Talk:COVID-19 misinformation

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{COVID-19 misinformation|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

The Lab leak hypothesis needs a stand-alone article

I just saw an article in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on the COVID lab leak hypothesis. This follows on scientists calling for investigation of the lab leak and analysis in a WHO report. Clearly, this is not a FRINGE theory the way that "caused by a meteor" or "caused by the Jews" is a Fringe theory. And the topic of a lab leak is clearly notable enough for stand-alone coverage, whether or not it happened. I intend to restore COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis as a stand-alone article in the near future; however I certainly will not restore the February revisions, as much of the 52KB of content there is problematic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. This is the problem we are getting into again - any stand-alone article would be undue weight - the topic can be covered here and in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 - and I do think that a summary of the investigations should be contained in that article. It does not merit a stand-alone article and creating a standalone article would be a POVFORK and be rampant with undue information. At most, 3-4 paragraphs of actually encyclopedic, and well sourced information could be crafted about it - and investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is the place to do so - then if and only if it gets to be too big or too long, it can be split into another article carefully for ARTICLESIZE reasons. But no, it still shouldn't be a standalone article at this time, but I have stated that it likely merits discussion of the investigations, without giving the theory any credence whatsoever, on that page. And yes, it is fringe - because though you can find scientists who are screaming about it, very few are actually saying it's credible - the vast majority are saying "we need to close the door on the theory by investigating and disproving it" - which is not saying "we think the theory is potentially viable". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

No. When multiple US Presidents both Democrat and Republican, as well as senators and major media sources like the Washington Post and New York Times are openly calling for investigations into this and actually walking back the conclusion that it's misinformation, the people calling to make a standalone objective article on it are not the ones giving it improper weight. You are. The one who is declaring that it's wrong despite those investigations and concealing it in a minor section of a fringe "misinformation" page. EGarrett01 (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

There is an argument that instead of a stand-alone page, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 should be the target of that redirect; there certainly should be more than 3 sentences on the topic at that page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with "more than 3 sentences" as long as someone is crafting them to be due and not give more credence to the theory than it should have (virtually none). I think a retargeting of the redirect is a good idea, but would suggest that also the section for the "lab leak" investigations should have a hatnote to this article for further reading. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I've duplicated 3 paragraphs of content from here to Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Wuhan_lab_leak_story, and plan to spend the next hour or so expanding that section. If it turns out well and nobody has objected, I will then re-target COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and some similar titles. I will need a hatnote along the lines of "this section is about scientific research into the lab leak theory. For theories based on political motivations, see COVID-19 misinformation"; any idea how to word that? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This is going to take far more than 1 hour. A careful observer will note that none of the sources I mentioned in my initial comment would meet WP:MEDRS for scientific evidence regarding a lab leak; apart from "people with credentials are talking about this" I will not use them. It will take some digging to get to more reliable sourcing, presuming it exists. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have been trying to find time to do this, but I haven't had the willpower to do it after the everyday hassle of trying to stop people calling it the "truth" on here... Now that hopefully the disruption has subsided more of us can find some time to help you - but you're right that the biggest hassle is trying to find actual MEDRS for bio-med information. Obviously primary sources can be used for some of it (ex: the WHO calling it the "least likely" can certainly be sourced to them directly) but the meat of it that needs worked on needs MEDRS and they're few and far between and hard to find and digest. Regardless, your willingness to work on expanding the coverage of it in the investigations article is to be commended. I recommend trying to keep the "people with credentials are talking about this" to a minimum - maybe one or two sentences - as the more of those are included the more it makes it look like more than it is. The scientific consensus is still against it and while I agree (and haven't ever intentionally said it is) it isn't a fringe theory, it's still a theory which is against most of the scientific consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This is why splitting the "scientific investigations" from the "conspiracy theories" is necessary. Arguments based on a furin cleavage site may be scientifically meaningful, yet the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is just about the last place I would expect such an argument; this "Editorial" in Springer's Environmental Chemistry Letters is the other article I've found but has some bizarre co-authors and may not be peer-reviewed. Arguments based on evidence of a Chinese government coverup are not scientifically meaningful, but may be relevant for a misinformation page where it is important to describe the conspiracy theories. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As the position statement of a major health body, there's reason to say that the WHO study is MEDRS. Particularly since it's in agreement with other MEDRS sources. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:力. It's great to see someone interested in the science of the origin of Covid-19. Here is an MD approved review article from May 2021 going through the different possible origins of SARS2, including the possibility of transmission in the laboratory from a human cell line. The review article is titled: On the Origin of SARS-CoV-2: Did Cell Culture Experiments Lead to Increased Virulence of the Progenitor Virus for Humans? --Guest2625 (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

In Vivo is the journal of the "International Institute of Anticancer Research". That would place their expertise in oncology, not virology. In addition, the paper argues for actual lab origin. Given the papers in Nature and other high quality journals which say that it definitively didn't happen, this paper cannot be treated as anything but junk. WP:REDFLAG says that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, not unrelated journals. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to treat the article as "junk", on the other hand I would not use it to source certain technical claims, such as the likelihood of mutations at the furin binding site. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Suggestion #5 for an in-progress update to the origins summary, let's not duplicate effort if we can avoid it. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

What about the potential for article about lab leaks in general? Lab leak currently redirects here, but there's been many past incidents.

• https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/nov/21/it-was-a-total-invasion-the-virus-that-came-back-from-the-dead
• https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/20/18260669/deadly-pathogens-escape-lab-smallpox-bird-flu
• https://www.businessinsider.com/5-terrifying-times-pandemics-escaped-from-laboratories-2014-7
• https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/05/the-non-paranoid-persons-guide-to-viruses-escaping-from-labs/
• https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Escaped-Viruses-final-2-17-14-copy.pdf (published by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation)

— Goszei (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

When multiple, independent strands of evidence leads to a conclusion, then in terms of truth-truth, the conclusion is likely true. If someone finds a specific near-ancestor from which zoonotis likely occurred, I give anyone permission to ping me and tell me how wrong I was. But it's unlikely. Now in terms of Wikipedia-truth, the lab leak hypo should be treated under WP:FRINGE/PS as an Alternative Theoretical Formulation, which describes it perfectly. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is an article about misinformation. It needs to cover what that misinformation is, who is spreading it, what their motivations and MO are, etc. Any content about a legitimate "hypothesis" or any investigation belongs at the relevant article - not here. I have reverted 力's edit as it watered-down the on-point knowledge from reliable sources and introduced weaker, irrelevant material. That user is now aware of the general sanctions in effect here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  Their edit really didn't remove any information or add any, it was primarily reorganizing it and removing duplicative information (we don't need to cover the WHO report in its entirety, really all this article should say is that they had a report considering it "extremely unlikely"). I agreed with all of their edits and I recommend you discuss specific problems with them here instead of just undoing them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  In particular I object to the upgrading of "unfounded speculation" to "speculation", and the removal of the description of how the proponents operate from the Hakim source. I'm neutral on the reduction of detail about the WHO. Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

We have to be mindful of the difference between Wikipedia reality and actual reality. I don't think we can say in article space that the lab leak hypothesis is well supported, at least not as of today. From a look-at-the-evidence point of view, the evidence is there. From a follow-Wikipedia-policy point of view, it isn't. I've written this up as an essay at WP:LABLEAKLIKELY. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. The evidence is not there. Click on the green box that says "Sources" above, read the sources, then come back and tell us that you now understand that you were wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Improvements to article content can always be made. However, the facts remain that there is (at this time) no evidence presented in support of this theory, and authoritative sources say the same, and thus a portrayal or insinuations saying anything other than that in Wikipedia articles is a non-starter and does no service for our readers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

On this note, I think we can be honest and say that MEDRS is mostly used as a tool to chuck out bludgeoning and sheer persistence by SPAs abusing crappy interpretations of cherry-picked news sources for POV pushing purposes. WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:BESTSOURCES apply, and we want to use our best sources for giving the authoritative consensus on the matter. MEDRS follows as an example of BESTSOURCES, but it isn't the only example; as I said earlier, if we had a renowned investigative journalist/paper doing a detailed, evidence-based exposé, then I would support that being in articles even though it may not be classed as "MEDRS". I know power to be a good editor, so I'm excited to see what they come up with. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers and journalists are not reliable for biomedical content, and especially not for anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Their remit is to get readers, not pursue science. If Wikipedia didn't do this, it would have amplified the bogus MMR-causes-autism "scandal" that newspapers (not just crap ones) reported in the 1990s. Renowned investigative journalists in particular are often prone to believing their own hype at some point. I am strongly in favour of following the WP:PAGs by the book. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

if we had a renowned investigative journalist/paper doing a detailed, evidence-based exposé, then I would support that being in articles even though it may not be classed as "MEDRS". If it's non-science info, then that's exactly what WP:BESTSOURCES says we should do. Lots of examples where this is important on the various COVID-19 pages, nobody is saying no news sources ever.

But I'd argue this also means that a investigative journalist's expose is among the WP:BESTSOURCES to use regarding scientific information, especially if it's in disagreement with a peer-reviewed secondary research study published in a reputable journal. Why? Because the additional layers of review and the expertise of the authors makes the secondary journal article more reliable than a (arguably primary source) journalist's expose which might be WP:RSEDITORIAL. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It's not like the WP:MEDRS guideline comes from nowhere, it's merely a clarification of the existing WP:RS policy for a contentious area. Basically, so we don't need to have this argument against those WP:CHERRYPICKING from WP:RS. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Just no. Alexbrn is correct about problems with journalism on medical topics. Even some journalists who go on to do in-depth book-level research eventually come to this conclusion as well. The problem is that journalists for the most part are simply not qualified to evaluate a lot of this, and the conventions of journalism often involve picking and quoting from experts to show different views, without actually weighing those views according to evidence.

MEDRS is not just a subsidiary of BESTSOURCES, it is in many ways a very different set of RS guidelines compared to the rest of Wikipedia, and for good reason. There are a lot of aspects of medicine where it is very easy to misunderstand or misrepresent various things. Even good-faith editing can go astray very easily. MEDRS isn't just for bludgeoning SPAs, it's an essential guide that is used on all WikiProject Medicine articles. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS isn't about 'everything to do with medicine' or even 'all WikiProject Medicine articles'. It says so itself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I am un-reverting; I made three mostly unrelated changes and it is unclear in the edit summary which of them Alexbrn objects to. Based on the talk page, I will restore the (in my view excessive) description of speculation as "unfounded". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Changes I would like to make today:

• I would like a more recent source on the speculation that certain genetic signatures in COVID suggest it was produced through gain-of-function research. This is a fast-moving field, ideally there should be a source from 2021.
• We should discuss somewhere the research whether the outbreak started at the Huanan Wet Market (as initially reported in early 2020), or elsewhere in Wuhan.
• Claims about a "Chinese coverup" are conspiracy theories, literally: they allege that the Chinese authorities in Wuhan are conspiring to hide the origin of the virus. We absolutely cannot use primary sources to describe this, and I have not yet found any good secondary sources investigating alleged Chinese coverups. If I find a neutral secondary source that explains why people are claiming there is a cover-up, I will add a paragraph to the article.
• There are various "open letters" about this, a cursory investigation suggests they generally have both bona fide virologists as well as some people I would consider FRINGE researchers. I plan to leave "open letters" out entirely; we will have enough "some people say" without them.

There's also more cleanup needed for the split I started to do yesterday; nobody appears to have explicitly objected to the suggestion that legitimate research into lab leaks should be in a different article-section than Epoch Times politically-based speculation. I'm not 100% sure how to do that split, if you have opinions please suggest them. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

So long as anything in this article stays focussed on misinformation, as described in high-quality sources. In it not our job to dig out what we (editors) think is misinformation, let alone to sit in judgement of whether it is or not true. Alexbrn (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I've made a change to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 which will hopefully fix the issues I was concerned about. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• May be a conspiracy theory, but it is notable enough to have a separate page about. This is mostly a political controversy. Hence it should be separated from the scientific stuff described in page Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  My very best wishes, that's by definition a POVFORK at this time - there's not enough independent information to form a new article about. Maybe there will be in the future (similar to Vaccines and autism), but at this point we also need to consider the fact that there's already too much disruption on this issue and that people here can't deal with the pages we have that are related to this - no need to add another. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think there are enough sources: see above, and one can simply make a Gogole search for "Wuhan lab leak". Speaking about POV fork/sections, I would argue that the current way of presentation as COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story is improperly biased because this is not just an obvious misinformation (to be included to the page), but rather something theoretically possible (even though a very low probability), which needs to be investigated just to make sure it did not happen, but the Chinese government prevented any really independent investigation and hides something. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support to standalone article, because given statements by WP:MEDRS compatible experts at this time, we can consider it no longer to be misinformation, but a theory. That is the evolution of the sources, not a WP:POVFORK --Almaty (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This article was just updated to distinguish the conspiracies and misinformation from the legitimate inquiries we have WP:RS to back up. What about the current section are you unsatisfied with, and what makes you think the solution is to split the article (which would just use the same RS as we cite here and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, rightly pointing to it being the minority perspective)? Bakkster Man (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• We don't want another attempted POVFORK. Community consensus was to redirect the article and delete its draft.[1] Meanwhile, the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article has gained traction. If people want to include more stuff about the "lab leak" notion, that'd be the place. Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC
• Ironically, the best argument for a separate page for the "lab leak" hypothesis would be as a notable failed and long-discredited hypothesis, along the lines of geocentrism or creationism. Otherwise it deserves mention in the COVID misinformation article, the origins article, and the main SARS-COV-2 article as minor mentions of due weight. We have an article on the origins of the virus, why would we need another article just for one hypothesis that our best MEDRS citations are calling "extremely unlikely"? Hyperion35 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support standalone article. Massive coverage of this, whether you believe it true or not doesn't matter. It deserves its own article. Dream Focus 14:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Splitting "Wuhan Lab Leak Story" and merging the two "Bioweapon" conspiracy theories.

It seems that it might be a good idea to split the "Wuhan Lab Leak Story" into two sections. The first being the conspiracy theory that it was a bioweapon that was accidentally or deliberately released from a lab, and the second being the theory that it was under study at the lab before being accidentally leaked. Conflating the two is likely to lead to misunderstanding and confusion on behalf of readers as to exactly what is under discussion when the "Lab Leak Hypothesis" is discussed, particularly in light of recent developments. In conjunction with these developments it might also result in some of them considering the bioweapon conspiracy theory as credible, something that would be irresponsible of us to allow.

There is also some overlap between the conspiracy theory that COVID is a Chinese bioweapon and that it is an American bioweapon. It might best to merge those two together, both to remove the overlap and because the American conspiracy theory is in part a response to the Chinese conspiracy theory.

Option One contains the split and the subsequent merge. In this option the format has changed, the content it contains is almost identical to what currently exists. The only notable change is the removal of "and Chunying continued to cite evidence on Twitter", as neither source made reference to this, and the use of the word "evidence" in regards to a conspiracy theory needs very strong verification.

Option Two contains only the split. If this option is preferred, someone will still need to go into the "United States biological weapon" section and remove the line "and Chunying continued to cite evidence on Twitter". This option contains no notable content changes, with the sections simply being drawn out depending on what they relate to.

For either option, the section on "Wuhan Lab Leak Story" will need further work once split, but that can wait till after the split, in order to avoid this discussion being derailed by that.

Option One

Extended content

Bioweapon Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy theories related to the possibility that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was developed as bio-weapon have gained popularity during the pandemic. Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was intentionally engineered, either as a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines. According to the World Health Organization, intentional bio-engineering of SARS-CoV-2 has been ruled out by genomic analysis. One early source of the bio-weapon origin was former Israeli secret service officer Dany Shoham, who gave an interview to The Washington Times about the Wuhan laboratory. The Epoch Times, a newspaper affiliated with Falun Gong, refers to the SARS-CoV-2 virus as the "CCP virus", and a commentary in the newspaper posed the question, "is the novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan an accident occasioned by weaponizing the virus at that [Wuhan P4 virology] lab?" One scientist from Hong Kong, Li-Meng Yan, fled China and released a preprint stating the virus was modified in a lab rather than having a natural evolution. In an ad hoc peer-review (the paper was not submitted for traditional peer review as part of the standard scientific publishing process), her claims were labelled as misleading, not scientific, and an unethical promotion of "essentially conspiracy theories that are not founded in fact". Yan's paper was funded by the Rule of Law Society and the Rule of Law Foundation, two non-profits linked to Steve Bannon, a former Trump strategist, and Guo Wengui, an expatriate Chinese billionaire. This misinformation was further seized on by the American far-right, whose anti-Chinese sentiment is increasingly allied with the political aims of the Chinese diaspora. In effect, this formed "a fast-growing echo chamber for misinformation". In response to propagation of the "lab" origin theory in the US, the Chinese government has promulgated its own version of the conspiracy theory, claiming that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the United States at the U.S. biological weapons lab Fort Detrick. This conspiracy theory was alleged in March 2020 by two spokesmen for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Zhao Lijian and Geng Shuang, who claimed during a press conference that Western powers may have "bio-engineered" the coronavirus. It was later renewed by Hua Chunying. It quickly went trending on the Chinese social media platform Weibo, and Chunying asked the government of the United States to open up Fort Detrick for further investigation to determine if it is the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. According to London-based The Economist, plenty of conspiracy theories exist on China's internet about COVID-19 being the CIA's creation to keep China down. According to an investigation by ProPublica, such conspiracy theories and disinformation have been propagated under the direction of China News Service, the country's second largest government-owned media outlet controlled by the United Front Work Department. Global Times and Xinhua News Agency have similarly been implicated in propagating disinformation related to COVID-19's origins. NBC News however has noted that there have also been debunking efforts of US-related conspiracy theories posted online, with a WeChat search of "Coronavirus is from the U.S." reported to mostly yield articles explaining why such claims are unreasonable. for example the CPC-owned newspaper Global Times. Further information: Cyberwarfare by China, Propaganda in China, and Chinese information operations and information warfare On 22 February 2020, US officials alleged that Russia is behind an ongoing disinformation campaign, using thousands of social media accounts on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to deliberately promote unfounded conspiracy theories, claiming the virus is a biological weapon manufactured by the CIA and the US is waging economic war on China using the virus. Further information: Cyberwarfare by Russia and Propaganda in the Russian Federation According to Washington DC-based nonprofit Middle East Media Research Institute, numerous writers in the Arabic press have promoted the conspiracy theory that COVID-19, as well as SARS and the swine flu virus, were deliberately created and spread to sell vaccines against these diseases, and it is "part of an economic and psychological war waged by the U.S. against China with the aim of weakening it and presenting it as a backward country and a source of diseases". Reza Malekzadeh, Iran's deputy health minister, rejected bioterrorism theories. The same theory has been reported via Iranian propaganda "to damage its culture and honor". Reza Malekzadeh, Iran's deputy health minister and former Minister of Health, rejected claims that the virus was a biological weapon, pointing out that the US would be suffering heavily from it. He said Iran was hard-hit because its close ties to China and reluctance to cut air ties introduced the virus, and because early cases had been mistaken for influenza. The theory has also circulated in the Philippines and Venezuela. Wuhan Lab Leak Story "CCP virus" redirects here. For the virus that the name refers to, see Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. For the disease that is caused by said virus, see COVID-19. See also: Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 Though the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined, unfounded speculation related to the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology have gained popularity during the pandemic. A World Health Organization team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic described the laboratory origin scenario as "extremely unlikely" given current evidence, yet misinformation about the evidence and likelihood of this scenario has been widespread. Definitively proving or disproving a "lab" related origin of the virus is a difficult and lengthy process, and long investigations are required to provide a definitive proof or disproof of any theory of the virus's origin. WHO researcher Peter Daszak said "The only evidence that people have for a lab leak is that there is a lab in Wuhan". US politicians began spreading the unproven theories of a "lab" origin, including Republican Senators Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, as well as then-President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Many scientists and authorities countered that the theories had no evidence to support the claims being made, including NIAID director Anthony Fauci and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. One popular idea used to support the "lab" origin hypothesis invokes previous gain-of-function research on coronaviruses to support the idea that the virus was of laboratory origin. Virologist Angela Rasmussen writes that this is unlikely, due to the intense scrutiny and government oversight gain-of-function research is subject to, and it is improbable that research on hard-to obtain coronaviruses could occur under the radar. References

Option Two

Extended content

Chinese Bioweapon Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy theories related to the possibility that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was developed as bio-weapon have gained popularity during the pandemic. Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was intentionally engineered, either as a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines. According to the World Health Organization, intentional bio-engineering of SARS-CoV-2 has been ruled out by genomic analysis. One early source of the bio-weapon origin was former Israeli secret service officer Dany Shoham, who gave an interview to The Washington Times about the Wuhan laboratory. The Epoch Times, a newspaper affiliated with Falun Gong, refers to the SARS-CoV-2 virus as the "CCP virus", and a commentary in the newspaper posed the question, "is the novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan an accident occasioned by weaponizing the virus at that [Wuhan P4 virology] lab?" One scientist from Hong Kong, Li-Meng Yan, fled China and released a preprint stating the virus was modified in a lab rather than having a natural evolution. In an ad hoc peer-review (the paper was not submitted for traditional peer review as part of the standard scientific publishing process), her claims were labelled as misleading, not scientific, and an unethical promotion of "essentially conspiracy theories that are not founded in fact". Yan's paper was funded by the Rule of Law Society and the Rule of Law Foundation, two non-profits linked to Steve Bannon, a former Trump strategist, and Guo Wengui, an expatriate Chinese billionaire. This misinformation was further seized on by the American far-right, whose anti-Chinese sentiment is increasingly allied with the political aims of the Chinese diaspora. In effect, this formed "a fast-growing echo chamber for misinformation". In response to propagation of the "lab" origin theory in the US, the Chinese government has promulgated its own version of the conspiracy theory, claiming that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the United States at the U.S. biological weapons lab Fort Detrick. Wuhan Lab Leak Story "CCP virus" redirects here. For the virus that the name refers to, see Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. For the disease that is caused by said virus, see COVID-19. See also: Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 Though the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined, unfounded speculation related to the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology have gained popularity during the pandemic. A World Health Organization team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic described the laboratory origin scenario as "extremely unlikely" given current evidence, yet misinformation about the evidence and likelihood of this scenario has been widespread. Definitively proving or disproving a "lab" related origin of the virus is a difficult and lengthy process, and long investigations are required to provide a definitive proof or disproof of any theory of the virus's origin. WHO researcher Peter Daszak said "The only evidence that people have for a lab leak is that there is a lab in Wuhan". US politicians began spreading the unproven theories of a "lab" origin, including Republican Senators Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, as well as then-President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Many scientists and authorities countered that the theories had no evidence to support the claims being made, including NIAID director Anthony Fauci and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. One popular idea used to support the "lab" origin hypothesis invokes previous gain-of-function research on coronaviruses to support the idea that the virus was of laboratory origin. Virologist Angela Rasmussen writes that this is unlikely, due to the intense scrutiny and government oversight gain-of-function research is subject to, and it is improbable that research on hard-to obtain coronaviruses could occur under the radar. References

BilledMammal (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on proposals

That is some heavy lifting and excellent suggestions. I think I'm leaning towards option 1. It is starting to become counter productive with the protection on the page as it no longer seems to be a controversial issue. It seems this was a controversial issue because there used to be different views in silly American politics. Nakerlund (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s fair anymore to call the “accidental lab leak” hypothesis unfounded and a conspiracy theory. With all mainstream media, the Biden administrations and even Dr. Anthony Fauci now taking it seriously, the page should be NPOV about this hypothesis: it’s not the mainstream idea, but it’s a serious and viable hypothesis that is being considered by investigators and scientists. I like your idea of separating them, but the Text about the accidental leak need to make clear that it has been taken seriously. Eccekevin (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

When you have the President of the United States saying that U.S. intelligence considers the lab leak theory and animal transmission theory "equally plausible", it's a given that Wikipedia can't call one of those two theories a "conspiracy theory." I support removing the lab leak theory section to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 ASAP. Ergo Sum 15:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that Biden did not say they were "equally plausible," the article author did. Let's not attribute quotes to the wrong people here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, Biden referred to them as the "two likely scenarios". Ergo Sum 16:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a reason this kind of rewrite is normally placed on a sub-page. I've HATted the examples to keep us from being swamped with large amounts of article text, but I can't remember how to hide the massive section of citations below. This is going to make discussion difficult. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: You place the {{reftalk}} in the collapsed section. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Re. "all mainstream media" - WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear that we prefer academic sources. See also this for why intelligence reports are dubious at best and a clear exercise in political grandstanding at worst (this bears many resemblances to the claims about WMDs in Iraq - experts saying, on one side, that something is unlikely; politicians, on the other, ploughing on ahead, regardless, for political reasons). We can report the existence of calls for investigations, and the existence of the theory, based on the popular press. Any claims about it's likelihood or mainstream science should, obviously, be left to scientists publishing in acceptable literature. Hence, the text should include A) a description of the theories (based on reputable newspapers, and the limited attention this has gotten in scientific journals) and B) clear indications as to their FRINGE status and arguments why (based on academic literature). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition for an example (we just need to cut that down to a one-section thing and not a whole article. No comment on the above, I haven't read it yet. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I created User:Bakkster Man/Misinformation Sandbox as a possible starting place to sandbox this reorganization. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I really like this line of thinking. Can I propose a minor tweak, encompassing more of our existing?

• Manufactured Origin

• Bioweapons

• WIV
• Ft. Detrick
• Jewish origin (In the Muslim world)
• Other

• Population control (vaccine profiteering, alternate Bill Gates conspiracy)

• Lab Origin Misinformation

This gets a separation between misinformation about intentional bioengineering for release, and misinformation surrounding the relative likelihood and evidence for/against the possibility of an accidental release during routine research (which, now, may include early overreaction against any mention of a lab hypothesis as anything but "conspiracy"). Whether we drill down to subsections for each bioweapon theory or not depends how many redirects there are, I suppose. Within the Manufactured Origin section we can cite WHO deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release... has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome, and put the 'see also: Investigations' in Lab Origin Misinformation.

As mentioned above, I created User:Bakkster Man/Misinformation Sandbox as a place this can be sandboxed. Please edit there as we work through options, unless someone prefers a different sandbox location. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There’s a big issue, which is the text says that scientist dismiss the accidental leak theory because they believe in a zoonotic origin. That’s factually incorrect. It might be true for the weapon paragraph,but not for the accidental leak. An accidental leak could also have a zoonotic origin if it was a virus from the wild that was being a studied, and the sources say as much. This needs to be clarified. Eccekevin (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Both of the hypotheses, whether intentional weapon (ruled out) or accidental lab leak (extremely unlikely) are dismissed by most scientists, explicitly (the few papers which do mention it) or implicitly (the majority of papers which simply go ahead with saying that the virus is A) zoonotic, without any qualifier or B) very likely zoonotic). Anyway, this is easy. The burden of proof is on those saying there are scientific papers which support the lab leak. Find a couple, in reputable journals, and it will be absolutely non-controversial to include it as such. Otherwise, you know the answer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

But that's the issue. The virus can be both zoonotic AND accidentally leaked, as the Science letter point out. It can have a zoonotic origin and was studied in the lab, but escaped accidentally. The scientific papers that saying the lab leak is unilely say so for a variety of reasons, but not for the reason it's zoonotic, because being zoonotic does not exclude a lab leak. The page currently, and wrongly, states that a zoonotic origin contradicts an accidental lab leak. Eccekevin (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this accurate? The zoonosis article doesn't appear to suggest that a lab contamination type infection would be considered zoonotic. Bakkster Man (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

A virus can originate naturally in animals before it jumps to humans. Whether that happened in the Wuhan Seafood market or in a lab is a different matter, but both the point here is that it has a natural origin, not created as a bioweapon. Identifying a zoonotic origin though sequencing doesn't mean you can pinpoint where the jump happened, or exclude that it happened in a lab. Eccekevin (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man and Eccekevin, of the 260 or so known human viruses, over two thirds originated in various animal reservoirs, and are therefore zoonotic diseases. What characterises a Zoonosis oder Zooanthroponosis is the transmission of disease between different types of natural reservoirs, and not specially the mechanism of transmission, which may or may not be natural. This is alluded to in the RFC, where I created a "Parts II and III" proposal, which another editor deleted [2]. CutePeach (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, so "likely zoonosis = likely that transmission didn't happen in a lab" is a fallacy. Eccekevin (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Except that if it's zoonotic, the weight of evidence strongly suggests that there's no need for a lab to get involved (there are much easier ways for a virus to get into humans, as happened before with many, many diseases, and will happen again no matter where COVID actually comes from, than it evading strong biosafety measures at a lab). In fact, I've already given my doubts about this, the hypothesis "a natural sample was accidentally released" is close to failing falsifiability, since to its most ardent supporters it would not be ruled out even by, say, a direct closely related ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 being found in the wild (let alone the absolute lack of evidence that the WIV had anything close enough to SARS-CoV-2). It's also not supported by any scientific paper, and scientists such as Ralph Baric are agreeing it's not really plausible. Quoted indirectly here: "The suggestion that it would have taken some Chinese science experiments to get the virus from bats in Yunnan to human beings in Wuhan seemed to leave him slightly affronted, on behalf of the natural world." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course, "the virus can be both zoonotic AND accidentally leaked" (SARS-1 did leak from Chinese labs twice [3]). Moreover, it can be zoonotic, used in a WMD program, and accidentally leak (anthrax and Marburg leaked in Soviet WMD programs). All old-style biological WMD were of natural origin. We simply know nothing except that China almost certainly has an active WMD program [4], and if so, it would be strange if they did not experiment with viruses from their bats. "to get the virus from bats in Yunnan to human" - well, actually, there are no such bats in Wuhan. Bats infected by the closest "relative" of COVID-19 live in a different area of China, if I am not mistaken. My very best wishes (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Since we're well in speculation territory anyway (and since the quote from Baric does not say "bats in Wuhan" but "bats in Yunnan"), it's also entirely possible (given how hard such a virus might have been to track without any test for it or the like, or possibly being confused with a regular seasonal illness, also considering the possibility of asymptomatic transmission) that the virus emerged entirely outside of Wuhan (an idea supported by scientific literature, given amongst other factors the lack of links to the seafood market of some early cases, and the fact that genomic analysis points to a root case a few weeks before the first identified ones). In either case, existing reliable sources agree that deliberate genetic manipulation would have left some trace, and there is none of it. So that leaves the possible "leak of a naturally collected sample", which is neither necessary nor particularly likely when compared with the alternative (odds of virus entering in contact with some random person in the wild >> odds of a virus escaping from a laboratory with stringent protocols). Ever heard of Occam's razor?

As for what reliable sources say, the paper by Frutos et al. seems to sum up the scientific aspect of this (as also reported in recent news articles, ex. [5] [6]), by ruling out deliberate manipulation, as already done by Andersen et al. back in March 2020, and by saying "Therefore, although a laboratory accident can never be definitively excluded, there is currently no evidence to support it." So, as this article says, or should be saying (correct it if it hasn't been updated), "[Accidental] lab leak possible, unlikely, no evidence to support it, not possible to rule out" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

According to the sources above, these studies only did not find any obvious signs of significant genetic manipulations. However, these studies did not ruled out any minor artificial manipulations with virus (such as just a little of artificial selection) because this can not be proven or disproven solely from the sequence analysis, unless you find the exact population of bats where this virus originated from. Unless of course someone artificially re-introduced the virus back to a population of bats where the virus has not been previously present to "prove" that a genetically modified virus has a natural origin. I know, this is paranoid, but technically possible. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: It's worth pointing out, most sources when referring to the lab leak seem to place it exclusively contrary to zoonosis. This includes the Science letter calling for greater in the lab leak potential. Whether or not that's because it's presumed that some procedure in the lab resulted in the infection that zoonosis doesn't cover, I'm uncertain. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If, speaking hypothetically, "patient zero" was someone in a lab, this is still a zoonotic disease simply by definition. When they say in letter "Although there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident...", they only mean there are two alternative hypothetical options for the initial transmission: in a lab or not in a lab. Importantly, we are talking about the virus just being studied and accidently infecting someone. Of course if the virus was modified or underwent an artificial selection to infect people, that would not be zoonosis.My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. While there are examples of using 'zoonosis' as shorthand for 'zoonosis in a natural setting', they do seem to suggest both are accurately described as zoonosis. The zoonosis article implies this as well (and I wouldn't suggest we specify it with a Lab Incident category right now). Bakkster Man (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Lab accident theory is not misinformation.

Emperor Theodosius, the original poster, was blocked as a sockpuppet...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am aware that many pro-CCP Wikipedia users prefer the status quo, but having the lab accident theory in a page about Covid-19 misinformation is heavily misleading, considering there is new evidence (from reliable sources, such as The Economist) pointing to a lab leak as a possible source of Covid-19. This article also appears to make the case of a lab accident appear as a decided/closed matter, due to the WHO investigation ruling it unlikely, and completely ignores the Chinese Government failing to provide evidence such as data on the first one hundred Covid-19 patients. Using this article's logic, the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market theory should also be labelled as misinformation, since no evidence actually shows that the virus was first transmitted to humans there. Emperor Theodosius (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC) I realise that it is attractive to engage in original research. However, on Wikipedia, we follow the consensus of academic and scientific sources for matters in their area of expertise. Such sources seem to agree that 1) COVID very likely has a zoonotic origin and 2) the Huanan market was likely a spreading event, but probably not the direct origin (although there have been calls for further investigation into animals at the market, see [7]). Casting WP:ASPERSIONS is not helpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC) I agree that the original poster should not have engaged in personal attacks. However, this person is right that the wording about the lab leak theory should be rewritten. It seems that the scientific consensus remains that zoonotic origin is the more likely scenario; however, the consensus is not (and maybe never really was) that this theory is very likely, and that everything else, including a "lab leak", can thus be dismissed as misinformation, "conspiracy theories", etc. When the WHO stated in March 2021 that a lab leak was "extremely unlikely", they seemed to be in a minority on that view. Tied in with that, the article right now does not do enough to distinguish between the three types of lab leak theory: that the virus was a bioengineered weapon; that it was engineered but accidentally released; and that it was simply caught in the wild, brought to the lab and then eventually escaped. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC) The way that we prioritize sources at Wikipedia (see WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARLY), the WHO report takes priority as the most authoritative source, representing the scientific consensus. If you wish to claim that the scientific consensus is not solidly in favor of a wild zoonotic event, you will need to provide sources. Note that even the version of a "lab leak" that you suggest as most likely is also the one where the lab itself is unnecessary, since it presupposes that the virus evolved in the wild, and the evidence for its introduction to Wuhan at two wet markets outweighs the evidence of originating in a lab, per the sources we have available. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC) The WHO report specifically was denied access to the first 100-200 (can't remember exact number) of cases, many of which were clustered around the Huanan Seafood Market making it impossible for it to decide whether Covid-19 has a natural origin or not. This itself was clearly admitted by the WHO, who continue to rule that a non-natural origin for Covid-19 is unlikely, but clearly possible. As such it cannot be labelled as misinformation. Emperor Theodosius (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC) That a lab leak is theoretically possible doesn't change the fact that most scientific sources (including many others beside the WHO) report that a zoonotic origin is most likely. Definitively ruling out a hypothesis is basically asking to prove a negative ("the virus didn't leak out of a lab"), which will, as scientists note, require years of study. All of that does not change that a lot of the discourse surrounding the lab leak is misinformation, often verging on the line between that and a conspiracy theory pure and simple. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Hyperion35 - not to get into conspiracy theorizing myself, but the credibility of the WHO specifically on the issue of COVID-19 has taken a beating, as noted here and here. Whatever you think of these conflicts of interest, it's clear that the WHO is not the only scientific source that should be cited. Also, I didn't understand your last sentence. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC) The way that our source priorities work, a comprehensive report from a government agency or medical specialty society is considered to be the highest quality evidence available, on the grounds that they have almost always examined a broad range of evidence as a secondary or tertiary source. And indeed in this specific situation theirs is still the most comprehensive examination available. The issue is not just that it is the WHO, but that the investigation itself has been so comprehensive, as compared to just about all other sources. Hyperion35 (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC) The thing is, this article is about misinformation - and the lab leak section is about misinformation surrounding the "lab leak" story. Now, even the most fringe-embracing editor here has got to admit there is (or was) misinformation spread about this, perhaps most obviously in Plandemic, or the fake science splashed in the Daily Mail. So it's meaningless to assert "Lab accident theory is not misinformation". What we need to do is to find what good sources are saying about that misinformation (which all sane people admit exists), and then reflect it here. It's not so difficult. Alexbrn (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC) That is not what the article implies, but perhaps that is simply because it hasn't been updated. WHO researcher Peter Daszak said "The only evidence that people have for a lab leak is that there is a lab in Wuhan". Article fails to counter this false claim. Emperor Theodosius (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Correction: article "fails" to WP:FALSEBALANCE a statement from a top scientist, quoted in a secondary, independent source. If you don't like it, we don't care. We only care for the opinions of reliable sources, not of Twitter misinformation spreaders. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC) We only care for the opinions of reliable sources, not of Twitter misinformation spreaders. I already listed my source (which is considered reliable on Wikipedia). You didn't read that and then failed to assume good faith by making up this story of me using Twitter as a source. Emperor Theodosius (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Article also features this line "A World Health Organization team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic described the accidental release of the virus from a laboratory as "extremely unlikely" given current evidence, yet misinformation about the evidence and likelihood of this scenario has been widespread," essentially erasing/fading the line between the lab story and misinformation surrounding the lab story as you say, and indicating that people who do not believe Covid-19 has a natural origin are spreading/believing misinformation. Emperor Theodosius (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC) You are using WP:MEDPOP to argue over complex scientific issues. If anything, new evidence, such as naturally-occuring furin cleavage sites in a wide variety of other CoVs, points even more towards a natural origin. AGF isn't a suicide pact, and so far all of your edits in this area have been to promote the lab leak and try to have us describe it as more prominent and likely than what it really is - which, as the article correctly contains, would be "misinformation about the likelihood of this scenario", which is indeed widespread. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Indeed the popular press is not reliable when reporting on this field, having previously labelled it as a conspiracy theory in 2020, based on two opinion pieces by scientists. I have presented the facts above, which are that a lab accident being the cause of Covid-19 remains unlikely but not impossible. Emperor Theodosius (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Correct conclusion about the press, wrong reasons. Correct conclusion about the lab accident; which is also already correctly reflected in the article (nowhere is it said that it is impossible), only that deliberate manipulation has been ruled out while an accidental release is unlikely. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Of course it's difficult. Straightforward, but still difficult. Precisely because of the contentious nature that produced so many conspiracies and a whole article on misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Proposal: Create article called Origin of Covid-19, (or simply add to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19) where a lab leak is mentioned as a possible source of Covid-19. Mention that a lab leak is an unlikely source of the outbreak, and overestimating the likeliness of a lab leak comes under Covid-19 misinformation. It should also attempt to provide more information, rather than an opinion (The only evidence that people have for a lab leak is that there is a lab in Wuhan) by a single scientist. Emperor Theodosius (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC) We already have this and Investigations into the origins of COVID-19. Another article would be a useless content fork. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Investigations into the origins of COVID-19#Investigations already spends a full paragraph describing the theory, equal weight with the other three WHO-evaluated scenarios. Is there something specific you think is missing? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC) This article needs to also seriously consider the Lab-Leak Theory. Additionally, this article needs to clarify that the WHO is a compromised source in many ways due to already proven bias and ties to the Chinese government. The Lab-Leak Theory is not misinformation in this context. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC) References

Re-add calls for new investigations and doubts by Anthony Fauci and other scientists.

The article used to state that in addition to Joe Biden, also several scientists (including those who wrote the Science letter), and Anthony Fauci called for new investigaitons. In particular, Fauci has stated that while he still believes in the natural origin of the virus outbreak, he was not fully convinced of it and that the lab leak claim needed to be investigated further. Yet, this has all been removed by the same users that keep trying to call the lab leak a hoax and conspiracy theory instead of what it is, a viable (albeit minority view) scientific hypothesis that needs investigation.

The current article is misleading, since it gives the impression that no scientists consider the lab leak possible. This is inaccurate, hence for balance the comments by Fauci and the writers of the Science letter should be included. Eccekevin (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Extremely unlikely =/= impossible. And you're not correctly reading the text in the article: "Most virologists remain convinced that a zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2 is the most likely scenario." does not say either A) that all virologists think so or that B) a zoonotic origin is certain. That it doesn't paint the lab leak in a good light, though, is perfectly accurate and not misleading, per WP:NPOV. If you don't like it, you're free to present contradictory reputable sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that Fauci and many other scientists (including the Science letter) are calling the results of that investigation in question should be mentioned. Currently, Biden is mentioned, but it's important to show it's not just politicians, but scientists too. Eccekevin (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Not all scientists who signed the Science letter are "calling the results of that investigation in question". This quotes Baric saying that the investigation was deficient in, for example, it's "failure to conduct a thorough, transparent review of biosafety measures at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.", but he is then described as saying that he still firmly thinks that SARS-CoV-2 is zoonotic, and that "The suggestion that it would have taken some Chinese science experiments to get the virus from bats in Yunnan to human beings in Wuhan seemed to leave him slightly affronted, on behalf of the natural world. ". In other words, scientists calling for more thorough investigations does not necessarily equate with them thinking the WHO report is wrong, only that it could be improved or done better. Which is not a unique concern to virology or any particular field: scientists always want to make more thorough studies, especially if past ones have failed to (definitively) settle the question [as is likely to be the case with SARS-CoV-2 for quite some time, considering how much time it took for SARS-CoV (1) without it causing a global pandemic...]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, but the page as it is now is written as to suggest that that investigation is conclusive, nothing further is needed, and no scientist disagrees with the outcome or criticizes it. Which is patently not true. Inserting its finding without even mentioning that there are scientists who are skeptical or critical, or even just want more information is misdirecting the reader. In particular, given Fauci's relevance and the fact he has seemingly changed his stance, should be included Eccekevin (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"written as to suggest that that investigation is conclusive" ← the section that starts "Though the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined" you read as "conclusive"!? Alexbrn (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That's misleading - yes, the section starts with those words, but a lot of the rest of the section seems to convey a good deal of certainty. Here's another sentence from that section: "A World Health Organization team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic described the accidental release of the virus from a laboratory as "extremely unlikely" given current evidence, yet misinformation about the evidence and likelihood of this scenario has been widespread." In other words, the WHO is right, and anyone who says something different is misinforming you. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be correct; anybody who misrepresents the evidence and likelihood is in the misinformation realm (according to all our good sources). But we don't say anything is "conclusive", as the sources don't either. Alexbrn (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Korny O'Near brings up a reasonable concern in our clarity. Is any/every source which comes to a different conclusion from the WHO, including those released before and after with different levels of evidence available, misinformation? Or is there a distinction between 'disagreement with the mainstream' and 'outright misinformation' which we need to delineate more clearly? I think we do this much better in the Bio-weapon section since it was split, than in the Lab accident section. I'd suggest we should be careful not to place opinions in the misinformation section (especially when the refutation is not that they're impossible, just "extremely unlikely" according to our most credible source), and better explain what the misinformation was. Otherwise we risk the weird circumstance where we say "The WHO Director-General said this was being investigated. The investigation isn't misinformation, but anyone else advocating for the investigation are engaging in misinformation."

The last paragraph of the Lab accident section especially needs work. We cite a news article referencing Tedros instead of Tedros' actual statement, we relate it to an unsourced US official's statement in January instead of the release of the WHO-China report, and then jump to the Biden call for investigation that doesn't seem to fit either the article (more suited to Investigations than Misinformation) or the paragraph. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That could be reasonably solved by dissociating calls for investigations from serious sources from any particular precise scenario, for example at the top of the #Virus origin theories section (under the existing paragraph) or under the #Wuhan lab origin one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That may be a good tactic, but the fly in the ointment is determining which calls for investigations come from "serious sources". Are politicians serious sources? If they're US President? Does the level of seriousness change president to president, and if so how do we verify that in a neutral way? We currently cite intelligence agencies as dismissing the lab leak, but that's arguably WP:CHERRYPICKING since there are other intel reports to the contrary (this being the nature of intel). Can intel agencies be both a non-serious source and a reliable source simultaneously? Because that's how the section is currently written. I see a ton of challenges with this technique.

Perhaps a less troublesome tactic is to identify some solid specific examples of misinformation spread about the lab leak option, which we can refer to instead or trying to speak in overly broad (and thus unclear) terms. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I think the section should just start with something like "The origins of COVID-19 remain unknown; a majority of scientists believe it originated from animals and spread naturally to humans, while some scientists believe that it leaked from a laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Of those who believe it was due to a lab accident, some believe the original source of the virus was bats in the Yunnan province, while others believe it was bioengineered through gain-of-function research." Maybe not that wording, but something to that effect. Then the whole rest of the section can cover theories on which there is true consensus that they are false, like that the virus was intended as a bio-weapon. There's no need to cover the general lab leak theory in any great detail, since it's not obvious misinformation; it's already covered in places like Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE, by giving too much text to the lab leak (2 sentences out of 3, see WP:UNDUE) and unduly legitimising a minority opinion by comparing it directly to the view of the overwhelming majority. Let's look at WP:FRINGE, and derive some questions from there to soo how this should be covered:

1. Is the lab leak "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field"? opening sentence of WP:FRINGE
2. Based on the above, how can we present the lab leak "in proportion to its representation in reliable sources"? WP:UNDUE, starting with the paragraph about "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. "

I don't think that the answer to the first question is controversial. The lab leak, unambiguously, "departs significantly from the prevailing views in its particular field". That leaves question two, which is a bit trickier. The lab leak has received coverage in multiple reliable sources, but within scholarship, it is largely deemed extremely unlikely, on the few times it is even mentioned. WP:FRINGELEVEL states that "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." Of course, the lab leak hasn't been entirely ignored - so we should base our coverage of it (from a scientific point of view) on those few quality sources that do not ignore it. And we already all know what these say, and we also know that on Wikipedia we follow, not lead, the reliable sources. Since academic, peer-reviewed literature usually takes at least a few weeks from paper acceptance, through review, to publication, it's no surprise that there is little reaction from it to recent events (even assuming that new literature would cover this hypothesis - given how that hasn't happened much so far, I'm not sure if such a WP:CRYSTAL attitude is even warranted). So, in conclusion, while we can clarify the bits about investigations and such, your suggested text would be an entirely incorrect summary of the situation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with the first point. Two significant details around the second item:

• This is the atypical case of the Misinformation article, not Investigations, so how we write about it must likewise change as we're now discussing misinformation.
• We're comparing the WP:FRINGE/ALT position to a WP:FRINGE/QS/WP:FRINGE/PS position.

From WP:FRINGE: Not all pseudoscience and fringe theories are alike. In addition, there is an approximate demarcation between pseudoscience and questionable science, and they merit careful treatment. We must be cautious not to unduly conflate the scientific view with either misinformation, or the conspiracies justifying themselves on the minority science. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I completely disagree. I would say that the lab leak theory unambiguously does not depart significantly from the prevailing views in its particular field. Everyone except the WHO seems to be saying that, whether or not it's likely, it's plausible. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There are many sources besides the WHO which say that the origin is likely zoonotic and that while the lab leak is 'possible', it is also 'extremely unlikely' and 'difficult to disprove'. If your statement that this view is held only by the WHO was correct, it should be trivial for you to find peer-reviewed papers which dispute its findings. @Bakkster Man: my comment was aimed at the suggested wording, "The origins of COVID-19 remain unknown [...]". Of course, when discussing misinformation, we just need to make clear what the scientific position is before describing misinformation. Hence why the proposed statement was inaccurate in accomplishing that purpose. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say finding a peer-reviewed paper on any specific topic is "trivial"... I don't know, but then again I'm not aware of a peer-reviewed paper arguing the other way (that a lab leak is extremely unlikely) either. There are certainly reliable sources quoting various scientists in the field as saying that a lab leak is possible, like this March 2021 Technology Review article. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It's as easy as going on PubMed and making a decent query (example) or on sites of leading publishers (ex. Nature). I mean, it is easy enough to find recent papers which seemingly make no mention of lab leaks or anything of the like (as though there were, hold your breath, no true controversy...), such as this in Experimental & Molecular Medicine, vol. 53, p. 537–547 (2021). I would assume that if the lab leak was as widespread among scientists as some claim, finding papers which claim the reverse would be equally "easy enough". See also the comment somewhere I was making about WP:FRINGELEVEL... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Great, you found one paper. I don't think going through scientific literature and trying to do a tally is a useful way to gauge the scientific consensus anyway - that starts to get close to original research. There are a variety of reliable sources stating that the lab leak theory is gaining credibility among scientists, which seems like proof enough that it's not a fringe theory. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There are also a variety of reliable sources (see for ex. here) stating that the consensus of scientists hasn't changed. Since newspapers can report scientific news incorrectly or give misleading and sensationalist titles (as per WP:MEDPOP - see also this comical take on the situation), it's better to go directly to the scientific sources, and give more weight to these. There are some of these which explicitly say that there is consensus (although they're a bit dated) - I'll provide a citation if you really are not convinced. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

@RandomCanadian: Thoughts on how else we can reword the intro paragraph to better differentiate the mainstream, the alternate scientific theory, and the conspiracy?

Current: [Al]though the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined, unsubstantiated speculation and conspiracy theories related to the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology have gained popularity during the pandemic. Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was intentionally engineered, either as a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines. According to the World Health Organization, intentional bio-engineering of SARS-CoV-2 has been ruled out by genomic analysis. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man:

Proposed Although the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined, unsubstantiated speculation and conspiracy theories related to this topic have gained popularity during the pandemic. Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was intentionally engineered, either as a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines. According to the World Health Organization, intentional bio-engineering of SARS-CoV-2 has been ruled out by genomic analysis. An alternative hypothesis posits that the virus may have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, although there is no evidence to support this, and most virologists consider this to be an extremely unlikely possibility.

Correctly divides between the two main "lab origin" scenarios and describes their relative standings in academe? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

These are both bad. @RandomCanadian: - you're right that not all that much has changed since, mid-2020 in the consensus of scientists, as noted in those sources. To quote The Guardian, "the broad consensus among scientific experts remains that the most likely explanation is that Covid-19 jumped to humans from an animal host in a natural event." In other words, just as before, most scientists view zoonotic origin as more likely, but a lab leak as plausible. Again, it's really only the WHO, as far as I can tell, who have used the "extremely unlikely" wording. What seems to have mostly changed since last year, by the way, is that mainstream media no longer refer to all lab leak theories as "debunked" and "conspiracy theories". You could say that it took them a year and a half to finally understand what the scientists were saying. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It's possible to remove "extremely" if it cause offense. Although "possibility" implies that it is not ruled out, which seems accurate, per the sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"Unlikely" would be better than "extremely unlikely", but even better would be "less likely". By the way, that's not the only strange thing about the current text (or the proposed text, which is rather similar). It jumps around from thought to thought with no real logic. Even the first sentence is strange: "Although the origin is undetermined, there has been a lot of speculation". Shouldn't it be "Because", if anything? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"Because" would establish too clear of a causal link between the two, so would likely be WP:SYNTH. Maybe a better wording would be "The undetermined origin of SARS-CoV-2 has allowed unsubstantiated speculation and conspiracy theories related to the topic to gain popularity during the pandemic"? "allowed" is much weaker than "because". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to establish any kind of causality. I think the awkwardness stems from the fact that the paragraph is very meandering, jumping back and forth from information to misinformation. I still like the structure I suggested earlier: start briefly with the plausible theories, then move on to the implausible ones (which, after all, are what this article is about). Korny O'Near (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Second Proposal While the most likely origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a natural crossover from animals, the precise origin of the virus has not been identified. Unsubstantiated speculation and conspiracy theories related to this topic have gained popularity during the pandemic. Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was intentionally engineered, either as a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines, although this possibility has been ruled out by genomic analysis according to the World Health Organization.

An alternative hypothesis under investigation is that the virus may have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, although most virologists consider this to be an unlikely possibility. Some have misrepresented information regarding this possibility, including to stoke anti-China sentiments.[8]

Thoughts? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: This could go at the top of the section about origins; since it is a broad overview. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This is better, although I think it would be better still to list all the plausible theories first, then move on to the implausible ones. The current wording is misleading, in my opinion, because it says that any theory about intentional engineering is a conspiracy theory. In fact, one theory that has not been ruled out is that the virus was intentionally engineered, via "gain of function" research, but that its escape from the lab was accidental. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK that was already ruled out by Andersen et al. back in March last year, and by multiple papers since which comment on how genomic analysis shows no signs of any deliberate engineering. The only lab leak theory which is not is the one where the lab is not necessary (natural virus which was somehow not detected or recorded). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The WHO report described it this way: We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome. They cite Andersen et al. @Korny O'Near:, do you have a suggested wording to more clearly distinguish that what was ruled out was engineering related to an intentional release (weaponized or vaccine sales)? This was my intent behind putting these claims into a single sentence. Perhaps replace the sentence with Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was manufactured for use either as either a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines, although these possibilities have been ruled out by genomic analysis according to the World Health Organization. And yes, I agree this would be best placed at the top of the Wuhan lab origin section, before the two subsections describing each. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, before we talk about wording, we should decide whether the gain-of-function research theory counts as misinformation or not. I haven't read any of these scientific papers, but many recent reliable sources say that an engineered virus remains a possibility (see here for one example - note that the more controversial topic is not whether gain-of-function research occurred, but whether the NIH funded it). So if there indeed is a conflict between what scientific papers from a year ago say and what recent newspaper articles say, we should go with the recent newspaper articles - I believe WP:PRIMARY applies here, as does common sense. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that recent scientific papers still say the same thing. For ex., [9]:

Other strategies, more speculative than those listed above, have been used to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020). The evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was not purposefully manipulated (Andersen et al., 2020). Moreover, the notion that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020) is not necessary to explain the pandemic.

So basically scientists have been saying the same thing all along, while the media have gone on to both ends of the spectrum, from "conspiracy theory" to "mainstream"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Per Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, I wouldn't consider GoFR as ruled out, nor whether it was performed at WIV (on SARS-CoV-2 or otherwise) to be a conspiracy theory. The Wuhan Institute of Virology has performed research into bat coronaviruses since 2005, and identified the RaTG13 virus which is the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2. Research topics included investigations into the source of the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak and 2012 MERS outbreak, some of which involved conducting gain of function research on viruses. The proximity of the laboratory to the initial outbreak has led some to speculate that it may be the entry point. Deliberate bioengineering of the virus for release has been ruled out, with remaining investigations considering the possibility of a collected natural virus inadvertently infecting laboratory staff during the course of study. I see it as an orthogonal question. The 'inadvertant lab leak' could result from GoFR, serial passage, or simply direct human infection from a bat sample. Same concept with the intermediary species including pangolins, snakes, and another unidentified intermediary, we only need to distinguish if there's a compelling reason. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

My reading of the sources is that the genome is such that if it had been manipulated in any way, whether by GoFR or serial passage, this would show in the genome. Scientists seem to agree that the virus shows no such signs, due to the significant amount of synonymous substitutions (favoured because they are less likely to break stuff...) and due to the even spread of mutation throughout the genome. Hence the 'inadvertant release' essentially rests on the last scenario you list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess I take a more pragmatic approach. Is this aspect something that the entire theory hinges upon, or otherwise so notable that we have to mention it one way or another? Particularly on this page relating to misinformation? If not, I'd rather leave it unaddressed on this page.

That's why I split the above proposal the way I did, clarifying that the WHO ruled out bioweapons, and leaving it out of the leak hypothesis. Perhaps this is better addressed on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, and only mentioned here in the Lab accident section if we have good sources about misinformation relating to GoFR (CDC funding, for example?). Bakkster Man (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the gain-of-function theory really has to be mentioned, to separate it from the bioweapon theory. And I think it has to be mentioned as a theory considered plausible. It doesn't matter how many scientific papers say it's impossible (if any actually do) - reliable, current secondary sources say it's possible, and those always take precedence. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Just for clarity, since we'd want to source it wherever we make reference, could you post any secondary sources you're thinking of? Even better if they meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, yes, I'm aware of WP:MEDPOP, but I don't think it applies here, because what's being discussed here isn't some actual fact of biology, but rather a gauge of current scientific consensus - and unless there's some scientific meta-study that tries to do that, I believe these secondary sources are our best indicator. Again, we're not trying to determine the origins of the virus here, just trying to determine what is considered "fringe" and what is not. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Depends what we're trying to gauge. Acceptance of the view among scientists, or reporting on it by news outlets? The latter could, in fact, be misinformation (for the reasons mentioned in WP:MEDPOP and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For the fringe view itself, you're right that sources supporting fringe views often have less weight/reliability. But I go back to only using them (at least here, rather than Investigations) if we can't suitably distinguish the ruled out bioweapon elements otherwise. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We're trying to gauge acceptance among scientists. As far as secondary sources, this New York Times article from last week seems to fit all the criteria - it quotes NIH director Francis Collins and two other scientists as saying that the bioengineered virus theory merits further study. This Technology Review article gives similar information. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the NYT article does not "quote NIH director Francis Collins... as saying that the bioengineered virus theory merits further study". They quote him as saying It is most likely that this is a virus that arose naturally, but we cannot exclude the possibility of some kind of a lab accident, and lab accident is not synonymous with a bioengineered virus. I was looking for sources relating the lab leak specifically to gain-of-function as you mentioned, with the only mention by NYT being to US Senators Mike Braun and Josh Hawley. Even where Technology Review mentions it relating to the Science letter only regarding two of the 18 scientists, and only as context for their past interest in the subject (rather than linking it to a belief that this was necessarily the path for a lab origin).

But yes, it does repeat the claim we've held to, that the majority (not just Francis Collins) view is that a so-called natural spillover from animal to human remains the most plausible explanation. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Collins is only quoted as saying "It is most likely that this is a virus that arose naturally, but we cannot exclude the possibility of some kind of a lab accident"; and this is prefaced by the following paragraph:

Despite the absence of new evidence, a number of scientists have lately begun speaking out about the need to remain open to the possibility that the virus had accidentally emerged from a lab, perhaps after it was collected in nature, a lab origin distinct from a creation by scientists.

"distinct from a creation by scientists". Confirms what I was saying in regards to the above (in addition to the multiple scientific papers, including the WHO, which agree that deliberate manipulation by whichever means has been ruled out). The quote by Collins is WP:PRIMARY, but appears to be in agreement with prior assessments and other papers (cited multiple times here and at other pages) that the favoured hypothesis is zoonotic origin, and that the lab leak is unlikely although not ruled out... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like I misread Collins' statement. But there are several other quoted scientists who have not ruled out creation by humans. For our purposes, I think that's enough to not list an engineered virus as "misinformation". You won't find accredited scientists saying that the 5G phone network theory bears further study, for example. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Not when we have papers in quality scientific journals which explicitly describe such claims as "fictitious and pseudo-scientific"; ex. [10]

Currently, there are some fictitious and pseudoscientific claims as well as conspiracy theories associated with the Covid‐19 pandemic. Some people have alleged that SARS‐CoV‐2 is of laboratory origin and the result of deliberate genetic manipulation. According to these conspiracy theories, a novel virus is a human‐made biological weapon, not the result of natural evolution and selection.

Accidental lab leak (without manipulation) is "possible but unlikely". Deliberate manipulation? not quite possible, according to scientists... Otherwise, provide relevant quotes from the NYT or other articles: I didn't notice them, although I was going through it rather quickly so might have missed it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: I'm afraid I don't see any scientists in either article you linked directly suggesting investigation into "an engineered virus". From NYT: Despite the absence of new evidence, a number of scientists have lately begun speaking out about the need to remain open to the possibility that the virus had accidentally emerged from a lab, perhaps after it was collected in nature, a lab origin distinct from a creation by scientists. The closest I found was this, which again falls far short of "COVID was likely the result of GoFR": Whether or not an investigation uncovers the source of covid-19, Lipsitch says, he believes there needs to be more public scrutiny of laboratory research involving viruses that have the potential to spread out of control. “It’s not all about whether a lab accident caused this particular pandemic,” he says. “I’d like to see the attention focus on the regulation of dangerous experiments, because we’ve seen what a pandemic can do to us all, and we should be extremely sure before we do anything that increases that probability even a little.” If you see something I missed, please quote it. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether a gain-of-function origin is likely, just whether it's possible. As for whether anyone prominent thinks it's possible: it's not totally clear, but it appears that way. A lot of the recent press reporting seems to revolve around this May 2021 open letter in Science magazine, which talks at length about a lab leak possibility, without specifying whether that means it was engineered there or not. But there certainly are quotes, like the one you found from Marc Lipsitch (one of the signatories), that show that some people are not ruling it out. There's also this paper, which I just found, which states that "the amount of peculiar genetic features identified in SARS-CoV-2′s genome does not rule out a possible gain-of-function origin". It's published in Environmental Chemistry Letters - I don't know whether that's peer-reviewed or not. And it's a scientific paper and not a media source, but if the purpose is just to clear the low bar of whether this view should be considered fringe or not, maybe it's enough. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a credible journal (no relevance to the field of virology or infectious diseases or biology), likely not a peer-reviewed article (as the journal implies, it`s a "letter"), published by non-virologists and the like ('independent researchers' with no degrees...) who are members of a Twitter group which has consistently been spreading misinformation about this (some of its members have also engaged in the bullying of scientists). Also cited a grand total of zero times by other (actual) scientists, so likely not to reflect a widespread position. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The bullying is irrelevant, of course, but if it's not peer-reviewed, then that's a problem. Still, I think there's enough evidence that some of the open letter signatories are willing to entertain the possibility. Besides the above quote, there's also Ralph Baric, another signatory, who here is quoted as saying that, while he “personally believe[s] in the natural origin hypothesis,” he thinks further investigation is merited, presumably into an un-natural origin. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether a gain-of-function origin is likely, just whether it's possible. I feel like we're too wrapped up in this detail, which is best left for the Investigations article. Instead we should be asking ourselves if the paragraphs, as currently written in COVID-19 misinformation#Virus origin theories, give the impression that standard Gain of Function research is implied in intentionally engineered, either as a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines or not. I don't think they are, but I'm up for suggestions if you disagree. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Grammatically speaking, I think the presence of that comma in the sentence directly implies that the only theories about an engineered virus involve intentional release. Even without the comma, though, mentioning these theories before mentioning the "manmade virus, accidental release" theory is certain to mislead some readers. Much better (and more straightforward) would be listing the theories considered plausible first (presumably in decreasing order of plausibility), then moving on to the "misinformation", instead of interspersing the two. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Much better (and more straightforward) would be listing the theories considered plausible first (presumably in decreasing order of plausibility), then moving on to the "misinformation", instead of interspersing the two. That is currently the case on the article:

Extended content

While the most likely origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a natural crossover from animals, having spilled-over into the human population from bats, possibly through an intermediate animal host, the precise origin of the virus has not been identified. An alternative hypothesis under investigation is that the virus may have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, although most virologists consider this to be unlikely. Some have misrepresented information regarding this possibility, including to stoke anti-China sentiments. Unsubstantiated speculation and conspiracy theories related to this topic have gained popularity during the pandemic. Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was intentionally engineered, either as a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines, although this possibility has been ruled out by genomic analysis according to the World Health Organization.

From natural zoonosis, to accidental escape, to conspiracies of a bioweapon. I see two possible improvements. 1. An alternative hypothesis under investigation is that the virus may have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the course of standard research, although most virologists consider this to be unlikely. 2. Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was intentionally engineered for the purpose of being released, although this possibility has been ruled out by genomic analysis according to the World Health Organization. Either or both would help clear up the distinction between "genetic changes during legitimate research" and "modification with malicious intent". Bakkster Man (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, it seems like we've achieved some rough consensus here, which is great. As to the exact wording, I made some changes to the article; feel free to make any additional changes there, I would say. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I've put the wording suggested by Bakkster. The alternative made many incorrect statements. For example, what the WHO found unlikely was an accidental lab leak, the wording made seem as though what they had found to be unlikely was lab leak of a GOFR virus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this, you just beat me to it. IMO, any discussion of GoFR specifically as a viable possibility would belong in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, not here. We should only discuss it in relation to verifiable misinformation regarding it. This was, I thought, our consensus above. Namely, the wording in the course of standard research or similar, as most of our quality sources don't make distinctions between GoFR and other laboratory procedures, only between bioweapon development and accidental release. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Unexplained removal of content

Deepfriedokra, how long does the protection last and how do we resolve this situation with RandomCanadian? This user removes anything they don’t like, and their latest revert removed well sourced content from Guest2625 and Eccekevin and an entire section I added on Testing Misinformation. Aren’t there policies against removing well sourced content without explanation on the talk page? CutePeach (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: The WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include new content (as clearly indicated in the edit summary). There was no consensus, hence I applied WP:BRD and reverted to a version before the reverting, before noticing how much of it there had been and going to RFPP, hoping there would be further discussion here. See the preceding sections, where I've failed to notice your name so far. Also, you deliberately not pinging me cannot at this point be taken as anything even remotely ressembling AGF. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice the section on testing, which basically went under the radar with all of the other reverting. @Deepfriedokra: You should re-add the following (with a level 2 header), right after the sentence "In an August 2020 article, Astronomy.com called the meteor origin theory "so remarkable that it makes the others look boring by comparison".":

Extended content

Testing A claim that the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health confirmed that polymerase chain reaction testing is fake became popular in the Philippines and remains a widespread belief. According to a report from AFP, research associate Joshua Miguel Danac of the University of the Philippines’ National Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology countered the claim, calling PCR tests "the gold standard for diagnosis." Fake testing and perception of fake testing remains a problem in the Philipppines.

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Specific examples of accidental lab leak misinformation?

I'm looking to improve the section COVID-19 misinformation#Lab accident, and I'm looking for specific examples of misinformation about this hypothesis. Beyond simply advocating for its investigation, possibility, or likelihood, I'd like to include concrete examples of misinformation about this hypothesis. I think this is crucial to distinguishing actual dissemination of misinformation from mere differences of opinion (per WP:NPOV).

For instance, the US politicians listed in the first sentence no longer seem to have as reliable sources pointing towards their being disinformation. Instead, we've seen some walking-back of the language used at the time by media to describe their positions.[11] So while there's sourcing to suggest some press coverage was misinformation by inaccurately and/or prematurely dismissing it as 'conspiracy theory', I expect there are also concrete examples of politicians sharing misinformation that I'd like to replace the current broad statements with.

Any other examples would be greatly appreciated as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitely the pivot (but not outright change of mind) of Fauci should be included. Like other scientists and the media you pointed out, Fauci originally dismissed it but has recently said it's a possibility and called for further investigations. Currently, the page only reports the initial dismissal from 2020, but his more recent attitude should be included for fairness. Eccekevin (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This really gets to the heart of what misinformation is. IMO, changing perspectives as scientific knowledge advances shouldn't be categorized as misinformation. That's just the scientific process. We should be reserving the article for misinformation relative to the scientific understanding at the time (ie. inaccurate claims about current research) and active disinformation (which can overlap with the first). This is why I lean more towards starting with the precise examples of US politicians were some of the early proponents of the theory of an accidental lab release of the virus, including Republican Senators Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, as well as then-President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo which were actually misinformation, before identifying the scientific information at the time which it was in contrast to.

Particularly in the context of the second paragraph in the section, where the misinformation was arguably the other way (misrepresenting the theory as conspiracy), it would be weird to use out of date reporting that might be more accurately described as misinformation itself (ie. contemporaneous reports stating Tom Cotton was 'promoting a conspiracy theory', from sources which now refer to the perspective as legitimate albeit unlikely). I'm concerned we have a major WP:NPOV (and WP:BLP) issue without specific, concrete examples which hold up to scrutiny if someone challenges us to WP:V the claims of misinformation. I've actually talked myself into the BLP concern being big enough that that paragraph should be nuked pending examples. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: Huh? How are Angela Rasmussen's comments about GoF (a "popular idea") a WP:BLP issue (to take an example of something that was removed)? This looks too broad a deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs)

@Alexbrn: I don't think the Rasmussen source is unacceptable, but I do think we need to do two things. 1) Ensure that we are either confident enough in the claims to wiki-voice them, or give them the context of "Angela Rasmussen said..." 2) Consider the context of the WHO report (published after the Rasmussen letter) and whether her claims remain notable in current context. IMO, the letter remains reliable for the Yan Li-Meng example, but we should at least discuss whether US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also heavily implied that SARS-CoV-2 has anthropogenic origins is a sufficient citation for misinformation relative to the WHO's statement that it was "extremely unlikely". We may conclude it is, or find a better source to cite, or conclude his statements were opinions reasonable enough not to classify misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Her words were not put in wikivoice. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Right, which is why I didn't remove the sentence with her citation.

My concern was with US politicians were some of the early proponents of the theory of an accidental lab release of the virus, specifically that being 'proponents of a theory' was implicitly considered "misinformation" by being on the COVID-19 misinformation article. We need to be more explicit on what they said which was misinformation. Otherwise we're going to fill this section up with individuals who dismissed the lab theory last year, and anyone who changed their perspective as new science was published, and I don't think that's a maintainable model going forward. See Eccekevin comment above, did Fauci spread misinformation last year regarding the lab leak? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Self- Facepalm Oh bum. The diff was showing funny and it looked like this was removed! Silly me! Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realized that too. Bad diff, no cookie! No worries. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of adding back the sentence that was removed just now. The fact that those politicians made those statements is fact, and citable. I don't think WP:BLP applies. If they don't want to be on the record as saying those things, they should not go on the record and say those things. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record, my concern isn't that none of these people spread misinformation. In fact, I'm quite confident at least some of them did. My concern is that I believe our citations were insufficient to make such a claim, at least in wikivoice. I'm firmly in agreement that we should add back in whatever we can reliably, verifiably, and neutrally cite was misinformation. Best case would be with citations post-WHO Report. For instance, The Hill citation later in the section casts aspersions on Trump's claims that To me it was obvious from the beginning but I was badly criticized, as usual. Now they are all saying ‘He was right.’ Thank you! which would be a good starting place. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Fauci comments should be included among those scientists who do not view the lab leak as conspiracy theory

Anthony Fauci said: “It is entirely conceivable that the origins of Sars-Cov-2 was in that cave and either started spreading naturally or went through the lab.”. It's beyond time that this page starts being honest about the lab leak hypothesis and treat is as it is, a scientific hypothesis that needs further investigation and validation rather than a conspiracy theory. The current page states that "the scientific opinion against it has remained steady" without providing any context or examples to the contrary. I think the page should state that there has been a change in attitude towards this hypothesis in the scientific community and that many scientists are open to the idea and call for more investigations. Also, the Fauci quote is a reminder that a lab leak is compatible with a natural origin.

References

Eccekevin (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Fauci said that while it's possible, and a probe is welcome, a natural origin is still far more likely. Yet another news paper, NPR, which explicitly says that many scientists still agree that COVID is natural, to support this, quoting Fauci, among others: "A natural origin would be more in line with what's come in the past. "The historical basis for pandemics evolving naturally from an animal reservoir is extremely strong," Fauci told senators at a hearing earlier this week. Ebola, HIV and the major influenza viruses all came from nature, he said." Simply putting the quote you suggest, without any context, would be, as I write in the edit summary, misleading, because it would not give the reader a full context into the matter. Scientists are open to the idea of further investigations (not solely because of a possible but unlikely lab leak). Sure, write that. Don't quote experts out of context. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Also note that the article currently doesn't say the (accidental) lab leak is a conspiracy theory (only that it is not supported by most scientists), so I have no clue where you got that from, unless you confused two sections together. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. If there's a reasonable concern that this is unclear, we can clarify this more elegantly than cramming a Fauci quote at the end. Perhaps making it more clear the WHO evaluated it because it's "a scientific hypothesis"? Bakkster Man (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The current page states that the "scientific opinion is against it". That's clearly an oversimplification that makes it seem like it's not a viable theory, and doesn't factor in the change of attitude of Anthony Fauci and many other scientists.Eccekevin (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I really think you're misunderstanding what Fauci has said, Eccekevin. He's still of the opinion that the natural origin theory is far and away the most probable option, and that the lab leak idea is much less likely. It just cannot be completely dismissed because more hard evidence is needed. Hence why a truly independent, open, and international investigation is needed. But he has never said the lab leak theory is particularly likely. Likewise, many conspiracy theories are "possible" they are just very very improbable. Like JFK truthers, conspiracies about the CIA and mind control, etc. All technically "possible" but extremely improbable.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

(Selective) quotes

@Guest2625: "If the quotes are relevant, put them directly into the article - the "not possible to rule it out" bit is already present a sentence later, anyways". You haven't addressed this concern. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

In general Wikipedia should be a summary using editors' own words. Creating a "scrapbook effect" of verbatim quotations strung together is to be avoided except where strictly necessary (e.g. when the wording/idea is so utterly distinctive it cannot be newly-summarized without misrepresentation). Alexbrn (talk)

I have to admit, this brings to mind an old audio clip I heard many years ago, where someone took a Ronald Reagan speech, where the original intent was along the lines of "don't do drugs", and strung various sentences together to make it sound as if Ronald and Nancy enjoyed getting high every night (which I assume is false). I guess my point is that this is a rather absurd but real example of why stringing together quotes is inherently problematic, even leaving aside copyright concerns. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Imputing anti-China motives

As media sentiment shifts on the lab leak hypothesis, the editing of this article seems to be getting increasingly reactionary. A few editors' instinct seems to be just revert everything, even the addition of italics to a journal name. In a section about the lab leak possibility, there's one sentence that really sticks out: "Some have misrepresented information regarding this possibility, including to stoke anti-China sentiments." The reference is this Wired article. This sentence raises a number of questions: who are these people? What's the misrepresentation? How is their anti-China motivation known? And maybe most importantly, why does it matter? This article is about misinformation, not about the motivation for misinformation. I removed the sentence, but another editor restored it, saying only "Seems apt". I then added some clarification tags, so we can at least find out what this sentence means, but the same editor reverted that too, saying "Wikipedia cannot be more specific than cited sources.". Which is kind of a hilarious thing to say: we don't know who these people are, or what they have said, but it's important for everyone to know that such people exist, and that they have said incorrect things. Can anyone justify these reverts? Should we start citing WP:OWN? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The source says it's "Trumpists" doing the racist thing. Perhaps the article should just specify that too? Alexbrn (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I added two additional citations which hopefully clarify the claims. I'd like to bring attention again to the section above on Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#Specific examples of accidental lab leak misinformation?, which providing clearer examples in the article section dedicated to this disputed claim would also help clarify the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't clarify the claims at all. Who are these people - "Trumpists"? If so, what does "Trumpist" mean - anyone who voted for Trump? Trump himself, and his political allies? The articles themselves don't seem to shed any light - this Time article says, "Deploying patently anti-Asian rhetoric, Trump and his team started a systemic—and roundly condemned—campaign in April suggesting that the virus leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan". There are various bizarre assertions here: that criticism of China is "anti-Asian" (a surprise, I would guess, to the citizens of many other Asian countries), that condemnation of the lab leak theory was in order even if the theory was correct - and finally, by the fact that this article is being cited, an implication on Wikipedia that the lab leak theory itself is misinformation. I would love to hear clarification on any of this. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, reading back through, I'm missing the source I thought I included, which made the link between Trump misinformation (including this week's statement that "everyone's saying he was right") and the backlash that meant dismissiveness against the bioweapon stuff spilled over into labeling everything related to the lab conspiracy. I'll try and find again. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Until you find that source, any objection to removing this sentence? So far, no one here has even been able to explain it, let alone justify it. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't revert until I find the better source, if you feel strongly about it. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you just said, but this does sound like the exact mentality that WP:OWN is about. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the existing NYT reference enough? "the American far right and members of the Chinese diaspora tapped into social media to give a Hong Kong researcher a vast audience for peddling unsubstantiated pandemic claims." and "Each saw an opportunity in the pandemic to push its agenda. For the diaspora, Dr. Yan and her unfounded claims provided a cudgel for those intent on bringing down China’s government. For American conservatives, they played to rising anti-Chinese sentiment and distracted from the Trump administration’s bungled handling of the outbreak." However, it is unclear exactly which variant seems to be referred to (Yan pushed the "man-made deliberate bioweapon" one; Bannon is said to have "pushed the theory about an accidental leak of risky laboratory research" [that would be GoFR, also ruled out if I read the scientific sources correctly]), although even the mundane accidental one has surely amplified such existing forms of bigotry. This mentions some of the political context (USA-wise), and again, like the NYT piece, mentions the existing China-USA context which informed readers are surely aware of by now, but does appear to be an opinion column so I don't think we should cite it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Sorry, I mean I won't stop you from making the edit if you feel strongly that the current sources aren't enough. But I wouldn't make it myself, and I can't guarantee that someone else won't revert. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Darn, I was hoping that you could guarantee that someone else won't revert. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me wiki that for you: Trumpism --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we've established that the gain-of-function research theory is not officially considered misinformation, so that rules out Steve Bannon. Which just leaves Li-Meng Yan, with her bioweapon assertions. The NYT article says that her statements have been seized on by those with anti-China sentiments, but I don't think it says that she herself is motivated by that.

Hob Gadling - great, so now we know that the spreaders of misinformation are "those exhibiting characteristics of a set of mechanisms for acquiring and keeping power that are associated with Donald Trump". Well, that clears that up.

Seriously, though - leaving aside that this article should not be discussing motivations in the first place, I think so far we've found zero specific people who "have misrepresented information regarding this possibility" in order "to stoke anti-China sentiments". Can we just get rid of this sentence? Korny O'Near (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: I think we've established that the gain-of-function research theory is not officially considered misinformation, so that rules out Steve Bannon. I think we may need to clarify either this statement, the article text, or both. I think we agree that the WHO-evaluated theory of an inadvertent lab leak, includes the possibility of GoFR having affected the escaped virus. But simply mentioning GoFR doesn't give someone a free-pass from being described as having misrepresented information regarding this possibility. That's what we're looking for, misinformation around an otherwise valid possibility. Which, fair point, requires a direct example before we claim it. Do we agree that misrepresenting the certainty of findings (for instance, pushing pre-prints as "proof") would fit within the current description? Do you think there's room to improve the article text to make this more clear? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it would fit the description, but that doesn't mean the sentence is worth including. A statement like "Some have misrepresented information regarding this possibility" is obviously true - there are 7 billion people on earth, after all. And even just among people who are notable in this context - politicians, journalists, scientists, etc. - there are tens of thousands or more of those, so whatever statement you make is bound to be true for someone. The question is: is it notable? Is it cited? Is it worth including in this article? I think the answer to all of those is "no". Korny O'Near (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It made more sense when the article went on to name specific people proliferating misinformation, but lacking those specific examples it doesn't make as much sense. So I'm in favor of removing it until we can cite the specifics. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a simple solution is just moving the sentence a paragraph down, along with the conspiracy theories (since Bannon et al. did promote the conspiracy theory supported by Yan's bullshit papers, and the NYT piece is bloody clear enough about the implications of that). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Did Steve Bannon "misrepresent information" in order "to stoke anti-China sentiments"? If so, where's the relevant quote for that? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

[12]? "Mr. Bannon noted that unlike Dr. Yan, he did not believe the Chinese government “purposely did this.” But he has pushed the theory about an accidental leak of risky laboratory research and has been intent on creating a debate about the new coronavirus’s origins."; "Mr. Bannon pivoted his podcast to the coronavirus. He was calling it “the C.C.P. virus” long before Mr. Trump started using xenophobic labels for the pandemic. He invited fierce critics of China to the show to discuss how the outbreak exemplified the global threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party."... And much else which makes this clear without much doubt about the issue RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You could certainly argue that he was trying to stoke anti-China sentiments. But what information did he misrepresent? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"Promoting misinformation" (what I've altered it to, more in line with the given quotes) and "misrepresenting information" sound like two ways to say the same thing, and the first quote above is clear enough that Bannon "pushed the theory" and has been "intent on creating a debate"; and the hook of the NYT article is also quite clear: " the American far right and members of the Chinese diaspora tapped into social media to give a Hong Kong researcher a vast audience for peddling unsubstantiated pandemic claims." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @RandomCanadian: I'd suggest that this is one of the potential solutions, so long as we have a source we can wikivoice the claim. I'd suggest, given Bannon is named later in the bioweapon conspiracy (sufficient?), we should either name him (and Wengui?) specifically and what they did, or find a better source(s) that more directly supports the 'multiple people, with the intention of anti-China sentiment' statement. Another option would be to split the statement if we can't reliably source the intent in the existing statement. I'm sure it's easy to cite "some people spread misinformation", and separately to cite "there was anti-china sentiment linked to origins" (whether that goes in this section or Xenophobic blaming by ethnicity and religion, depends on the source). I'd propose that, whether we add it to the cite tag in the article or not, the quote should be shared on the talk page or edit summary to help verify the source was faithfully represented. Like Korny O'Near, I think we need to make sure we're using up-to-date sources, which aren't using last year's mistaken descriptions of the theory (the reason I removed the list of Republicans from the article, in retrospect the citations got it wrong). Bakkster Man (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused here. We've already established that the "accidental lab leak" theory is not inherently misinformation - certainly, this article doesn't treat it that way. So why are we talking about Steve Bannon? If all he has said is that COVID-19 may have been caused by a lab leak, he doesn't even belong in this article. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Bannon didn't just push the "accidental lab leak" - the fact is he offered a platform for Yan's (obvious) misinformation (per NYT source already cited). Even some aspects of the "mundane" lab leak, including overstating evidence or misinterpreting the statements of scientists, including for more sinister motives ("In the Science letter, the authors note that Asian people have been harassed by those who blame COVID-19 on China, and attempt to dissuade abuse. Nonetheless, some aggressive proponents of the lab-leak hypothesis interpreted the letter as supporting their ideas." [13]), is misinformation. Even the mainstream media is apparently taking part in this now:

At the assembly, Mike Ryan, director of health emergencies at the WHO, asked for less politicization of calls for an origin investigation, which have, in many ways, devolved into accusations. “Over the last number of days, we have seen more and more and more discourse in the media, with terribly little actual news, or evidence, or new material,” said Ryan. “This is disturbing.” [14]

Seems like a decent reason to avoid over stating the status of the lab leak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a lot of verbiage that seems (to me) irrelevant. Maybe I'm not grasping what you meant, though, so let me ask again: what information did Steve Bannon misrepresent? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

He funded Yan's misinformative papers, as the bioweapon section says. That should stay, IMO. I also think I agree we shouldn't name Bannon in the above section, that's just redundant and confusing. Unless we have an additional citation of specific misinformation beyond merely promoting a non-mainstream theory. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize before that the sentence had changed to "promoted misinformation". But yes, I agree with this - Bannon's funding of Yan is also mentioned in the article. There's no need to mention it a second time, in a vaguer way. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Persistent removal

I don't see any reason why this keeps getting removed. Of course, not everything and everyone related to virus origins misinformation is racist, but multiple sources attest that some aspects of the misinformation undeniably are linked with such attitudes - the twitter groups harassing scientists and promoting xenophobia, the Bannon et al. sinophobia, etc... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources that "attest" that misinformation is related to racism. Although actually I don't know why you bring up racism, since racism was never mentioned in the controversial text. So I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"Manipulation of uncertainty is being used to twist information on the subject"

That's the word salad that one editor used to justify re-inserting this Wired piece into this article. The Wired piece is itself a pretty impressive bit of word salad - one I could summarize as "We can't say for sure yet whether a lab leak occurred, but what I do know is that people I don't like are bringing it up for political ends I don't approve of." Ultimately it's just an opinion - a meaningless opinion, in this context, since this article is strictly about misinformation. Can we please have this article stick to actual facts? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

You've been trying to remove that sentence for a while, first removing it entirely because it was only about "Bannon and a couple of guys"; then trying to remove a concrete link about misinformation. I don't know what isn't clear about "manipulation of uncertainty" - while it is true that we can't know for sure at this time, one of the hypotheses is still far more likely, despite the change in tone of the media: [15] "Experts point out, however, that the renewed interest in this theory comes from a lack of information -- not from new evidence. "There is no new factual element that has moved the needle one way or the other," says Schwartz at the Pasteur Institute, noting that the natural transmission theory remains "the most plausible" explanation."; [16] At the assembly, Mike Ryan, director of health emergencies at the WHO, asked for less politicization of calls for an origin investigation, which have, in many ways, devolved into accusations. “Over the last number of days, we have seen more and more and more discourse in the media, with terribly little actual news, or evidence, or new material,” said Ryan. “This is disturbing.”... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, edit summaries can't be edited, but I probably meant to say "twist the debate"; which makes far more sense and is what the sources are telling us. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

See also this piece (The Conversation is a reliable source, it publishes pieces by subject matter experts: see the entry at RSP) which explicitly makes the link: "But even if the lab-leak theory is credible and therefore worth pursuing, that doesn’t mean that politicians should publicly pursue it. In doing so, they may accidentally lend credibility to the many COVID-19 conspiracy theories that also revolve around a laboratory origin. For example, the conspiracy theory that SARS-CoV-2 is a Chinese biological weapon first created and later spread by the Wuhan Institute of Virology." and later "Publicly saying that the Wuhan lab-leak theory is plausible, to a distracted public, in a context rife with closely related disinformation, runs the risk of making this the case. The Biden administration may be right that the Wuhan lab-leak theory deserves a closer look. But it should be cautious, for the time being, of publicly saying as much." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That's an even purer distillation of the same sentiment: "it may be true, but people should stop talking about it". Whatever you think of that argument (I think it's paternalistic nonsense), it doesn't belong in an article that's explicitly about misinformation. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That is your opinion. What the source is saying is more clearly that promotion of the 'plausible' lab-leak leads/has also led to disinformation about the 'less plausible' (euphemism, you'll understand) lab-leak conspiracies. The only solution is to make it clear to our readers what the possible albeit unlikely (accidental release of a non-genetically manipulated sample) lab leak is, and that the other ones are pretty much pure bollocks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

This sentence is now out of the Wikipedia article, so maybe there's no point discussing it further. I'll just say that this article is not the place for meta-analysis about information that's correct but should not be stated anyway, or that sort of thing. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft

I've started a draft at Draft:China_COVID-19_Cover-up that may be of interest to editors of this article. I could definitely use help improving it. See also related discussion at [17].Adoring nanny (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Bullying of scientists

Every attempt to improve this article seems to make clearer why parts of this article were in bad shape for so long: because there are a few editors whose first instinct is to simply revert everyone else's changes. One editor keeps reinserting this sentence, for example, about the "online bullying" of scientists, which cites this Nature article. What's the cause of all this supposed bullying? Not actually misinformation, but rather the lab leak theory, which remains a viable theory. No problem, says the editor: maybe it's not misinformation, but it's "part of the misinformation campaign", whatever that means. This article would be better if everyone used common sense and not increasingly convoluted logic. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought the point was the scientists were being countered with toxic rhetoric rather than science. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that's the point; the sentence in question says nothing about what these supposed bullies were saying (and neither does the Nature article, for that matter). Korny O'Near (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I t may not say it, but text like "and even that Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), is involved" make it clear, that they are talking about the whole issue, both scientific skepticism and conspiracy theories (and thus misinformation). And does discuss how the questions (for example the letter) are being "misrepresented".Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. If the unevidenced claims are being used to fuel rhetoric to bully scientists this is an aspect of the misinformation campaign that needs covering. Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's look at the paragraph again: "The promotion of misinformation has been used by the American far-right and others to stoke anti-China sentiments, and has led to increased anti-Asian activity on social media and in the real world. This has also resulted in the online bullying of scientists." It seems like everyone agrees that the last sentence is not correct, and that the truth is something more like "Information about COVID-19 has resulted in online bullying of scientists, in some cases involving untrue accusations." Maybe that should be the sentence instead? Though in my opinion, that's a pointless sentence as well, because random people posting incorrect information is hardly news; and the example given, of Fauci being involved, is not necessarily incorrect either - if gain-of-function research was in fact a cause, then Fauci indeed was involved, at least tangentially. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

What? "Fauci being involved, is not necessarily incorrect either", that is 100% misinformation and a conspiracy therory not supported by any RS. It's clear the source is talking about "misrepresented" information being used as an excuse to bully scientists. As to "Random people posting incorrect information is hardly news", yes it is. That is why the news is talking about it. I am bowing out now before I say something bannable. I support the inclusion of this..."Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. The article itself notes that COVID-19 being the result of gain-of-function research is unlikely but has not been ruled yet. And the idea that Fauci authorized funding of such research has not been ruled out either, per this cited FactCheck.org analysis. So where's the misinformation, or the conspiracy? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

We have a duty to default to what MEDRSes say on these topics of medical importance. The question of whether SARS-COV-2 is "engineered" or the result of "gain of function" research is impactful as to whether someone gets the vaccine, follows public health guidance, etc. And MEDRSes are extremely clear on this: there is zero evidence that SARS-COV-2 is the result of gain of function research, and a fair amount of evidence that it is a completely natural virus. Can the possibility be completely excluded? No, much like how we cannot completely exclude the idea that JFK was killed by the CIA. Or that aliens built the pyramids. The "possibility" of something is not a very useful metric. Only it's probability. And this conspiracy theory that the virus was made using gain-of-function research in any way is extremely extremely unlikely. It is, barring the intentional bioweapon theory, the most improbable of any theory yet put forth. There is a metric ton of evidence to this effect at WP:NOLABLEAK. The MEDRSes say this is B.S., so we should mirror that consensus. Proper and accurate summary of the source in question indicates scientists are being harassed about this theory. So we must depict that in our articles. Further, what you're doing here Korny O'Near is WP:NOR, because you're trying to say that bullying is not possible if the theory is not misinformation. That's your interpretation, it isn't what the source says. I've added more sources demonstrating the link between harassment of public health officials and scientists and these conspiracy theories.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Also just wanted to say, that many many qualified scientists agree that what was going on in 2014 in Wuhan was not Gain-of-function research. The only people quoted in this and other articles saying it was gain-of-function research are already out there promoting other conspiracy theories, are already known as non-virologists getting deep into virological topics as if they are qualified when they are not, etc. etc. Richard Ebright has never conducted virology research in his career to my knowledge, and definitely never Coronaviruses. Why is he the one we are trusting to define what counts as GOF? Other qualified scientists quoted in these fact check articles say that it is not GOF.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't understand that "NOR" part. Bullying based on actual facts is certainly possible and happens every day - it just doesn't belong in this article, which is about misinformation. As for gain-of-function research - maybe you should be rewriting that part of this article, because it currently says that both the GOFR theory and Fauci's involvement are disputed and have not been debunked - and some of the cited sources say the same thing. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Verbose nonsense. Bullying of scientists and racist anti-Asian behaviours (in the context of this pandemic) are a direct consequence of misinformation (per the sources). I fail to see how anyone could argue that a direct consequence of the title subject does not go in the article... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

"Verbose" seems like a weird description for what I wrote. So, is it your view that "there is a possibility that COVID-19 was caused by gain-of-function research" is misinformation? Because even this article doesn't say that. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I was only referring to the stuff about bullying of scientists and the previous comments about it. AFAICS, scientists have ruled out "deliberate genetic manipulation", so it depends whether you count GoFR as "deliberate" or not (doesn't seem to me like something which happens by accident to me, but nvm). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think. What matters is what the sources say. And, further, the sentence about bullying in this article refers to all conspiracy theories, not just the one you are currently POV-pushing here about gain-of-function. So, again, it doesn't matter whether you or I or RandomCanadian think the GOF conspiracy theory is misinformation (which, I will add, our sources say it is). What matters is that conspiracy theories about the origin of COVID-19 have led to the bullying of scientists and public health officials. And lots of RSes and MEDRSes support that statement.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I see that you added two more references to the "bullying of scientists" sentence. I read through them both, and neither of them refer to any COVID-related misinformation either, as far as I can tell, so I don't know what you mean about "all conspiracy theories". (I don't understand your description of me as "POV-pushing" either - of course I'm pushing my point of view; that's what a talk page is for.) Korny O'Near (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages are most definitively not for pushing a point of view. Their purpose is to discuss disagreements over article content (including how much weight to give to different sources, how to most accurately summarise them, ...). Ideally, any point of view expressed on a talk page should be that of relevant, secondary reliable sources (since that is what WP:NPOV usually requires for contentious matters), ideally based on the WP:BESTSOURCES (so WP:SCHOLARSHIP > WP:NEWSORG > most other sources) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it depends on what mean by "pushing a point of view". People express opinions on talk pages all the time. But this discussion about POV is not that relevant here, since when I say that gain-of-function research remains a possibility, that's barely my opinion; it's backed up by the cited sources. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Most of the sources mention misinformation of some form (even if they don't use the term directly): anti-vaxxers/anti-maskers/... - the Nature article specifically mentions a certain group using misinformation to harass scientists; the last two sources I added mention the politics and how this had lead to a toxic debate on many health issues, and the following: "Personal attacks have increased substantially, alongside accusations impugning the integrity and motivations of fellow researchers and clinicians." - "accusations impugning the integrity and motivations" = conspiracy theories (like the Wade article claiming scientists in the relevant field are all unethical, like the Twitter trolls harassing scientists like Andersen, ...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

What's the specific misinformation? I didn't see any, though maybe I missed something. To be an anti-masker, for example, does not imply being misinformed; it simply means that one thinks the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to have a pro-science POV. See also WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Anti-maskers are misinformed for the purposes of this article, and we in fact have an entire section in this article devoted to them. I don't really care about what you in particular think about masks, Korny O'Near, because what we need to say in this article is very clear via the aforementioned guidelines. We need to depict what is the scientific consensus of relevant peer-reviewed literature on this topic. And that consensus says that masks work, that anti-maskers are misinformed, and that anti-maskers and conspiracy theorists have, during this pandemic, harassed scientists and public health officials. This is quickly approaching WP:NOTSTUCK. We have discussed this before, this talk page and its archives are literally riddled with identical discussions. My suggestion is to peruse those guidelines carefully, read the archives of this talk page, to get a better sense of what counts as notable and wiki-worthy.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what "for the purposes of this article" means - statements are either accurate or they're not. Of course there are a lot of misinformed anti-mask arguments, but simply being anti-mask is not necessarily a misinformed position, since there are obvious tradeoffs involved. Again, I have yet to see any specific misinformation cited. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Since you do not WP:OWN this article, it does not matter what you think counts and does not count. What matters is what the consensus of wikipedia users says about the scientific consensus on this topic. And, as I wrote above, we have many many many archived discussions to look back on about this. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

On review, I'm concerned that what you're doing here Korny O'Near is civil POV-pushing. You've already said you are bringing a POV to this page, you've shown an ability to willfully misunderstand what a citation shows, and you are splitting hairs to an extent I did not think possible. If we talk about a concept or position on this page in reference to it being misinformed, and it is shown to have an association with bullying of scientists, then these citations are properly used.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I dropped out as I was starting to discuss users not content, if you have an issue with a user take it to wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

You are right, ANI is the proper place for such discussion. As of the moment, I still assume good faith in this situation. But I think if users start to edit-war or POV-push in more specific ways in relevant articles, then I'll bring to ANI personally. Of course anyone here is welcome to do that on their own, I'm just busy outside of wiki so I'm waiting until any case is steadfast enough to be worth pursuing.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, I don't know what you mean by POV-pushing - a term used for editing articles, not for talk page discussions. Of course I'm sharing my opinions, i.e. my point of view. Am I doing it in contravention of the facts? I don't think so. If anything, it seems like the opposite: if this talk page is any indication, I'm the only one reading the references. A few other editors seem to be going the other way: starting with a personal opinion ("misinformed people are harassing scientists") and working backwards from there. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's see if we can distill what this source is saying, and where it might relate to this page's topic of misinformation. I'll add emphasis:

• Others worry that the rhetoric around an alleged lab leak has grown so toxic that it’s fuelling online bullying of scientists and anti-Asian harassment in the United States, as well as offending researchers and authorities in China whose cooperation is needed.
• In the Science letter, the authors note that Asian people have been harassed by those who blame COVID-19 on China, and attempt to dissuade abuse. Nonetheless, some aggressive proponents of the lab-leak hypothesis interpreted the letter as supporting their ideas. For instance, a neuroscientist belonging to a group that claims to independently investigate COVID-19 tweeted that the letter is a diluted version of ideas his group posted online last year. The same week, on Twitter, the neuroscientist also lashed out at Rasmussen, who has tried to explain studies suggesting a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 to the public. He called her fat, and then posted a derogatory comment about her sexual anatomy. Rasmussen says, “This debate has moved so far from the evidence that I don’t know if we can dial it back.”

So we do see it's explicitly called out that it's not the lab hypothesis itself, it's "the rhetoric around" it that's the source of the issue according to the source. The second emphasis of 'interpretation of the letter as support' sounds a lot like a synonym for 'misinformation' to me. And finally we have an example of the abuse, with Rasmussen's quote tying it further to misinformation, regarding how discussion has "moved so far from the evidence".

So there's a couple of things I see. Notable incidents beyond this one? If so, let's cite them further. If not, should we consider naming the neuroscientist Nature left unnamed (and can we portray it while respecting WP:BLP)? How much of a link does rhetoric alone have to misinformation, and does this source meet that threshold for linking the two? I'd argue it does make that link, and would give more weight to an argument around either the notability of the abuse directed toward Rasmussen or narrowing the claim to only those the sources directly cite. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There's no question, based on the references (some of which you quoted) that some discussion around COVID-19 has gotten "toxic", vicious, counterproductive, etc. And there's also no question that there have been wildly different interpretations of the facts - like the neuroscientist who claimed his ideas were plagiarized (if I understand it correctly). Does any of it rise to the level of "misinformation"? I haven't seen evidence of that. Maybe it goes without saying, but this article is called "COVID-19 misinformation", not "Ugly behavior related to COVID-19". Korny O'Near (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's some more analysis of the sourced we've cited, and quotes that demonstrate how they link misinformation and harassment.

From that same Nature News article: Divisive COVID ‘lab leak’ debate prompts dire warnings from researchers:

Allegations that COVID escaped from a Chinese lab make it harder for nations to collaborate on ending the pandemic — and fuel online bullying, some scientists say.

(the subtitle)

Relman says he’s saddened by the abuse of his fellow scientists, but he stands his ground.

Okay, so this article backs up the idea that scientists are saying that misinformation and abuse is linked. But we need MEDRS or RSes (at the very least) showing that experts on the issue are saying it is happening in order to have it in wiki-voice. So let's look at the other refs:

JAMA Viewpoint article: Attacks on Public Health Officials During COVID-19 (backed up as notable by this CIDRAP news piece (Stop attacking public health officials, experts plead):

The present harassment of health officials for proposing or taking steps to protect communities from COVID-19 is extraordinary in its scope and nature, use of social media, and danger to the ongoing pandemic response. It reflects misunderstanding of the pandemic, biases in human risk perception, and a general decline in public civility.

Today’s increasingly routine harassment and threats against health officials have much in common with growing resistance to childhood vaccination...protesters threw blood onto California legislators from the Senate gallery...State Senator Richard Pan received death threats and was physically assaulted...Some of the same groups, joined by other individuals frustrated with public health officials, are now actively resisting efforts to require masks, reinstitute business closures, and prepare for COVID-19 vaccination, jeopardizing the eventual acceptance of vaccines.

What explains the unprecedented hostility to public health officials during COVID-19? ... In an information space flooded with conflicting information, confirmation bias allows some people to dismiss evidence that does not comport with their preexisting beliefs.

So this viewpoint piece demonstrates that the relevant experts are saying that misunderstanding of the evidence and cognitive biases are contributing to harassment of scientists and public health officials during the COVID-19 pandemic. What is this, if not misinformation?

CTV News Article: Winnipeg epidemiologist faces online threats, as concerns about COVID-19 misinformation deepen:

the effects of COVID-19 have been real and far-reaching in Manitoba, yet some are trying to cast doubt on the pandemic and intimidate the scientists fighting the virus

“There were all kinds of messages, which were both myth and misinformation as well very personal, very aggressive attacks,” said Carr. “As a parent, I certainly didn’t like seeing those things directed towards my daughter.” Carr is not alone. Scientists and public health officials across Canada have faced insults, intimidation, and death threats.

Experts say the hostility against public health officials is being fueled in part by online conspiracy theories.

So this, altogether, allows us to put it in wiki-voice. We have RSes saying this is happening, and where it's coming from. What more could you want? --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

References

ABC news article

The issue about this is WP:N, WP:LAUNDRY, plus WP:MEDRS.

Why is this survey, in particular, notable? I have no secondary sources showing that it is. No sources saying that this survey was special or unique or useful or notable to the general public. So WP:N points to no inclusion.

There are many many news stories and ad-hoc surveys about this exact question. If all such articles are notable, why aren't we including them all? WP:Laundry tells us we should not. We should instead summarize the current state of the scientific consensus about this question.

And what sources are appropriate to use for understanding the scientific consensus on this question? MEDRS. Because this is a question with direct impact on whether or not patients get the vaccine, follow guidelines, and hence endanger themselves and others. Indeed, our sources in this article show us that harassment of public health officials and scientists is linked to belief in these theories. People who believe them are more likely to endanger themselves and others.

Per MEDRS, we must use scientific journal articles (preference for reviews) and consensus statements from professional bodies and organizations. Which we already have in this article, thanks to the contributions of many different editors.

ABC News does not meet these criteria. So this source and referenced text is not suited for inclusion in this article.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:N and WP:LAUNDRY are irrelevant here. WP:N applies to entire articles; there's no requirement to establish the notability of individual facts (I'm not sure what it means to prove the notability of a fact anyway). As for WP:LAUNDRY, it applies to pages that already contain laundry lists, not ones where there's a potential for a laundry list. By your reasoning, no article about a book or film should contain any individual reviews, because once you allow one review, then you could have 100.

You're on firmer ground with WP:MEDRS - it would be great to have some peer-reviewed meta-analysis that surveys scientists in the fields, and shows how their opinions about COVID origins have changed over time (if they have at all). Barring that, though, a survey done by a reliable source is the next best thing, and it sheds quite a bit of light on whether, and to what extent, scientific opinion has changed. It's no different from what's currently in the article: right now there's a single sentence about the current state of scientific opinion ("scientific opinion that an accidental leak is possible, but unlikely, has remained steady"), which itself has four references, all of which are general news articles as opposed to scientific papers. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)