User talk:Bakkster Man/Origin Sandbox

Discussion

Is this draft for a subsection of the World Health Organization section of the Investigations article as discussed in the talk page there? If so, I think we should title it WHO Report and source content only from the said report [1] and draw on other sources for a following subsection titled Response to the WHO Report, with the WP:DUE responses from the WHO Director General, the US government and 13 other governments, the European Union, and independent scientists.

I would not include the Segreto Deigin paper in this proposal, as though Deigin’s father is a reputed scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences, some editors have taken issue with his credentials [2]. I would also not include the claim that RaTG13 may be the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2, as even through serial passaging, it is highly unlikely and unsupported. The claims relating to RaTG13 and GoFR supported by sources have more to do with issues of the WIV’s conduct and subsequent speculation that they may have collected and worked on unpublished viruses [3]. The WIV just put out a preprint yesterday revealing RaTG15 and seven related viruses [4], which is already sparking debate on Twitter and will be covered by RS.

I'd save "Other info" section for another proposal, either to replace the inaccurate and undue "Scientific consensus" section higher up in the Investigations article that was transcluded from the SARS-CoV-2 article, or to create a new section on Independent Scientific Investigations lower down in the article. Scientific consensus has shifted since the Relman letter to Science was published and its status as MEDRS is no less than that of the Andersen letter to Nature, on which most natural origins arguments are based. That proposal may require an RFC, and it can include the Segreto Deigin paper, as it would be more due there. When we get to that, I believe the best MEDRS is Sallard et al [5], regardless of what other editors have said about it in the past [6], as it is a high-quality review article from well-reputed authors first published in a journal that exclusively publishes review articles.

With the reasons given above, I would like to make some bold changes to the text, but I am currently traveling in the provinces with limited time and connectivity. I absolutely appreciate your hard work Bakkster Man and Forich. CutePeach (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I have high hopes for this draft, Bakkster can comment on what plans he has to implement it and where. Secoond, with respect to Deigin's reputation, I would follow this advice an editor from Wikiproject Viruses made:

... it is the quality of the research that determines whether that research can be considered reliable; the reputation of the scientist who conducted it (and other things like the prestige of their university) are not really relevant unless you need to make a quick estimate on the reliability. The individual researcher is even less relevant if the research is published in a peer-reviewed journal.

. A fair compromise is to read this rebuttal to Segreto and Deigin and avoid using the disputed facts, otherwise there is no reason to stigmatize Deigin's work based on ad hominem criticisms, in my opinion. Forich (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: My intention is to drop the Origin Hypotheses into the Investigations section, before the WHO section. Both because it applies in general, and because otherwise there just isn't enough from the WHO report to adequately explain the lab theory. Probably within the next day, since it has been a week and a half since it was written with no other comments. I don't intend to put the other info into the article, just hypothetical stuff I didn't want to delete in case we get better sources (the linked Deigin comments mirror my thoughts, hence not including it here).

I would also not include the claim that RaTG13 may be the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2, as even through serial passaging, it is highly unlikely and unsupported. Please read the text again, as this was not claimed. The wording matches the cited source.

Scientific consensus has shifted since the Relman letter to Science was published and its status as MEDRS is no less than that of the Andersen letter to Nature, on which most natural origins arguments are based. That's not correct, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of how we've determined the consensus position. It's based on the secondary sources, not least the WHO report and multiple other peer-reviewed meta analyses. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)