Wikipedia

Talk:DRASTIC

Latest comment: 5 months ago by Julian Brown in topic Lab leak theory sources
Learn more about this page

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 ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'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)

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

References

"Claims" section looking coatracky edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago31 comments8 people in discussion

This section was recently expanded without discussion and now reads like a coatrack for the Mojiang miners trope. Can we get consensus here before adding so much material, please? JoelleJay (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I went ahead and removed some of the more egregious material. Feel through to go through it again, I think it needs some TLC to bring it to NPOV and DUE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

JoelleJay, the WP:COATRACK essay is a good explanation of our WP:DUE policy. Can you explain what about DRASTIC's findings related to the Mojiang Miners isn't WP:DUE for this article? I think this section is as DUE here as the Syrian Civil War section is in Bellingcat. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Most of the details in that section make no mention of DRASTIC or their involvement. There is no reason to describe the whole Mojiang thing in this article unless secondary sources are specifically discussing DRASTIC's contribution to uncovering each fact. The Syrian Civil War section on Bellingcat appropriately covers Bellingcat's role in reporting the conflict; unlike the Mojiang coatrack, it doesn't go into detail on the war itself. JoelleJay (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sources do not present DRASTIC's findings as uncovering "facts", as you call them. Rather, reliable sources, such as VanityFair, describe the Mojiang Miners incident as "raising sharp questions", which I described in a sentence Shibbolethink and RandomCanadian removed and replaced with a statement about a fungal infection that isn't supported by any sources, and they did not even bother to cite any source for it. As for the discovery of BANAL-52 cited to the Nature article, it doesn't mention DRASTIC and isn't relevant to the Mojiang Miners incident, as China has yet to answer Fauci's call for transparency in relation to this incident (so it is WP:SYNTH to use that source in this way). The WIV did not disclose RaTG13 link to the Mojiang mine, which was what reliable sources describe as the main point of concern, and the discovery of BANAL-52 and other closely related viruses does not change that one bit. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
A member of this group claimed that miners died from a SARS-CoV-like virus. Better sources say that this was not the case, and per WP:FRINGE, we need to put the group's opinion into context with the mainstream view. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, a member of the group claimed that the miners may have died from a SARS-CoV-like virus. Reliable sources say the theses describe a SARS-like illness, and Anthony Fauci and George F. Gao confirm that in public comments found in WP:RS, one of which I added to the article. There isn't anything about this claim that requires WP:MEDRS, though the claim that they died of a fungal infection should require WP:MEDRS, otherwise it should be WP:ATTRIBUTED. If there is any doubt about this, we can consult ProcrastinatingReader who has given an honest take on the matter, or I can log-in and request an ARBCOM case. I would rather we come to an agreement amongst ourselves on what we write and how we source it. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
The text in the article is attributed, so I don't see what you're going on about. If you're editing logged out, you should be aware of WP:SOCK, which does state "Sockpuppetry takes various forms, [including]: logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
The sentence about the fungal infection is not attributed. It should be attributed to Shi Zhengli, who is the only Chinese scientist/official to deny it on the record, in the Scientific American and BBC articles I cited in my edit. I added the CN tag to that sentence. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
It was the conclusion of official sources, I'll add RSes in a second. It's the mainstream narrative, supported by multiple RSes, and so we should not attribute it as an opinion, but report it in wiki voice as fact. Edit: I can't find the chinese language source that describes the coroner report, but if I ever find it I'll add it. I believe it's mentioned in the PhD thesis, but that's a primary source. So for now I've put it in attribution, I'll update it if I find it.
As for Arbcom, I would bet good money that it wouldn't go very far, and you should know that threatening to take things to Arbcom like this, without evidence, and without any effort toward dispute resolution, can be part of WP:ASPERSIONS and therefore in and of itself can be a violation of policy if it is done repeatedly. Please attempt to work with other editors towards a version of the article that is WP:NPOV by making specific suggestions that are in line with consensus. And please cease trying to WP:WIN arguments by threatening to escalate them and elevate tensions further. It can be perceived as a form of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Work with us, not as though we are your enemies. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
If secondary sources are not contextualizing Mojiang material with commentary on how DRASTIC is involved, then there is no reason for that material to be in this article. Despite much, much more comprehensive secondary coverage, we don't go into this level of detail on any single discovery in the Revelations section of Snowden's page but rather give a brief summary of the most impactful findings in the context of Snowden's actions/document leaks. The same treatment should apply to DRASTIC and this section should be reduced to like four sentences. JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I am unaware of any policy that restricts us to sources that both contextualise and credit reported findings of a group, in an article about the group. We have very good sources that credit this group with finding the Mojiang Miners theses, and I added a source saying public officials like Anthony Fauci have called on the Chinese government to disclose further details about the incident, demonstrating the significance of this finding. I also added two sources with responses from a Chinese scientist involved in the incident, which demonstrate the seriousness of which sources treat this claim, and provides balance. This article was a stub before I expanded it, and we have plenty more room to expand it with more reported findings and claims, without limiting ourselves to just four sentences for each one. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
that rule would be WP:DUE and WP:RSUW. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Note: it seems Shibbolethink also does not agree with JoelleJay's non-policy based editing restrictions and is expanding the Mojiang Miners section. I think JoelleJay may have a point about restricting sources that fail to contextualising and attributing claims, but I don't think it restrict us from using more varied sources, so long as we are in agreement that they are accurately summarised here. Shibbolethink please make sure that the opening sentence of the section is faithful to sources, as the DRASTIC member did not "assert" that the miners died from SARS-like illness, which I presented more accurately in my edit. Please also replace "virus samples" with "serum samples" as per the Reuters source. Please also be careful not to employ the common straw man argument that DRASTIC claimed RaTG13 is the progenitor of SARS-COV-2, as neither our sources nor the Snopes article you added attribute such a claim to them. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's pretty clear that Shibbolethink is working to bring the content more in line with our policy on FRINGE by summarizing the consensus view; otherwise we'd have unrebutted minority/fringe claims. I don't think it's necessary to have this large a section, and it would be best if we had sources disputing DRASTIC directly rather than their claims, but since IRS mostly aren't paying attention to/don't care about the group the current treatment is probably acceptable per FRINGE. The fact that so few sources appear to be attributing the Mojiang stuff to DRASTIC does indicate that this section may be overly-SYNTHesized, or at least drawing too heavily from the single VF article, and may not be DUE at all. JoelleJay (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yeah basically my position is that if we're including this material, we need to contextualize it with the mainstream view. Otherwise, I think it is probably UNDUE and overhyped. We could remove a lot of it and remove the contextualization as well. But I imagine some here would find that unsatisfactory. So the least we can do is contextualize it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
"also be careful not to employ the common straw man argument that DRASTIC claimed RaTG13 is the progenitor of SARS-COV-2, as neither our sources nor the Snopes article you added attribute such a claim to them". Here are several sources that show DRASTIC members making that claim: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
This can be considered WP:CHERRYPICKING. TheWeek.in source, which is a WP:SELFPUB from Drs Rahalkar and Bahulikar, emphasises, like in their paper, the possibility that the virus could have been modified or synthesised using a RaTG13 or a similar backbone or genome. It is near impossible to counter this point, as scientists can't know which related viruses the WIV may have collected and worked on, as researchers do not publish papers on experiments they are working on while they are working on them. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think at this point we need to invoke WP:MEDRS and start to use sources that meet that. We are relying way too much on media sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • Absolutely agree, as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP if nothing else, at the absolute very least we should be sourcing to scholarly publications and not random journalists with no scientific qualifications. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per MEDRS nutshell: Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews. The expanded article still looks like historical information — not biomedical material. So the relevant sources here are still mainstream media, not medical reviews. (Cf. discussion at "Covid povs".) Dervorguilla (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbo is not a valid form of evidence, and one must consider the many more frequent and extensively participated discussions on the lab leak article talk pages, in comparison to one discussion on Jimbo's talk page. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I agree with Dervorguilla's point. This article is about a group reportedly researching/investigating the origins of Covid, and their reported findings/claims are WP:DUE for this page. Where their are clear counterpoints between their claims and what we can find in the scientific literature, we can cite MEDRS and SCHOLARSHIP for WP:BALANCE. However, due to the Chinese government's policy of censorship, balance may always be possible. NPOV doesn't say we can't cover a group's claim we don't know to be true. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Shibbolethink: Those "discussions on the lab leak article talk pages" are indeed frequent (and voluminous, as noted by Ryan). The relevant consensus there rules here too, right? 2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC) 06:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
You have left out the most important sentence: 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). — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 09:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Here's why we can leave it out: DRASTIC isn't a topic that already fits into biomedical information. –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
the scientific consensus on phylogeny as a mainstream statement in response to DRASTIC, however, is. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 09:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
There isn't any scientific consensus on the Mojiang miners in connection to the origins of virus. The Reuters source I cited quotes Fauci urging the Chinese government to release further information about them (and the sick WIV workers). This claim is WP:DUE for this page, and if we want to also approach it as codified in WP:BALANCE, we must present both the claim and counter claim accurately. Since you link to Twitter above, you may like to listen to this podcast where Stuart Neil concedes that the group has made some interesting findings, even though he is very critical of the group overall. We can't cite that but we can cite this MEDRS for the BALANCE we seek, but we should not overstate it as scientific consensus and obscure the controversy for our readers. LondonIP (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Formerly 217.35.76.147 21:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Shibbolethink: That scientific consensus on phylogeny may be one subtopic of this article. We might, for example, mention that it doesn't really support or contradict the lab-leak theory. See Oreskes: The lab-leak theory is plausible (emphasis in original). Author is a Harvard history-of-science professor with no known potential conflicts of interest. (Note, however, that many issues raised by DRASTIC are customarily investigated by occupational health & safety engineers rather than scientists.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

RFC how should we describe them edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago107 comments29 people in discussion
OPTION A
Option A appears to be the consensus; it has the largest number of supporters by a comfortable margin, and only a low number of detractors. Supporters of A generally argued that it was both neutral and accurate, and that it avoided making unverifiable claims about the qualifications of DRASTIC members. Some opposition to A existed, principally arguing that the descriptor of "Internet activists" carried a negative connotation; however, this opposition seems to have been a minority view compared to the users who explicitly spoke in favor of A's neutrality.

The second-most supported option was F; supporters of F credited the fact that it was explicitly mentioned in a reliable source. No other options received significant bases of support. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How should we describe this group?

DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19) is a loose collection of...

A. "internet activists"

B. "internet researchers"

C. "scientists and amateur researchers"

D. "independent scientists and analysts"

E. "Conspiracy theorists"

I think that covers it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

F. "Online investigators" [10]

G. Open-source-intelligence group [11]

217.35.76.147 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

H. Network of Independent Researchers

I. "independent scientists and internet activists"

J "people"

K "Twitter users"

J mareeswaran (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Survey edit

  • In that case, favour option A as "activist" is an inherently neutral term (you can have "environmental activists", "far-right activists", so on so forth) which does not misidentify the topic; which is in line with the fact many of the group's members are anonymous or pseudonymous (making it hard to describe them with either the term "scientists" or "researchers", which are inherently related to qualifications, which can't be verified for anonymous persons); and would be coherent with both WP:V concerns (since sources do use this term to describe the group) and WP:FRINGE/WP:NPOV (avoiding undue legitimisation by making this look like any other credible scientific group, which it is not). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I wouldn't mind J or K either, but the first one seems too casual; and the second one is a bit vague and inaccurate, in the sense that this group is not known merely for its existence on and use of Twitter, but also for the things it does, which are indeed best summarised as "activism". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • A. "internet activists" Support j "People" Oppose G & H & I it is what they are, there is no negative connotation to it. And per the above, any other label is hard to apply to people who are in fact anonymous, thus it might well violate wp:fringe and wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
If we are allowed to argue this case based on our own reasoning, and not just what the reliable sources say, then I would posit that the reason some members wish to remain anonymous, is for fear of repercussions. Their anonymity should not strip them of their credentials, and some members, such as Drs Monali Rahalkar and Rahul Bahulikar give their real names, and are clearly scientists. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
We have provided sources that call them that. The problem is they are called many things, we have to decide which one to use.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • A. "internet activists" - "activists" is a neutral term. Whereas "scientists" or "researchers" implies formal qualifications. Graham Beards (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • A. Per the arguments I and others made in the first RfC. Edit: Oppose C, D, E, G, H, & I. JoelleJay (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Support A, F, J, and K. Oppose C, D, H, and I. Oppose any title which describes the group as "scientists" and I know of no one with relevant expertise who is part of the group. The only person who comes close is Segreto and even she is not an expert in anything resembling virology or epidemiology. It would lend the group undue expertise to describe them as "scientists." A is the most neutral term and most accurately describes what they do. Their activities are most similar to online activist groups like Anonymous or Wikileaks or even GreenPeace on occasion. They find and release specific files/documents to further a certain goal, in this case providing evidence for the lab leak theory. The difference from a typical conventional research team is in how they treat information that conflicts with their narrative. A scientist/researchers would publish it and describe how it isn’t as important as other evidence provided, because they want steel manning of their arguments. DRASTIC just doesn’t even provide that info or mention it in any way. They just ignore it completely. Like the vaccine/antiviral parts of the recent grant leak, or the evidence from the leak before that showing that animal experiments were conducted in a Wuhan university BSL3 and not at the WIV BSL2 as DRASTIC had concluded.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • A and F. I believe there is no reason to use only the A or the F since the members of Drastic apply both activism and a real independent investigation activity with the means that the internet offers. I feel i have to contradict Shibbolethink on the argument of not evaluating also the elements of the opposite "faction". From what I have been able to observe every element introduced that could be disadvantageous for the research-related error theory has been evaluated and gutted as hard as possible. I don't know if you are up to date, but the members of Drastic have had in the last period a very good relationship of discussion with scientists who think in the opposite/quite opposite way and therefore this confrontation is heated and wide. --Francesco espo (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Collapse as WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Shibbolethink my website has no ties with Drastic, it's an indipendent and public work and i declared it from the first moment. My aim with that website was to make public what we knew that brought us to think that a research-related error was possible. Francesco espo (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • It also bears mentioning that Shibbolethink, has said in the past that they are the author of a WP:SELFPUB paper promoting their own COVID-19 origins hypothesis [13] which they have shared in Wikipedia discussions [14] [15] [16] [17]. LondonIP (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • A Most neutral term. I don't think this RfC is necessary the only user objecting is the IP, and there is a concensus against their position, see WP:IDHT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • B or and F. Firmly oppose C, D, E and G because there is no evidence to support them. Don't like the A option because "activist" can be a loaded, non-neutral term. As a writer, I often do "internet research" and "investigate" the subjects of my writings, so "researchers" and "investigators" I consider to be neutral terms and more useful in this context than "activists" or any other terms. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 09:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Paine Ellsworth, what do you think of and instead of or, as a compromise. My concern with option A is that if we call them just "activists", without also using any other descriptors given in reliable sources, then it may look like we are seeking to discredit the group and diminish the significance of their findings. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
That's okay with me. I consider myself both a researcher at times and an investigator at times. The two terms are synonymous for me. I investigate and I do research. No real difference that I can see. So both are fine with me and are the two best choices of the bunch imho. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 15:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • A I originally proposed Internet Activists. But I have added H (Network of Independent Researchers) as an option as that was how one of them self described themselves on social media J mareeswaran (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
J mareeswaran, please can you provide the source for Option H in your post. Also, are you !voting for Option H in addition to Option A? 217.35.76.147 (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
the source is a tweet by one of the Drastic Members (Rossanno Segreto). I am sticking to A. If we want, we could add H in addition noting it as self-styledJ mareeswaran (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Probobly falils wp:sps.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
my reading of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves is that adding self-styled before their claimed description should be OK J mareeswaran (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Problem is that it can also be argued to be self serving.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Do you think self styled "independent researchers" is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim as per WP:ABOUTSELF? 217.35.76.147 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Not if it is a general claim (after all every one here is an "independent researcher". But for something that might well be affected by WP:MEDRS and wp:fringe, yes it is an exceptional claim. I can claim to be an "independent researcher" I can't claim to ber an "independent medical researcher".Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Note: 2600:8804:6600:C4:3960:5A22:2350:25AC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic, and was just blocked for disruptive editing about this topic (lab leak theory).— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • A, although "activists" on its own is also fine IMHO. —AFreshStart (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • F and G are the only ones that have any sources cited in the RfC. But, really, how about A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, or I? Who cares? How is it possible for anyone to still care about this? Aren't we supposed to be writing an encyclopedia or something? jp×g 22:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
    but we know that sources for A exist: [18] [19] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
The Week is a good source, while the Global Times is not, given that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (we can't cite a Chinese government mouthpiece to describe a group trying to uncover their cover-up). Its good that we are citing sources though, and I'd like the Slatersteven as the OP of this RfC to cite sources for each of the options above. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, so the closer will base their WP:CLOSE on WP:PG, and not just by tallying the !votes. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
our description of the group does not need to have an exact quote in any source, so I don't think Slaterseven is under any obligation to do that. And, most of all, sources are not the only way we decide on opening sentences for articles. Wikipedia is not a loose collection of verbatim quoted material juxtaposed in a certain way. We summarize and contextualize and write content that describes topics to our readers in an encyclopedic manner. This isn't wikiquote. See: Wikipedia:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
True, but when we have a dispute, as we do here, we have to try to get it as close as possible to what our sources say, and in this case, sources do not call this group "internet activists" only, as The Week and the Global Times do. Citing those two sources only would be WP:CHERRYPICKING, and when one of them is deprecated, you're left with just one. That puts the closer of this RfC in a tough position. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
that's really misunderstanding cherry picking. WP:CHERRYPICKING is when you find one part of a source that you like, and you cite only that part, ignoring all the parts of the source which contradict your statement or at least throw it into question. It's intra-source, not inter-source. That's also a misunderstanding of WP:SUPERVOTE. SUPERVOTE is when a closer makes an argument that did not appear anywhere in the discussion. If the argument appears even once and there is a reasonable defense to be made that it is the consensus via compromise, then it is fair to apply it in a close, and not a SUPERVOTE. It can also be when a closer ignores huge policy flaws, but that is typically up for debate, and not a very useful argument at close review. I would urge you to consider how many very experienced editors with years and years of wikipedia experience are making arguments that you appear to believe are not based in policy. Why are you so sure that you are right and they are all wrong? I would also suggest that you read the essays/policies/guidelines you cite more carefully before linking them so often like this. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Shibbolethink: and @217.35.76.147:, would you two mind explaining why it is that you think it's important for your respective preferences to be reflected in the article? Perhaps a counterfactual, in the form of "If the article says the thing I hate, then [...] will happen"? jp×g 00:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Shibbolethink's response to JpxG and PaleoNeonate's addendum
Misrepresenting the credentials and expertise of the group will create a perception that their arguments are based on scientific evidence (which they are not) or have weight in the scientific community (which they do not).
Granting the group more expertise than is deserved will further the spread of the misinformation and misunderstandings which form the basis for many lab leak theories (e.g. the relationship between RaTG-13 and SARS-2, genetic engineering of bioweapons, that SARS-2 is somehow "pre-adapted" to humans, or that the WIV was in some way conducting the experiments proposed in the rejected grant). Wikipedia is instrumental in combating the spread of misinformation and ensuring that arguments/descriptions of encyclopedic content are made based upon the best available evidence and best available sources founded in the real experts on these topics.
There are real life consequences to what is decided here. The result will influence the spread of misinformation on the internet.
Google, Facebook, and others rely on Wikipedia for how they determine what is and is not misinformation and who is and is not an expert. We have a duty to follow the policies and guidelines re: expert sources and scholarship, and not grant undeserved legitimacy in virology to a bunch of people who have no expertise in viruses. And, most of all, we should not represent this group as unbiased, when they are entirely focused on the goal of legitimizing a fringe theory. That is what they do, day in and day out. It is the ultimate goal of all their efforts: Making the theory legitimate. They are organizing, working toward a singular goal, protesting, publishing manifestos, open letters, and polemics. They act quite a bit like activists. Describing them with terms which characterize their activities as unbiased: "just asking questions" "researchers" "analysts" grants them the appearance of neutrality and expertise.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think this is a fair summary of the situation. We're also now aware that the CNET source (that despite being outside if its field has been argued for inclusion) is an undisclosed press release requested by activists. It's a WP flaw that also allowed an article on DRASTIC to pass AfD despite the poor media coverage (WP:NOTNEWS), as for any extraordinary claims, acceptable sources would be expected to include some critical analysis for us, so that we have something to neutrally write about. and others rely on Wikipedia that's precisely why WP is such a hot target to push these stories, —PaleoNeonate – 06:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
217.35.76.147's response to JPxG
repeated here from JpxG's talk page

I would rather answer your question here, than create more work for the closer of the RfC. I think this RfC would have been as just avoidable as the first one, had Shibbolethink agreed to stick to the sources. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and JoelleJay is arguing that this group's claims aren't WP:DUE, while PaleoNeonate argues that the page should not have passed WP:AFD. I actually don't have a problem calling them activists, so long as it's not the only descriptor, and I also don't mind citing WP:MEDRS for BALANCE, where possible. However, due to the censorship in China, balance won't actually be possible, and this is a key point that editors will have to grapple with for a long time to come. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • A feels problematic to me. It tilts things towards deligitimizing the credentials of some of the people involved. B seems neutral. I would look to how DRASTIC are being described in the mainstream media. Almost invariably it's "internet researchers" or some neutral variant of this. modify 22:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • A The status quo (and result of the last RFC) have come up with a general neutral term that fits well with the purposes and activities of the group. "Internet activists and independent amateur researchers", would also work, but activists is concise and inclusive. —PaleoNeonate – 23:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • A. Let's start with with a detrimental denomination and see if they age well enough to improve it. Forich (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • F (BMJ), G (Economist), or J. Per WP:V, we need good sources that explicitly support any challenged material. Not A. As Forich mentioned, that's perceived as a "detrimental denomination" (in this context). See "Activist": a person who uses or supports strong actions (such as public protests) to help make changes in politics or society. Strong actions. Per Modify's comment, we're discussing a WP:BLPGROUP, so we have be fair to its subjects at all times. Dervorguilla (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC) 07:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
    And what exactly is detrimental about "activist"? You can have both "environmental activists" or "far-right activists", the term itself implies nothing negative (and "internet activists" is, helpfully, free of any personal judgement as to the topic where activists are active). BLP concerns also don't seem correct (we're not accusing them of committing any crime or other societally objectionable action), less so because there's no requirement to be "fair", so long we follow the better sources and don't breach WP:FALSEBALANCE or other concerns of WP:NPOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
    what exactly is against WP:BLP about describing a group as supporting strong actions? Many in DRASTIC want Fauci to resign his job, or Daszak to resign his job. Or they want the US CIA to seriously investigate the possibility that SARS-2 was released as a bioweapon in Maryland in July of 2019 (yes, really). Stuff like that. All easily described as "strong actions." Not to mention the derogatory, racist, and vile harassment of scientists/public health experts. I would consider those incidents "strong actions." — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
We agree that labeling their members as "activists" would characterize them as using or supporting strong actions. Yet the article body, as written, doesn't show them as characteristically engaging in strong actions. ("Wanting" a thing doesn't really count as a "strong action".) More at Ryan, "How the Coronavirus Origin Story Is Being Rewritten by a Guerrilla Twitter Group": Segreto, for instance, was falsely accused of attacking Angela Rasmussen... Falsely accused. –Dervorguilla (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
"Guerilla Twitter group" does not sound exactly like "calm and peaceful" to me... And whether they have been "falsely accused" or not, I can certainly confirm that at least one of their members directly attacked me and PaleoNeonate on Twitter, so there's that... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but @Dervorguilla, you brought the definition "a person who uses or supports strong actions (such as public protests) to help make changes in politics or society" into the conversation (emphasis mine). — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@RandomCanadian: Thank you for voluntarily disclosing this information: "At least one of their members directly attacked me and PaleoNeonate on Twitter." @PaleoNeonate: Is this statement correct? –Dervorguilla (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Dervorguilla: I still have a copy of the email I sent to ArbCom (also obliquely mentioned in AN Archive 330; the person in question also had a WP account under the same username (and was blocked here for making the same kind of egregious personal attacks). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I hasten to repeat here Deigin's strong denial of the allegation that he had a Wikipedia account. –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
FWIW, the Twitter (and identically named Wikipedia) account in question was not Deigin's (nor is there any indication it would be; unless there is more to it than meets the eye). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's not the kind of material we can work with as Wikipedians to write an article anyway, vs sources and AE enforcement actions when necessary. But a point I remember was the call to create "LEAKGATE", that seemed consistent with the type of propaganda observed when patrolling WP. I've posted here before on the need for the group to self-regulate if it aims to acquire any credibility... —PaleoNeonate – 06:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Not B, C, D, F, G, H, or I. All those suggest a competence for which there is no evidence. A is OK. But if A or E suggest other things for which there is not evidence, I guess "people" is the only option. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • A, F, J, or K and oppose anything with "scientists" or "researchers". We don't know the makeup of the membership and have to describe them based on their actions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
What if reliable sources describe some members as scientists or researchers? Isn't WP:RS a core policy? 217.35.76.147 (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
This has been answered elsewhere in this thread and in the discussion below. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Where can I see the sources for each description? I would like to know how to give my input.Gimiv (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
That has been provided elsewhere in this thread, in the discussion below, and in the first RfC. WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY also applies, therefore sources may not exist with quotations of each and every exact wording, but rather a smattering of descriptors that are easily summarized as these wordings. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Support any combination of descriptions supported by sources, such as F, G and A. Oppose A as a standalone description, and oppose any synthesis summaries that create WP:NPOV concerns. LondonIP (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Formerly 217.35.76.147 21:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Not C, D, or I because as they are mainly anonymous and their activities take place online, there is no way to verify whether they are in fact scientists. Not E because the lab leak theory is not even described as a conspiracy theory on the article about COVID-19 lab leak theory. Not J because it is not specific enough. If I had to pick one, I would probably pick A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwmdjeff (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • B or C. In particular, oppose the word "activists", which implies they have a particular axe to grind. Some clearly do, but I would not want to apply that label to the group. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • A. Seems both neutral and factual. I oppose any label that confers scientific qualifications, unless backed up by reliable sources. Since they are pseudonymous, we cannot just assume that their anonymous members have scientific qualifications. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Discussion edit

There was a RFC in July about this. Why do we need another one? There seems to be just one IP who has raised an objection. It'll just turn into a vote and cause more problems than it solves. Graham Beards (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Was going to make a very similar point, but Graham Beards beat me to it. Slatersteven Mind withdrawing? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
The last one was withdrawn without a decision, we need a clear consensus as to what to describe them as. That is partly the IP's point, they may have one. This needs a clear consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think the new RFC is in order, as much as I think it is unnecessary. The new RFC is appropriate, a merge is not. I would urge the IP to be very careful about WP:CANVAS.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

THis is heading for a snow close.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

That would make the closing of this RfC just as unusual as the closing of the first one. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
As as it would be a case of (in this case) consensus is clear, that is what a snow close means, no. However, as we now have at least one dissenting opinion it's no longer a case of a snow close.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Look at the last RfC. I am not the only dissenting opinion. WP:RFC says There is no required minimum or maximum duration. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
What happened in that RFC has no bearing on this one. Of course, there is no minimum duration, but there comes a point when it is obvious that a decision has been made. That is why you get an uninvolved editor to close it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply


It seems to me there is an overwhelming consensus for A I think this can be snow closed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am less confident in applying SNOW here, but I do think this is ready for closure, and I've listed it at WP:Closure requests. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Point of order edit

WP:RFC allows for an editor to reopen an RfC, so before placing my !vote, I will wait on Paine_Ellsworth to undo the close of the last RfC, so that we can merge the two RfCs. Alternatively, we can ping the participants from the last RfC, and make sure all options are on the table. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • No, the two RfCs should not be merged; there's 3 months of time between them; and beating a dead horse rarely leads anywhere conclusive. The previous RfC was inconclusive; one should be free to consider this one as a re-do of the same subject (which is possible: WP:Consensus can change). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • And no, I don’t think this should be merged with the past RFC. Conditions, sources, and opinions have likely changed. It would be entirely out of order to merge like that. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say. I already voted on the issue and the RfC has not reached a consensus. Are there any new developments that would change the votes of those who had their say or are we just supposed to repeat it for the sake of procedure? PraiseVivec (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Note: this user supported the wording "amateur researchers" in the first RfC, but also supported the group being described as "conspiracy theorists" in the article body.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
It would be best unless (like you) they say their view has not changed. But not doing so means the closer has to view two threads.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Like some others, I have nothing to add to my previous comment. As for whether the RFCs get merged or not, I am almost indifferent, my only point of preference concerning a merge is that, whether in order or not, the responsible parties choose the most efficient course. JonRichfield (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Note: this user supported the wording "group promoting conspiracy theories" in the first RfC. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I also see above some arguing for "people". Another alternative would only be "... group coordinating on Twitter ..." and conspiracy theories could still be in the body... Still, the known activity is mainly activism and seems best described as such, —PaleoNeonate – 06:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I would definitely be in support of "twitter group", "group of twitter users" or "anonymous group coordinating on twitter" — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Shibbolethink, are you suggesting that the closer factor in PraiseVivec and JonRichfield's previous comments from the earlier RfC? 217.35.76.147 (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm suggesting the closer factor in the input these users have provided here in this RfC. I'm just adding their prior vote to make things more clear, since they both said some version of "just look at what I said before." They said it, not me. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I would recommend that any past participants returning in response to the pings make their !votes clear in the Comments section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
agreed. The name of the game is to make it clear to any closer what the consensus (or lack thereof) may be. And the more convoluted we make this thing, the worse that is. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I would recommend the closer to factor in all comments from the previous RfC. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I am opposed. New RfC, new potential consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Since the first RfC included input from several users who are now banned from commenting on this topic due to battlegrounding, civil POV pushing, etc. that seems very counterproductive to achieving consensus on this issue. Part of the problem we've had on this page and other lab leak pages is sock and meat puppets who come from Twitter/Reddit/Facebook to try and push their POV. This is WP:NOTAVOTE and the many comments in the old RfC thread (on all sides) which came from brand new accounts/IPs/SPAs were not helpful in achieving any form of consensus. They simply came to push their POV. They are not helpful here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Most of this is off-topic. There are a few opinions about whether to count votes from the old RfC, but the holders of those opinions have already expressed them above. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Shibbolethink, I used to follow the lab leak discussions on Wikipedia and I would often see anti-lab leak editors beating the meat/sock puppet drum, so I compiled a list of reliable sources, showing how widely reported this topic actually is (which ironically got me banned as a puppet). Wikipedia’s coverage of this topic is still woefully inadequate and the COVID Investigations page still hasn’t been updated on the disbanding of the WHO and Lancet teams, and doesn’t mention the criticism they received. The lab leak theory page is still missing many details about the theory, such as the reportedly sick WIV workers, the Mojiang Miners incident, and the connection between the two (remember, it’s just a theory). My list of sources easily surpasses 1,000 now, and the Telegraph just published this article yesterday, which puts Latham’s version of the theory on the RS map.Gimiv (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Shibbolethink, if your recommendation to the closer is not to factor in previous comments from the earlier RfC due to WP:CANVASSING concerns, you should make use of the appropriate templates. Hatting the reply from Gimiv advising you not to beat the canvassing drum and calling their reply WP:OFFTOPIC, is entirely inappropriate. I would recommend the closer to follow WP:PAG, and factor in all comments from the previous RfC. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
The reply had nothing to do with this RfC and didn't mention DRASTIC even once. Hence, WP:TALKOFFTOPIC* applies. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
This is a point of order about closing this RfC, and you claimed, without evidence, that the last RfC was disrupted by canvassing. Gimiv advised you to cease beating the canvassing drum. Your hat was entirely inappropriate. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I actually never used the word canvassing or referenced it in any way in that comment. Indeed, canvassing is typically done to achieve a certain single outcome by advertising on wikipedia in a concerted manner to recruit editors of that viewpoint. I was describing something different: several different editors of different viewpoints who have been banned for having problems with WP:SPA, WP:CPUSH, and WP:TE. Some of them (e.g. cutepeach) were banned right before or right after they contributed here! But just to say, I was NOT alleging canvassing, that's why it's a non sequitur. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Shibbolethink, you said Part of the problem we've had on this page and other lab leak pages is sock and meat puppets who come from Twitter/Reddit/Facebook to try and push their POV. This sounds very much like a WP:CANVASSING concern that the closer of this RfC should be aware of, so not quite a non sequitur, as you put it. You are seeing here a widely varying points of view, and I would advise you to keep Gimiv's advice in mind for future discussions. LondonIP (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Most scientists: who? edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

User Slatersteven made a revert on revision 1056107551 on a "Who" template that was added on the following quote: "Most scientists think that COVID-19 likely had a natural origin, and some have considered that a potential lab leak is worth investigating.". This statement can and should be detailed so that it is possible to read and understand which group of scientists was surveyed. Are those all the scientists of the world, a randomized panel or the result of a national academic poll? Marc André Miron (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Read the sources, we can't have a list of 100's of names, but here are some sources for you to read
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3 "Most scientists say SARS-CoV-2 probably has a natural origin"
https://www.newscientist.com/definition/coronavirus-come-lab/ "The current scientific consensus is that the virus occurred naturally"
Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Before continuing this discussion, I would first suggest that it be agreed that all parties present are to be assumed to be acting in good faith until proven otherwise. I emphasize that I have read these links that you propose, since they are part of the sources attached to the quote (granted, I could have missed them). However, they are not a sufficient response to this request for precision.
Nowhere in these few quotes is the method of qualifying this consensus mentioned. For other subjects of scientific studies, the meta-science that qualifies the consensus is well detailed. Let us take the example of climate change, for which many articles, using different methods, make the effort to qualify and quantify a scientific consensus (citations can be provided if asked).
Be careful, however, not to assume that I believe or advocate that these sought-after citations do not currently exist or that they may not eventually appear. Only, I aspire to the rigor to which Wikipedia has accustomed us, especially in specifying such vague statements.
On another note, I am disappointed to see some experienced users (I am not targeting you, since you are responding to my call, for which I thank you) ignoring the call for discussion in this talk page and responding expressly in edit comments.
Marc André Miron (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
We have discussed this topic so extensively that it has led to the creation of a consensus template easily found at the top of this and many other talk pages. (see point #4 and the many linked discussions) The current consensus among wikipedia editors is that there exists a scientific consensus in favor of the natural origin explanation as the most likely possibility among several possible, but more improbable, theories. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 05:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes I saw this template and read the links provided. This template have it's own consensus debated (the Wiki one), and one can easily read in the many discussion provided that there is none.
However, please avoid going off topic in this discussion and either reopen an appropriate section or open a new one. The request here is to clarify this concensus, not to question its formulation.
Marc André Miron (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
So as you have read the link, you know we can't list names as it is a consensus, and we can't list every scientist who agree, its in the 1000's. So we say what the RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
In a effort to quantify "most scientists", we shouldn't need to list any name. In fact, there are countless ways to write down a precise denomination that would hold for it. I have given some examples before and after your comments, but perhaps my answer could be more straightforward. Let's take it appart.
"most" must be relate to the whole, but it is not a scientific term. It could mean :
  • "more than 50 % of a surveyed group"
  • "more than 50 % of those who do not have a neutral opinion in a surveyed group", which could be anything from > 0 % to 100 % of a surveyed group
Here it would be best to give the percentage directly, but at the very least it could be stated as a footnote.
Nor is it implied that an inference to a group can be made, in another word whether or not the sampling was done randomly. A surveyed group could be anything from a randomized sample, to an internet panel, to anyone the journalists talked to (not exhaustive). Thus, we should add the sampling method in an alternative wording (or again in a footnote or another paragraph as a compromise).
As for "the scientists", the group itself is not clear. Are they epidemiologists? Epidemiologists of a particular country? Of a particular scientific association? It should be easy to know which scientists we are talking about.
Depending on what the original statement means, any of the possibilities listed could be suitable to replace an explicit list of names.
Marc André Miron (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
You would need to ask the four RS we use what they mean. But we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
A {{who}} template should not be resolved solely by speaking to the journalists who used the vague wording (I'm not sure that such info could even be used). A {{who}} template ask for more precision on the subject of a sentence, so the absence of precision inside the current sources is no answer to this request at all.
Also, rest assured that the {{who}} template does not change the current wording. As proposed earlier as a compromise, a footnote could be added if you feel so strongly about the original statement.
Do you at least agree that the statement is not specific enough?
Marc André Miron (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
No as it is clear what it says, most scientists, as in most of them. There is no ambiguity.Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Would you kindly answer to what has already been said regarding to this? Efforts have been made to make my point of vue as clear as water. We all have to make this effort and follow the dialogue. Thank you in advance.
Marc André Miron (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
With all due respect, Marc Andre Miron, please see WP:SATISFY. No one is obliged to answer your questions. I (and Slatersteven) disagree that the statement is unclear, I think it is a very clear and accurate summary of the state of the opinion of relevant experts, and indeed most scientists.
It is a well sourced statement, per WP:RS. It is concise. It is appropriately placed to depict the mainstream viewpoint on this issue while discussing the minority viewpoint of DRASTIC adherents, per WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. I see no issues which need to be addressed here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
This is Wikipedia, and unfortunately it is not Rigorpedia. We do not follow the assorted logical constructs or beliefs in how the project should run of individual editors, we follow established consensus. In this case, we do what we have always done for these situations in establishing "scientific consensus" and defer to the best available scholarly reliable independent secondary sources (AKA WP:BESTSOURCES).
If those sources say "there is a consensus on X" or "most scientists believe X" then we also say it. We don't editorialize.
There is no requirement for a poll or survey showing ">50% believe X". There is no requirement for a specific delineation of individual opinion holders. There is no requirement for a critique of the source's methods in determining this fact. Indeed, any such critique would likely run afoul of WP:NPOV.
We are simply doing what wikipedia has always done: summarizing more complex realities into a readable format. For a more thorough explanation of this process re: scientific consensus, see: WP:MEDSCI. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm really offering a middle point here. You say we shouldn't editorialize, but I have stated multiple time in this conversation that this is not what I proposed or discussed. In fact it is the second time I am answering this to you in particular so I really don't understand why should we should be looping in our conversation. The quote "most scientists" would not be affected either by a template nor should it be by an answer to this template. Another sentence, paragraph or a footnote all can be part of it.
"Indeed, any such critique would likely run afoul of WP:NPOV."
Hem, could you elaborate?
"We are simply doing what wikipedia has always done: summarizing more complex realities into a readable format."
Footnotes do not affect readability, nor do separate sentences.
I'm really surprised to find such opinionated resistance to a simple request for clarification. Normally this shouldn't be a problem and it usually end up with.. more clarification added to Wikipedia.
Marc André Miron (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
I am fine with adding a well-sourced footnote or additional sentence, but I oppose adding the template. "Most scientists" is fine. Firefangledfeathers 22:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Marc André Miron: What would this footnote say, exactly? None of the things you've suggested above (survey, individual names) exist in the reliable sources that are currently cited. Nor would they be appropriate per NPOV and DUE. Those names would not be DUE for inclusion in this article.
Re: NPOV: could you elaborate? -- NPOV tells us that we should present what the sources say in accurate representation in proportion to the existence of those viewpoints in RSes. Adding templates such as "who?" and sentences such as "No surveys have been conducted at this point" or whatever would be inappropriate in this regard, as they lead the reader to the conclusions of the editor (i.e. you), not of the sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
"What would this footnote say, exactly?"
As previously stated, all the work done on Wikipedia regarding the scientific consensus on climate change is a fair guideline on this matter.
"None of the things you've suggested above (survey, individual names) exist in the reliable sources that are currently cited."
Individual names haven't been suggested. I have looked for survey indeed and couldn't find any, else I would have made the effort to include them myself and we wouldn't have this conversation. This doesn't mean that there aren't any nor that they won't appear in the future.
"Nor would they be appropriate per NPOV and DUE."
Mentionning names (not suggested, again) would not be appropriate, mentionning a survey is an example of an appropriate detail.
Marc André Miron (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Okay, let us know when/if you find an appropriate large-scale impartial survey which would be suitable for inclusion. I'll keep an eye out as well. One element I would ask for: A survey of relevant experts.
I have many friends who are geologists. They are great people. Wonderful scientists and renowned drinkers, on average. But I do not particularly care what the geological consensus is on COVID origins. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Can we actually have some suggested text for this footnote. And no Scientific consensus on climate change is not a model, it is an article, not a footnote.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Although I am personally a zoonosis skeptic, I think that things like the Nature article are the best we have to go on at the moment. If someone were to take a poll of scientists, that could be hard evidence, and at that point we would need to decide what evidence is better. But to my knowledge, that hasn't been done. Furthermore, the "most scientists" wording is a considerable improvement over "scientific consensus" wordings that were previously in place on related articles. I think we should not be too picky about what group of scientists is considered. A survey of scientists, for example, could be used for a statement about the opinion of "most scientists". A survey of biologists could be used for a statement about the opinion of "most biologists", and so on. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
My comment is not about a potential footnote but about the existing text in the lead: science doesn't work with polls and surveys though, but there's publication, peer review, refutation, systematic reviews, hypothesis testing, the working theories and their long-working "assumptions" that work well enough to make predictions, etc. On Wikipedia there's WP:RS/AC so we need to find sources that speak about that consensus.
Many sources give clues but few of the best sources appear to use "consensus". Common formulations often use "most", so it makes sense to also use similar terms. Quotes at WP:NOLABLEAK are a good sample and include: "introduction through an intermediary host species is the most likely", "laboratory incident hypothesis is extremely unlikely", "It is highly unlikely that SARS‐CoV‐2 was accidentally released", "considered as "extremely unlikely" by the official WHO investigation team", "SARS-CoV-2 very likely has a zoonotic origin", "largely dismissed by most authorities", "As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event", "most plausible origin of SARS-CoV-2 is natural selection of the virus in an animal host followed by zoonotic transfer", "Of the novel or re-emerging infectious diseases affecting humans in the 21st century, most (75%) have been zoonotic in origin, with their natural reservoirs being other vertebrates", "probably emerged in humans from a zoonotic source in Wuhan", "bats have been suggested to be the most probable evolutionary source for the virus"...
Perhaps that instead of only saying "Most scientists think that COVID-19 likely had a natural origin, and some have considered that a potential lab leak is worth investigating." an alternative could be to more closely meet YESPOV/GEVAL: "A natural zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2 is considered the most likely, with some scientists calling for more investigation of a hypothetical lab leak incident." —PaleoNeonate – 17:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that sounds better. "Most scientists", even if well-sourced, sounds WP:WEASELly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

DRASTIC members and twitter accusations edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago17 comments9 people in discussion

The line is from a CNET story[20]. The thesis of the story is that DRASTIC has made important discoveries in the origin of COVID question. But we don't say that. Instead we cherry pick out this negative detail. That's wrong. We should not use that sentence without stating the article's main thesis. A version that corrects the error is here[21], but the change was reverted. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

We can also state that part of the article, but this is a notable part of the article. Not a cherry pick. To omit this would clearly violate NPOV.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Here from NPOV/N. I believe that the "personal attacks" claim was probably undue as it was written. It's strange to have an article say that members of a group have "engaged in personal attacks" in a general sense, especially considering it doesn't seem to be an organized group. Either there's enough to write about these personal attacks and their consequences in more detail, or it's unwarranted. With that said, I'm much more concerned about the "important discoveries" claim, which makes a massively subjective and questionable claim in wikivoice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Looking back on the article from over a year on, I don't think that they are really separately notable from the lab leak topic, not enough to warrant a separate article anyway. The bulk of their "discoveries" like Mojiang mine etc, are already adequately covered in the main article, and there is very little to say about the group itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
With that said, I'm much more concerned about the "important discoveries" claim, which makes a massively subjective and questionable claim in wikivoice. I agree. I went ahead and removed that for now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Here from WP:NPOVN, just to note that post 2020 CNET is rated yellow at WP:RSP, so I think this should at least be attributed and in the body of the article in light of that (and a better source would be preferable) Tristario (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also here from NPOV/N. I also agree that the "personal attacks" claim in undue. Bonewah (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think I would be amenable to reducing the prominence of this section in line with WP:DUE. E.g. trimming and attributing to: CNET reported that members of DRASTIC have falsely accused virologists and epidemiologists on Twitter of being members of the Chinese Communist Party and moving it to the body under "Claims". — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
It would still be WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
There's no requirement that the 'thesis' of a source be stated when quoting a fact from that source. If there were such a requirement, most of Wikipedia would need to be rewritten in a very confusing way.
It's not like the general jist of the CNET source isn't already covered in the article. This complaint seems to just be that we use a negative fact from a source that's mostly complimentary. But isn't that the best way to do it? Would you rather we take our facts from sources that are just hit pieces that don't have a good word to say about the subject? ApLundell (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's not like the general jist of the CNET source isn't already covered in the article. . This complaint seems to just be that we use a negative fact from a source that's mostly complimentary
Right. As long as we don't leave out what reliable sources say, and generally reflect the attitude of most of our sources, I don't see any problems here. I wish we could find a more reliable source for this info that's very widely known outside of the sources we currently cite. I haven't dug very deep but I'm sure something is probably out there, and I would prefer most other sources to CNET. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I was able to find these with a bit of google fu and WP:TWL:
  • South China Morning Post: Critics have questioned the tactics of DRASTIC – accusing them of cherry-picking evidence to support their claims and abusing scientists that have differing views.
  • Less reliable: Newsweek: For a long time, DRASTIC's discoveries stayed confined to the strange world of Twitter, known only to a few nerdy followers. The sleuths ran into a fair number of dead ends, got into the occasional spat with scientists who disagreed with their interpretations, and produced a firehose of reporting.
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply


Hmmmm, why don't we use this SCMP source to say: Critics say the group cherry-picks evidence and abuses scientists who disagree with their conclusions. It's a much more reliable source, it's a major point in the article, and it reflects criticism of other sources like CNET while leaving it attributed.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:SCMP However, in addition, there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics, including the Chinese Communist Party and the SCMP's current owner, Alibaba. Editors may apply higher scrutiny when dealing with the SCMP's coverage of such topics. Here, we have coverage of a group that the CCP obviously has reason to want to look bad. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
We can attribute the claim if you want. "SCMP and CNET have criticisms of the group, including..." but we now have several sources which verify this content. Given how overall laudatory the SCMP article is of DRASTIC, and how critical it is of China, I'm not really persuaded by that argument. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think the unattributed claim is plentifully due for this article, but I also think the attributed version is fine as a compromise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think something about this is WP:DUE in this article, but I think it should be placed in the body initially, and more specific/informative detail should preferably be included, just saying "Critics say the group cherry-picks evidence and abuses scientists who disagree with their conclusions" is quite vague/WP:WEASELy and doesn't really provide a lot of information. I think the CNET and SCMP articles have detail which could provide more context on this Tristario (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DRASTIC&oldid=1215037075"