scientists, but instead reports on newsworthy events)
2. The FBI is a reliable source on government intelligence (fails WP:RELIABILITY for virology, but passes for intelligence)
3. The FBI isn't a reliable source on virology (so should it be included at all in a science article?)

This is a conundrum in covid-related articles where we have a crossover between science and newsworthy events. It seems like consensus usually veers toward "don't include the "news" part prominently in the lede, but do include within the article body". I think this sort of confuses things even more and leads to a less cohesive article, but I'm not sure if there's a cleaner solution.

Thoughts?

The void century 01:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:GNG is about whether topics are notable enough for articles to exist; I think the concept you want is WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia doesn't do "News" in the strict sense, and NPOV is best achieved by giving most weight to the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is many of the sources that have made this topic notable enough for article are news, not scholarship. There are numerous science papers cited in this article, but most of them seem to be about zoonosis, not the lab leak, with a couple that directly discredit the lab leak. I feel like it's a conflict between "notable enough for an article" and non-experts in virology being included because they're reported in reliable news sources, but then we've turned it into a science article as well to properly discredit the lab leak theory. To me, this "theory" is really only notable for the news coverage, not the science element, because, well, there is no science supporting it. The void century 01:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

There's sometimes a tension between notability and neutrality, yes (but not in this case I think). For FRINGE topics like this it's even more important that Wikipedia aligns with mainstream high-quality knowledge while keeping the middle-brow stuff in its box. There are many topics (think climate change or weight-loss diets) where there's a stack of coverage in both scholarship and lay media, and the lay media is useless for the purpose of finding accepted knowledge on the key points. I would add that there are editors on Wikipedia who generally focus on news and politics and have endless battle over whether the NYT or the WSJ or SLPC or the Daily Mail (or whatever) are RS, and there's usually a 'culture clash' when they alight on a topic for which there is scholarly material and find all their familiar sources are relatively unimportant. We see this, for example, all the time in medical topics. Bon courage (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel like you have a great understanding of the "scales of reliability", so to speak. I don't have any specific changes in mind. I mostly want clarity on how people are thinking about the policy in this situation. The void century 15:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It is probably inappropriate to think of the FBI as a "source" in terms of WP "reliable sources", they haven't published anything after all (which is the problem). There are sources which to a very limited extent describe the findings of the FBI analysts, whoever they might be. fiveby(zero) 16:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Right. The actual "reliable source" is the news reporting on the FBI. But as I detailed below, policy is very clear:

• scholarly publications > news (reporting on FBI)
• scholarly publications > non-evidence-based expert opinion (FBI opinion itself)

I've seen multiple layers of argument, like "FBI is an authority on covid" and/or "the news is reliable", but both are unsupported by weight policy. The void century 22:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think you've put your finger on the heart of the problem. This is a really useful discussion.

There are two dimensions here, a current affairs dimension and a science dimension. The current affairs aspect is important enough in this case to have been covered by The BMJ, and it is covered in the body of this article using some of the best sources available for current affairs content – New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC, Washington Post.

Origins of COVID-19 should arguably be a purely scientific article. But even in the lead section of that article, a third of the 44 sources cited are press sources, not scholarly sources. Its final sentence (In July 2023, a review article in The New York Times details information to date about the origins of the Covid-19 virus.) recommends a press source. Andreas JN466 11:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The covid origins issue is not merely medical but also involves politics, investigating possible wrongdoing, national security, among other things. I would say in the US or in connection with the US it is also the realm of the FBI which has a division to investigate biological threats, likely with personnel who are scientists of the field. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As is covered in the article. Is there any actual proposal here to do anything? It's a bit of a canard that this article doesn't use news source: it's lousy with 'em! Bon courage (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thinker, I agree covid origins is political, i.e. there are non-scholar authority figures weighing in. But even then, they still have to provide evidence to be considered reliable information. I think this is where the tricky distinction comes in:

• Reliable news reporting in this case confirms event happened, not information is true. The information that's reliable is "x authority figure said y", not "y is an evidence-based assertion". It's the same if a scientist says their view in a news interview vs publishes their view in a peer-reviewed journal. The peer-reviewed journal almost always has more weight: WP:SOURCETYPES When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
• In many cases, the news and authority figures can be sources of info, but WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. WP:NEWSORG says Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics.. and WP:SOURCE specifies A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical facts. Also WP:MEDRS says health-related content in the general news media should not normally be used to source biomedical content.
• WP policy distinguishes between the weight of event happened vs information is true, especially in science related topics. For the origin of a virus, there is a hierarchy of weight: information is peer-reviewed > authority figure said it. WP:MEDASSESS says: Lower levels of evidence in medical research come from primary studies. Roughly in descending order, these include [...] non-evidence-based expert opinion (at the very end of the list).
• And what does weight mean? WP:VOICE says Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. WP:WEIGHT gives a lot more information: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.
• Because of the hierarchy of information is peer-reviewed > authority figure said it, the minority in this case is the FBI.
• Even then, there are different levels of quality in peer-reviewed sources, which means that some sources have more weight, especially secondary peer-reviewed sources. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says Prefer secondary sources

The void century 16:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Another problem is that covid is a pretty unique case in the realm of medical research. As it is so highly politicized and sides so radically set on diverse aspects of it for ideological reasons, researchers don't have nearly as much as scholarly freedom as in regular medical research.

In fact, researchers, scientists, physicians worldwide for a while were reportedly under great pressure to side with the zoonosis theory or risk their reputation, their grants, their jobs and in some cases even their license to keep practicing.

The repercussions of such censorship are still being felt. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, no scientists have claimed this type of pressure. In fact, scientists have refuted this claim. The void century 22:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Not all scientists even felt pressured, because they shared the beliefs and many times passionately that covid is a zoonotic disease. But many others did.

Filippa Lentzos, codirector of the Centre for Science and Security Studies at King’s College, London, told the Wall Street Journal, “Some of the scientists in this area very quickly closed ranks.” She added, “There were people that did not talk about this, because they feared for their careers. They feared for their grants.”

A local researcher has been pushing the United States to investigate the lab for more than a year. Her remarks have led to threats and harassment. "Backlash was swift and furious. I think a lot of scientists were really offended by it. People called me a race traitor. I was attacked by a Chinese media article," said Dr. Alina Chan, a scientific advisor at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. [...]

Her work outlined two possible scenarios for the start of COVID. One theory is that it began from the market trade of live animals in Wuhan. The other is from a lab outbreak. Her conclusion leaned toward the lab because she says no infected animals have been found in that area during that time.

Chan told NBC that some scientists had apprehensions about publicly discussing the lab leak possibility out of concern that their statements would be manipulated to suggest they were endorsing “racist” language about COVID’s origins in China — an apparent reference to Trump’s use of the phrase “Wuhan virus.”

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Alina Chan continued to circulate her preprint even after it was thoroughly debunked. I think that behavior is appropriately the target of criticism. The void century 04:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

"personnel who are scientists of the field", can you remind me where exactly "the field" is that those "personnel who are scientists" operate? TarnishedPath^talk 00:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

An educated guess is that a biological hazards division of a law enforcement/domestic intelligence agency probably at least consults with relevant experts and in the covid case, probably consult with virologists, infectiologists and related scientists. In fact, its documentation talk about partnership with Health authorities. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the most pertinent word you wrote in all of that was "domestic". You need not have written anything else to convey how little they could possibly know about the conditions in research labs in competitor nations. Sincerely, TarnishedPath^talk 12:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

We have an RFC about this, lets not split the conversation/ Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to move this into the RfC discussion section. The void century 16:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Link to RfC please. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

[[7]], as this seems related to this thread. Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this thread is different than the RfC asking if "should the lede of our article on the COVID-19 lab leak theory mention that the FBI". The current thread main issue is about whether the FBI is a reliable source for this topic, although it does mention as rationale about inclusion in the lede or the body. (User:The void century?) Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I meant to reference the RfC as one example out of many related ones The void century 22:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

As we mention this in the article already, and no one has suggested removing it, what suggested improvement is being discussed? Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Not every talk discussion needs to propose a suggested improvement. It's constructive for editors to discuss their views on how policy applies to a specific article. The void century 14:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

...which is discussion about the issue of improvement. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

GNG is not about article content. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

References