This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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

	Page history

I guess we're doing B-R-R-D now? Why doesn't the body of the article observe fringe prior to inclusion in this category? Have editors reviewed this category? Does the lab leak theory have as much skepticism as say, touchless knockouts or aromatherapy? SmolBrane (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we have a section about fringe science, which does not link to fringe science, so I see a use for the category. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We really need a new RfC around just how it should be treated. As pointed out above, the old one is 2 years old. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly no consensus on these talk pages for this categorization. How can it be fringe when the WHO and all US Intelligence agencies consider it a plausible scenario? As the WHO Director General has said, "lab accidents happen, it's common". A fringe theory is one with little or no scientific support, which is clearly not the case here.

Suggest we remove it for now until the inevitable RFC. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is more than one LL theory. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Trying to think of other "theory" articles that actually refer to a cluster of theories. String theory for one. Are there others? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be fringe when the WHO and all US Intelligence agencies consider it a plausible scenario?

1) There are multiple lab leak theories, and some are more FRINGE-applicable than others. For instance, the idea that Anthony Fauci and the NIAID intentionally conspired with Peter Daszak and the Chinese government to hide evidence of a previous set of gain-of-function experiments which inserted furin cleavage sites into the virus, and then virus was what caused the lab leak is undisputedly FRINGE. And by far the least plausible (aside from the bioweapons theory). The Intelligence community and basically all relevant scientists agree there is no evidence that this happened.
2) There are many "plausible" FRINGE ideas. For instance, it is plausible that extraterrestrials are visiting (and have visited) the Earth to conduct experiments on humans. It absolutely does not defy the laws of physics. It is just very unlikely. But it's also FRINGE and does not have mainstream scientific acceptance. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're mixing up the meaning of 'plausible' with 'possible'. Plausible means "seeming reasonable or probable". PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what's being called "fringe" here is apparently now being reported as plausible by Calvert & Arbuthnot at the Times of London. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But not all, which is the point. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there policy on whether or not an article should be considered fringe simply because portions of it refer to something that is fringe? My gut is that any unproven theory is likely to have multiple versions, and some of those versions will not have much support. String theory being an example. It is not considered fringe, even though there are certainly hundreds, and perhaps thousands of versions of it, and most of them must be fringe. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KInd of, its called wp:v, if RS say it so do wwe, RS call a lot of this fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catagorising the whole article as fringe when the main part of the article is not fringe will just confuse people. If it's that much of a concern, I'd suggest we just delete the 'fringe views on genetic engineering' section. It adds nothing to the article and is Wikipedia:UNDUE anyway. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does the lab leak theory have as much skepticism as say, touchless knockouts or aromatherapy?
No, but it definitely has as much skepticism (if not more) as the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis, Panspermia, and Vertebral subluxation. Which all have this category.

That last one is especially interesting. Because a majority of the US public think that Chiropractic works [5]. Even though the scientific consensus is that it does not. [6][7][8] Strikingly similar to the Lab leak theory public-science divide. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do any serious scientists believe chiropractic works (genuine question)? Because there are plenty of renowned scientists who believe the possibility that COVID originated in a lab should be taken seriously. The head of the WHO Tedros Ghebreyesus, former head of the Chinese CDC George Gao, former head of the US CDC Robert Redfield, computational virologist Jesse Bloom, just to name a few. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The status or credentials of the person presenting the view doesn't equate to scientific consensus or evidence. This topic meets the criteria of WP:FRINGE because it departs significantly from mainstream science and has little or no scientific support. In science, the meaning of mainstream is that there is scientific consensus within research and scholarship. That's not the same as the WHO or FBI saying it's plausible. The void century 19:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are many "plausible" FRINGE ideas. For instance, it is plausible that extraterrestrials are visiting (and have visited) the Earth to conduct experiments on humans. It absolutely does not defy the laws of physics. It is just very unlikely. But it's also FRINGE and does not have mainstream scientific acceptance. — Shibbolethink.

Not “absolutely defying the laws of physics” means something is possible, but certainly does not mean something’s plausible. Very unlikely ideas are implausible. Plausible means believable- it could easily or could well be true, or could easily or could well have happened. FRINGE ideas are not plausible.

There is a subheading of FRINGE Bioweapons ideas. If someone wants to put a link from this to FRINGE, please do, but the whole article should not be categorized under FRINGE.

If you want to go to a RfC, OK, but it certainly should be removed until such time as you get a favorable determination from the RfC. What’s with all the reversions? People (I believe you included if I am not mistaken) get on my case if I revert back once to an edit I make that is backed up with good reasoning and is seemingly mindlessly reverted with no explanation in plausibly obstructist reverting. Someone please revert until there is consensus or RfC. JustinReilly (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how wikipedia policy defines FRINGE nor how scholars define it. A more appropriate RfC would ask whether the article should describe the theory as "evidence-based". I think that RfC would be opposed, but if you want to go to a RfC, OK. As it stands, the article describes the theory as fringe science. The void century 01:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible means believable
Actually it means "has the veneer of a reasonable possibility". Which many such theories I described have. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to stay out of the slow WP:EW here. My own opinion is that the current view in the scientific literature is that LL is a minority scientific viewpoint, i.e. WP:FRINGE/ALT, not WP:FRINGE/QS. In mainstream WP:RS, it is much closer to a 50/50 split between Z and LL. Perhaps a slight favorite to Z still in mainstream sources, but perhaps not and definitely very close at this point. And public opinion favors LL in most countries. I have no idea if the category of "fringe theories" includes WP:FRINGE/ALT or not. The fact that peoples' opinions differ, as seen above, shows it is high time for a new WP:RfC. I would be happy to work with anyone (i.e. Shibbolethink) on such an RfC. It might not be hard to get a wording we both agree is neutral. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RS reporting about the Lab leak theory is not an endorsement of it. The theory is rooted in a conspiracy theory relying heavily on accident (fallacy) and has no scientific evidence. That's WP:FRINGE/QS. WP:FRINGE/ALT theories usually solve conundrums that existing science can't solve. In this case, existing science can solve it. There is evidence that Covid-19 came from zoonosis, and that's what most scholars believe. The void century 01:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it is pretty obvious that we are not going to come to a consensus in this discussion. We need an RfC. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if the category of "fringe theories" includes WP:FRINGE/ALT or not.
The guidelines seem to imply that in scientific matters, pseudoscience and Fringe are synonymous. Can anyone shed light on this? I think it’s very unlikely that all alternative theoretical formulations would be considered fringe. JustinReilly (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lab leak theory is rooted in a conspiracy theory relying heavily on accident (fallacy) and has no scientific evidence. That's WP:FRINGE/QS.
@The void century, by the linked “fallacy of accident,” did you mean that the lab leak theory relies heavily on coincidences as circumstantial evidence? That’s not what the fallacy of accident seems to be from the link. What did you mean exactly? The question of COVID’s origin is a question of “what happened?”, exactly, to get us this virus. Like other questions of what happened in a specific context, It’s not necessarily a question of pure science, as non-scientific evidence can legitimately form some of the basis for our conclusions about what happened. It’s more similar to courtroom questions like “what happened that night to cause the murder” where both scientific and non-scientific evidence may be germane, than a purely scientific question like “what is the genome of SARS-2.” Thus, the fact that there isn’t direct scientific evidence of either origin hypothesis does not mean that either is FRINGE. JustinReilly (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy of accident is a particularly weak and easily disguised type of circumstantial evidence. The false logic:

1. There is a lab in Wuhan that studies coronaviruses.

2. Covid-19 is a coronavirus that originated in Wuhan.

3. Covid-19 originated in the Wuhan lab.

The point is that it's deductively valid but unsound. It would be like saying this year's NYC flu outbreak came from Mt. Sinai because Mt. Sinai studies flu viruses, even though there are better explanations with evidence.

LL has no empirical evidence. No clustering near the site, pattern of cases, genetic explanation, nor confirmed cases. Just gut feelings. There is empirical evidence that the virus passed to humans from animals in the Huanan market -- confirmed early cases, clustering of cases, spatial association with live animal sales, genetic explanations, and a history of coronaviruses originating from zoonosis. There's no equivalence between these two "theories". One is a suspicion with 0 evidence, the other is science that is widely recognized within research as being the most likely scenario. LL is Fringe. Not pseudoscience, but not science either. The void century 15:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> It would be like saying this year's NYC flu outbreak came from Mt. Sinai because Mt. Sinai studies flu viruses

No it wouldn't. The primary LLH asserts that it is odd and unexpected that a bat-borne sarbecovirus with a furin cleavage site would start naturally in Wuhan (even Shi Zhengli was very surprised to hear this), and meanwhile there is a lab in Wuhan that specializes in studying bat-borne sarbecoviruses and was planning gain of function experiments that involved the insertion of furin cleavage sites into them. Your analogy would only work if it were deemed very surprising for flu to make its way into NYC by natural means, and meanwhile Mt Sinai were performing experiments on injecting unusual features into flu viruses and then a flu pandemic started in NYC with a new kind of flu with the same type of novel feature that Mt Sinai had proposed to experiment with. KaitainJones (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience is a subset of fringe. Anything that departs significantly from the mainstream is fringe. Some fringe theories are still scientific - they don't incorporate unfalsifiable claims the way that pseudoscience does. An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything might be an example - it has few adherents, so it is fringe. But it will be possible to falsify it if certain subatomic particles are detected, so it is not pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @PieLover3141592654: Catagorising the whole article as fringe when the main part of the article is not fringe will just confuse people
JustinReilly (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAs it been demonstrated the m ain part of the article is not fringe. What is the "main part of the article"? Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrated? I don't know that we even have a definition! Possibilities include WP:FRINGE/QS, WP:FRINGE/ALT, "Fringe" according to WP:WEIGHT, and probably something else I haven't thought of. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So then we have definitions of fringe, what has not been demonstrated is that this is not a fringe topic, just that certain parts of it MAY not be. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Definitions". That's a problem! One wants one definition. Pretty sure it's up to those seeking inclusion to demonstrate that it is fringe. But prior to any of that, we need to know what we are talking about. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NO, we have to show RS call it fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven has re-inserted the category with edit summary = "This is long stadning, it needs consnesus to change it." I believe this is false because as far as I can tell the category was originally added on 27 June 2023, and even if was older the policy (WP:ONUS) is that consensus is necessary to re-insert. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong it seems. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through this discussion, it appears that we have reached consensus to re-insert the Fringe category. Per WP:CONSENSUS Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. While there are editors who disagree, I don't see any putting forth a significant policy-based argument on how this topic shouldn't be categorized as Fringe science. Is there a single HQ peer-reviewed source entertaining the idea of LL, in which it's not dismissed as either fringe, conspiracy theory, or unsupported by science/evidence? If not, then it's clearly not science, and that's what the fringe category indicates. The void century 15:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, that is not the relevant test of whether a subject is fringe. To quote Jimbo Wales:

"The consensus in the mainstream media (which is the relevant media for this, rather than MEDRS sources, as it is a social/geopolitical question, as opposed to a medical question) seems to me to have shifted from "This is highly unlikely, and only conspiracy theorists are pushing this narrative" to "This is one of the plausible hypotheses". We can reject conspiracy theorists and agenda-pushers, but we should not in the process blind ourselves to what is being said in reliable sources."

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 246#covid povs PieLover3141592654 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jimbo's is not a reliable or relevant view. When we talk about whether "it" is fringe, we need to be clear what "it" is. Allowing there is a small, non-zero possibility SCV2 might have leaked from a lab is not fringe, pretty much everything beyond that is. LL stans love to use the Motte-and-bailey fallacy to try and buy respectability for wild speculation by leveraging the "non-zero possibility" idea -- and Wikipedia should not play that game. Even if LL might have had some brief moment of semi-respectability in some US media, by now it's pretty much just all seen as conspiracy theory with a few grifters and crazies left pushing it.[9] Bon courage (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoonotic origin proponents have zero evidence to back up their claims, and indeed several factors against them. Two strains at the market suggests it was not the origin, "multi market origin" is xⁿ more unlikely, the authorities specifically sought cases related to market thereby biasing the data, there is no demonstrated route from the nearest relative to Wuhan in the wild animal trade(pangolins were not on sale), but there is for the lab leak theory since the scientists were bringing samples back to the lab for research. Project Defuse, proposed doing research which would have created specifically this kind of virus by addition of a novel cleavage site. We also now have the internal communications of the scientists who published the proximal origins paper, who very well knew how plausible a lab leak was. High Tinker (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adoring nanny I don't think this revert was appropriate. My changes improved the article to accurately reflect the sources and the body of the article. The current scientific consensus is that the theory is unsupported by science. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY says that the lead should reflect the article body. Also I'd prefer if you favor reverting only elements you think are inaccurate rather than every edit, per WP:MASSR. The void century 18:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through multiple discussions around this issue. The prior stable version was the result of a lot of haggling, and changing it would require a consensus. Briefly, the sourcing does support the statement that most scientists do not support LL. But we do not have a consensus that there is a scientific consensus against LL. One editor's opinion does not change that. This should be returned to the prior stable version, per WP:BRD. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time. Please explain why you take issue with the wording unsupported by the current scientific consensus. The void century 05:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've had the discussion many times before, most recently a couple of weeks ago. The expert consensus, as per the WHO, all US intelligence agencies, former heads of US and China CDCs etc is that both a lab leak and natural origin are plausible.

We can say that most scientists believe a natural origin is the more likely of the two as per the previous wording, as that is supported by sources. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, plausibility is nowhere near the same thing as scientific support, evidence, or consensus. The void century 13:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I self-reverted the change to that sentence pending the outcome of this discussion. The void century 05:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The void century: Thanks, but you've left in place changes I don't agree with either, namely a WikiVoice statement that LL is not a "theory", linked from the very top of the lead. That shouldn't be there either, unless consensus can be attained. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PieLover3141592654: no we cannot say that most scientists believe a natural origin is the more likely of the two because that is wp:false balance. It implies a reasonable degree of equivalence between possibilities that are of broadly similar probability. In this case, they are not. Yes, a LL is "plausible" because LLs do happen. But by the same token it is also "plausible", though even less likely, that the virus was brought into Wuhan [inadvertently or otherwise] by a foreign virologist attending the conference there. No competent scientist would ever declare impossible an event with a finite probability, but may well make a considered judgement on what is most likely. Viruses evolve continually; transfer between host species occurs frequently: most influenza epidemics start with an avian/human or porcine/human transfer. High frequency events with no biocontainment practices v very low frequency events with containment protocols, no real contest. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's from a strong source. The Amy Maxmen ref in the article. Unfortunately, I'm failing to get around the paywall now. But I have seen the source, and it used the phrase "Most scientists". Adoring nanny (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big difference between "most scientists believe that a zoonotic origin is the most likely" v "more likely of the two". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest we change the wording. The existing wording (i.e. "most scientists believe that a zoonotic origin is the most likely") is fine and reflects how the sources phrase it. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "most scientists believe" implies that it's opinionated. The reason I want it changed to either unsupported by science or unsupported by the current scientific consensus is because consensus and science are more specific words-- they clarify that the "belief" is informed by empirical evidence, peer review and dialogue. The void century 16:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have long disliked the current wording ...most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis... for a number of reasons, especially what you've just pointed out. The most likely/plausible/parsimonious explanation is spillover occurring at the wet market. Based on current evidence some research related hypotheses cannot be excluded, but that does not justify a lab leak theory. fiveby(zero) 17:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I support your footnote about hypothesis v theory. I don’t think it’s controversial here and think u should revert that edit to put your footnote back in. JustinReilly (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that 2/3 of the editors who opposed these changes are now indef-blocked for fringe Covid editing, I am planning to reinstate the edits except for the footnote which is still being discussed below. I'll wait a little bit longer to see if there are any further disagreements with the changes. The void century 16:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about a compromise? The biggest problem I have with your proposed edit is the deletion of the word "likely". Deleting this word implies we know for sure what happened, which is against what the WHO [10] and US intelligence agencies, asked to investigate this by Biden, say [11]. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "most scientists believe that X is likely" to "most scientists believe X" implies we know for sure what happened? Seriously? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "I believe in God" and "I believe God likely exists". Likely is used later in the article, so I don't see why we'd remove it here and deliberately use imprecise language. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are saying that "I believe in God" implies "we know for sure what happened". Whether you mean that or not, you are not making any sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was an analogy... What I'm saying is the word believe is imprecise. It can imply a high level of certainty (e.g. "an unshakable belief") or a low level of certainty (e.g. "I believe that's the case"). Clearly in this case, we have a very uncertain situation with limited information and data. No one serious claims to know what happened with certainty. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "most scientists believe that X is likely" to "most scientists believe X" does not imply we know for sure what happened, your "analogy" notwithstanding. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best way forward would be for you to explain why you want to make the change? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this should be added or not, but I wanted to make everyone here aware of its existence so they could offer their opinions on whether or not it is notable and relevant enough to include.

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023.07.11-SSCP-Interim-Staff-Report-Re.-Proximal-Origin_FINAL.pdf

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty solid accounting of Fauci and Collins's participation in the lab leak coverup, so yeah I'd say it's relevant. Further, it bolsters the reliability of this page which is severely lacking in credible sourcing. 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:2D54:A14E:D479:4DF7 (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a bit more specific with "above"? High Tinker (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its being discussed above in another thread, it is unhelpful to have to watch two or three threads on the same topic. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. My apologies for the duplicate. And thanks to everyone else who did comment. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title says it all folks. Without retraction of "Proximal Origin," the Nature family of journals cannot be considered reliable sources but rather political propaganda and must be removed from this page and Wikipedia in general.--2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:8967:8E24:7F18:48A7 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

make a case at wp:rsn, I think I will know the outcome. Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

A (yesterday): The lab leak theory has been described as racist and xenophobic, because it has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment.

B (today): The lab leak theory is informed by racist undercurrents, and has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment.

Diff. I don't dispute this idea, and I don't think anyone can, since the citation for this is incredibly thorough. But I have concerns about the phrasing of B from a copy editing perspective. What's it mean for a theory to be informed? What's it mean to be informed by an undercurrent? Surely there's a clearer way to say this? I suggest we go back to A for now. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a Brit v US thing? (Inform here is used to mean "give form or shape to"). For informed maybe "fuelled", or "underpinned", or "fed"? In the article body we quote Goski's "the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak" and that should be somehow mirrored in the lede. Bon courage (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]