Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 327

Archive 320

←

Archive 325

Archive 326

Archive 327

Archive 328

Archive 329

Archive 330

Scriptural texts (WP:RSPSCRIPTURE)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is being restored from the archive per WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE because this RfC was not concluded and a close request lingers at WP:AN/RFC. Since this is a request to modify Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, a definitive reading of the proposal is advisable. It is clear that, despite rigorous discussion, the proposal to modify Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Scriptural_texts (a/k/a WP:RSPSCRIPTURE) did not gain a consensus for implementation. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § WP:RSPSCRIPTURE

 – Moved to the noticeboard, as this discussion has introduced new arguments not found in previous discussions. — Newslinger talk 12:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297

 – Moved to the active noticeboard for the reasons explained above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

About "Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources". Several related articles like David or The Exodus mostly don't follow this approach in the "narrative" section, which seems to work fairly well. The Exodus takes a mostly MOS:PLOT approach, While David has a lot of cites, mostly primary outside "tricky" stuff.

So I suggest we soften the "summarizes" somewhat, something like "though a MOS:PLOTSOURCE approach can work well regarding some scriptural stories." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC) I've linked this discussion at Wikiprojects Christianity, Judaism, and Classical Greece and Rome.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• I too feel that MOS:PLOTSOURCE applies. Meaning that there is a big difference between "summarizing", which basically does not call for any source apart from the primary source, and "interpreting" or "analyzing", which should be based only on sources, to avoid original research. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Debresser, the problem there of course is that there are a lot of translations of the Bible and they are not all consistent, nor are they internally consistent within a given translation. Since Wikipedia isn't a Bible study I think we should avoid the "plot" approach. Guy (help!) 20:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  That is of course correct, but that can be dealt with when it becomes a problem. There's still times when the PLOTSOURCE-approach works well, inconsistencies can be small and need not necessarily enter the "recap" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

user:JzG's argument that the Bible is a translation and any translation is per definition an interpretation, is taking things too far. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, no it's not. Translations can be (and have been) motivated by specific agendas. Some people assert that only the KJV is reliable. The NIV was based on a very thorough and scholarly review of the original sources but KJV believers spend endless hours arguing that the many differences are evidence for the superiority of the KJV. It's exactly what you'd expect from translations of centuries-old sources that were themselves written down long after the events they describe. Guy (help!) 17:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That strikes me of more of a problem with the King James Only movement than with using the Bible as a source for its own narrative content.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, so how do you handle a dispute between a KJV editor and an NIV editor? Or any other two editors with differing editions? Which one do we favour as correct? See my problem here?

It's not as if there is any shortage of independent scholarly analysis of every single word of the Bible. We can easily defer to a secondary source that analyses all the various translations and describes the consensus view. Guy (help!) 18:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, to me that question is akin to "how would you solve a despite between an editor pushing a fundamentalist view of the Bible and one who isn't." The KJB was written 400 years ago, no (reasonable) scholar believes it is infallible and we should obviously use more up to date translations. Anyway, this question is not particularly useful in the abstract: what specific detail of e.g. the Exodus narrative is affected by it?--Ermenrich (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich Riddle me this: how did Haman meet his end? Hanging? Impalement? Crucifixion? Something else? On what was he punished - was it a beam, a stake, a tree (literal or otherwise), a gallows, a gibbet, or a cross (however constructed) that he prepared for Mordechai's execution? The complexity of this question is dwarfed by the question, for instance, of what Jesus is supposed to have carried towards his own execution, or of what is meant by the word "σταυρωθήτω!" Is it "he on rode ahangen" or " Impale him!" or "Let him be impaled!" or "He should be crucified!" or "Let "him" be crucified" or "Crucify him!"? All these English translations are in common circulation and none should be used without scholarly citation.GPinkerton (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no disagreement on how Jesus died. Using The Dream of the Rood as a "common translation" is a strawman argument. As for Haman, if there really is disagreement, then it should obviously be discussed somewhere in the article (which it is). But that's not a normal problem, and simply listing various premodern translations is hardly going to make your point. As I say, modern, scholarly translations should be used.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich You obviously haven't read either Cook's Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World or Samuelsson's Crucifixion in Antiquity! I don't know why you mention the Dream of the Rood, I have not brought it up; the only pre-modern translation of Matt. 27:22 I have used is the 10th century Wessex Gospels. The rest are all contemporary, in-print translations. Look harder, and you'll see ... GPinkerton (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, the fundamental point is sound. Various translations are inconsistent, and we are not allowed to decide which one is right. We should always use secondary sources. Can you imagine that there is a single verse in the Bible that has not been analysed by at least a hundred scholarly secondary sources? Guy (help!) 22:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, by that standard we wouldn't be allowed to summarize any work that has been translated into English based on the work itself if there were more than one translation. But I guess that is actually what you think about plot summaries in general, so props for consistency I guess. My own contention is that issues in translation are generally so small that they aren't likely to cause problems. If they do, then the issue be discussed elsewhere and then it isn't really a problem again.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich Now that is a strawman argument! This isn't about "any work that has been translated into English". It's about scripture, which according in each case to a vociferous minority, is not fiction and needs to be treated differently. GPinkerton (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, cf. for instance WP:RNPOV. There's no reason for us to treat the Bible differently than any other source. If you can make an argument about Bible translations, it should be applicable to any translation used.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich I seem to recall that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia is exactly the reason WP:RSPSCRIPTURE exists. The majority of scripture is considered fiction by the majority of people and can therefore never be a reliable source, even for its own content. There is ample reason to treat the Bible exactly the same as other scripture. GPinkerton (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not according to MOS:PLOT. Applying it differently to narrative religious texts is a blatant double standard.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the Bible ought to be a sufficient source for its own plot. Where there is dispute over wording or differences between versions this can be noted with reference to secondary literature.—Ermenrich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 26 May 2020

Ermenrich It should be obvious by this stage that the Bible's whole "plot" is fundamentally contentious, ambiguous, and very far from agreed-upon, to say nothing of the wording, the entirety of which is constantly in dispute, or even the text itself, which varies enormously in length, arrangement, and subdivisions depending on who you ask or who happens to be editing Wikipedia. GPinkerton (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the status quo wording is preferable, not just due to the issues of translation but also because these issues are compounded by differences in interpretation by different religious groups (not to mention the blurry line between pure plot elements and rules/theological principles that are based on the "plot") , as well as the inherent age and obscurity of many of these texts (an example off the top of my head, it's far from trivial to establish what's going on in Genesis 4:23–24 just by looking at the Hebrew Bible itself). That having been said, I don't think that we need to take an axe to existing high-traffic articles that have a PLOTSOURCE approach; IMO having the status quo and enforcing it leniently will make for less of a headache than loosening the classification and opening the door for editors to start arguing that their interpretations of the text need to be included. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  Either way, there's nothing wrong with improving The Exodus plot with secondary sources, PLOTSOURCE encourages that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Remember that though RSPSCRIPTURE started as BIBLE (I think), it's not just about the Bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that nothing should change about policy. All summarizing is necessarily interpretative, and there is no benefit to Wikipedia editors adding to the huge volume of existing exegesis. Wikipedia is not a Sunday school, a madrassa, or rabbinical conference. There is plenty of secondary and tertiary material to cite, and nothing will be gained from resorting to original research on the content of ancient texts. Absolutely nothing should be referenced to scripture alone! GPinkerton (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody is discussing changing a policy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

To the contrary, see below, that I propose to change this guideline (not policy) a bit. You yourself proposed an small addition above. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Explanatory supplement to a guideline, even more not-policy ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I personally think that it is better to use more lenient wording, because in case of disputes or inconsistencies, secondary sources are anyways going to be necessary to resolve those disputes or inconsistencies. Keeping the more stringent approach in the guideline gives rise to the very real possibility of editors who wil insist on a stringent approach and start removing large pieces of material from the project. We can't count on editors to use a lenient approach, and I've seen policy/guidelines fanatics just too many times in my over 10 years here.

All that is needed is to remove the words "or summarizes" from the guideline. As I said, the difference between "summarizing" on the one hand and "interpreting" or "analyzing" on the other is huge, even when taking into account that any summary is to a certain degree an interpretation. There is definitely a tension between WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and MOS:PLOTSOURCE, and this would be the easiest and best way to resolve it. Debresser (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Why should editors not remove large amounts of material from the project if it doesn't meet policy? What's the value of keeping it? GPinkerton (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE? If you see The_Exodus#Biblical_narrative as problematic, it's preferable that you fix it instead of remove it, since it's quite probably well-covered in sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, because saying the material "doesn't meet policy" is not correct, according to MOS:PLOTSOURCE (and WP:COMMONSENSE). Even if it were unsourced, there is no policy or guideline that says we can't have unsourced information. Only unsourced information that is challenged should be removed, and why would anyone challenge such information, which nobody is saying that is not true? In general, information has intrinsic value, and it hurts me to see you write words like "What's the value of keeping it?". Debresser (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: Information has absolutely no intrinsic value - what a bizarre thought! I challenge such information, and I remove it per WP:UNSOURCED and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. You say: " there is no policy or guideline that says we can't have unsourced information" but that's just not true. All information has to be verifiable. If it's unsourced, it's unverifiable and must be removed, per WP:V.

Read WP:V again, unsourced=/=unverifiable: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Then PRESERVE mentions that removal can be a bad idea, compared to other solutions. The policies both apply, bizarre as it may seem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I see the existence of the entire article as problematic; the whole article is plot summary of Book of Exodus. I have proposed merging the two articles, since their subjects are identical . GPinkerton (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that'll happen, but we'll see. And WP:PRESERVE will apply to other articles too, like Book of Exodus, which is similarly sourced in the Summary section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: WP:PRESERVE does not trump WP:DON'T PRESERVE, which certainly applies in the instance of the exegetical and duplicated The_Exodus#Biblical_narrative section. GPinkerton (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

IMO, WP:PRESERVE applies to the plotsections in the articles mentioned in this thread, since there are likely to be sources in abundance, and anyone can start using them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: The "plot" belongs in its proper article, the Book of Exodus. There is no call for a plot summary of Pride and Prejudice anywhere other than in the article Pride and Prejudice; we don't need it, for instance, at Early modern Britain or British Empire. I don't see why the plot of the Book of Exodus is any different. GPinkerton (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

And to me it seems natural to describe the tale of the Exodus in The Exodus: [1], as long as we have that article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Plot summaries do not deserve their own articles. GPinkerton (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, the article The Exodus covers far more than a "plot summary", it discusses the potential mythical and historical sources of the belief in the Exodus event as well as the development of that belief until the compilation of the Pentateuch, and its cultural significance.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Quite. All topics properly covered under Book of Exodus (history of its composition, legacy and behaviour of its adherents, &c.). GPinkerton (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I would have said something like what Ermenrich said, if I had been awake. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, not at all. The Exodus takes place over four books of the Bible, it isn’t all contained in the book of Exodus.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: As mentioned elsewhere, that is entirely untrue. The Exodus is the departure of the Jews from Egypt, and that happens in Exodus. GPinkerton (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that this above back and forth between Ermenrich and GPinkerton demonstrates the pitfalls of having editors interpret even the plot of religious texts without recourse to secondary sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, It most certainly does not, it illustrates the pitfalls of an editor not actually looking at the articles they are discussing. See [2] The Exodus sage in the Bible incorporates events in Egypt after the death of Joseph through the Israelite departure, the wilderness wanderings, and the Sinai revelations, up to be not including the conquest of Canaan. The account, largely in narrative form, spreads over four books of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so Rosguill, this branch of the discussion is very Exodus-specific (my fault, perhaps). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Or see more authoritative definitions:

The Jewish liberation from slavery in Egypt. The story of the Exodus is contained in a series of narratives in the book of Exodus. It became the epitome of God's power to rescue his people.

- The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (2000)

The biblical traditions concerning the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt are mostly preserved in the second book of the Hebrew scriptures.

- The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001)

The Exodus, the escape of the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt under the leadership of Moses, is the central event of the Hebrew Bible.

- The Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993)

Israel's departure from Egypt.

- Oxford Dictionary of the Bible (2 ed.) (2010)

You can see plainly that the sources treat the Exodus as the events of Exodus. This illustrates the pitfalls of falling into pits. GPinkerton (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to this discussion but I write primarily in the field of religion, which has at times included areas of the Bible, so I have an interest. I support Gråbergs Gråa Sång's suggestion as both practical and realistic. Comparing different translations demonstrates no substantive shift in meaning in 99% of cases, so that's not a real obstacle. There are some real disagreements, but in most Bible articles, those disagreements are not pertinent to the topic, and when they are, they are worthy of articles all by themselves. Those should be mentioned and linked. "Interpretation" includes application and recommendations--"values attached meaning"--and everyone agrees there is no place for that on WP, but a plot summary does not need to be an interpretation. It can and should be simply a summary. I vote in favor of Gråbergs Gråa Sång suggestion, since it basically just acknowledges the reality that this is already being done with some success. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton Now you are just confusing "unverifiable" with "not sourced". The first means that it can not be verified. The second means that it can be verified, but a source is not present. Completely different things. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: No, the latter means it could be verified if there was a source. If there there is not, it is not verifiable. We are not speaking of Verificationism, but verifiability in Wikipedia. Unsourced=unverifiable=completely the same things. GPinkerton (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That is precisely my point. Who says there is no source?? There is first of all a primary source, which is the Bible itself. And there do exist many secondary sources as well for the Biblical narratives, just that we don't need to add them per MOS:PLOTSOURCE. Debresser (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources. It is not appropriate to use scripture as a primary source for anything, still less itself. MOS:PLOTSOURCE does not obviate the inability of scripture to be a reliable source of anything, and MOS:REALWORLD calls for the treatment of such narratives to be independent of the in-universe narrative. I argue MOS:PLOTSOURCE is designed for Wikipedia articles that deal with actual narrative works; it might be appropriate at Book of Exodus to add material cited to Exodus itself, but it is not appropriate anywhere else. It is not appropriate to use scripture as an unqualified source of information on any article not dealing with the scripture itself. GPinkerton (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I think it's worse than that. PLOTSOURCE is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS allowing the cliques of genre fans to engage in what amounts to critical review, using Wikipedia as a publishing venue. It gives carte blanche to film fans to, for example, include intricate trivial plot details and showcase their diligent fandom. I am sure that the intentions are generally pure, but the result is great swathes of content that relies solely on individual Wikipedians' observations of primary material - often visual, not based on text that you can check - and that is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. OK, it's a rather fundamentalist view, but I have seen too many blatantly interpretive "plot summaries" to be at all sanguine about this. Guy (help!) 18:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, plot summaries are fine for universally acknowledged fiction, but summarizing scripture remains the distinct practice of exegesis, which does not match Wikipedia's aims of reflecting scholarly (and not rabbinical or exegetical) literature. GPinkerton (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

What makes PLOTSOURCE a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I do not think plotsource can be used when there is not only more than 3 but more then 100 versions. It seems just a recipe for edit wars over whether or not witches should live or silly text like "according to the NIJV Hop is the greatest, but according to the RNIV its Hope, whilst the ININV says "and hope if the glowiest".Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this discussion is getting held up in the weeds. On the one hand some editors would like to do away with MOS:PLOT altogether and are arguing on those grounds. On the other, editors are arguing that different translations of the Bible are different - which is true to an extent. But it's not as though we don't possess original texts of the Bible in languages other than English. A number of the issues that have been raised so far deal with issues that arise from translating from the Septuagint or Vulgate rather than the original Hebrew/Aramaic of the Old Testament or Greek of the New Testament. Such bldifferences can easily be mentioned and dealt with. Obviously every text or language has ambiguities, and every translation is different, but this is not generally a problem when, for instance, you're summarizing War and Peace based on translation. Whether in the Book of Exodus the Hebrews are said to build "treasure cities" (KJV) "supply cities" (NRSV) or "store cities" (Jan Assmann) is not really a major issue for summarizing what happens. Nor is the different ways that a verb meaning "to execute" is translated, whether it be "impale" "crucify" or "hang": they all have the result the person in question is to be killed. When something rises to the level of being a major dispute between translations, then of course scholarly sources need to be used to comment. But such cases are extremely rare. I have yet to see a single convincing example of where the "translation problem" makes a major difference for summarizing the plot of a narrative Biblical book.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Except that (unlike a novel) everyones translation is the authoritative version. Nor is it simple a case of "house, home or building". It it witch or poisoner? Nor is the Christian bible exactly a faithful translation of the Hebrew text (and that is the original version of the old testament).Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether a particular group considers "their" translation authoritative is irrelevant. Scholars look at the originals, and Wikipedia summarizes scholarly knowledge. If there's a major difference (poisoner or witch) it can very easily be noted. Most such differences are not large, however, and we should show an obvious preference to modern, scholarly translations over older translations that are 1) less accurate and 2) do not reflect contemporary language and usage.

Anyway, I think I've made my position pretty clear. I'm going to bow out of this discussion rather than repeat myself.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If I read you right, we should identify and resolve the inconsistencies by our own analysis? I hope I am misunderstanding you there. It is really pretty simple. In all of literature there is no work that has a greater volume of secondary analytical sources. Not even Shakespeare comes close. Using primary sources is unnecessary. Guy (help!) 16:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If by "our own analysis" you mean "we should use a modern translation and note discrepancies between major modern translations if there are any with recourse to secondary literature," then yes, that's what I'm saying.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy's point is excellent, the Bible is the most examines commented on and analysed book in human history. I doubt there is one word that has not been mulled over in countless RS. Why do we need to even use it, what is the text that is being argued over here?Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe the discussion was started because The Exodus currently bases most of its plot summary on the last four biblical books of the Pentateuch themselves.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The text of WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, see beginning of thread. And though I only used biblical examples, I didn't foresee the discussion becoming this bible-centric. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

So why not use secondary RS instead?Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself: 1) most secondary sources do not summarize the content of all four books in more than a cursory way. At best they mention specific episodes and analyze them 2) the NRIV Bible was on hand and I naturally assumed it could be used the same way as I could the Aeneid according to MOS:PLOT.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Nothing stops that, certainly not MOS:PLOTSOURCE, and it is welcome where it happens. But it didn't occur for the editors of the plot-sections David, Solomon, The Exodus, Book of Exodus, Book of Genesis, Gylfaginning etc to do so, I'm guessing because the "better primary than nothing" mindset is out there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading then NIRV makes a number of changes to the Hebrew text.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Im sure that it does, but these are mostly syntactic as I recall. At any rate, what significant changes does it make to the Exodus narrative beyond details? We’re summarizing, not quoting after all.—Ermenrich (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Because the whole reason why a (say) film plot is RS for its plot is because Col. Robert Neville, M.D is a US army doctor Vs mutants led by Anthony Zerbe (in its original form), but you could not use that as a source for the plot of the novel (even though there are many similarities). So we should also use the original (and only the original) of (say) the OT.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The idea that some Hebrew text or English translation based on it is somehow more reliable than one based on Greek or Latin is some very special special pleading! Texts considered holy are very often mainly translated and edited by religious minorities (all religions are minorities) and their translations are inherently POV as a result. There is no possibility of neutrality in deriving Wikipedia's NPOV from scripture without the mediation of reliable scholarly sources (i.e. ones not written by the religions themselves centuries ago). Scriptural translations, however new, cannot be neutral or reliable, and that is not their intended purpose. GPinkerton (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That is kind of my point, there is not single authoritative version.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Ermenrich and others, a simple summary of the "plot" of a biblical story line can be sourced to a modern translation of the text itself, if anyone wants to add a secondary source they can do so but it should not be a requirement.Smeat75 (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Coming over from WikiProject:CGR, I agee that in principle, the Bible itself is an adequate source for its own contents, provided that the interpretation of those contents should be sourced to reliable independent sources. Even though many passages in every book of the Bible have been commented on or disputed, the general narrative itself is usually straightforward. Where disputes arise as to the meaning of an unclear passage, or something that could be translated with two or more plausible meanings, or either literally or metaphorically, then of course additional sources are needed. But simply reporting a straightforward summary of any book should be non-controversial, and the Bible shouldn't differ in that respect from Pride and Prejudice or Winnie-the-Pooh. Which, I might add, might be good for calming down after disputes like this. Hunny, anyone? P Aculeius (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: My contention would be that scriptures differ from the examples you mention by their inability to be read without making a symbolic or interpretative judgements. For instance Numbers 31 might be summarized thus: "Moses orders the genocide of the Midianites, the Eleazar and the Israelites obey and secure their sexual gratification by the concubinage of the remaining Midianite children, and then Moses organizes the division and ritual purification of the Midianites' property among himself and his warlords at Moab." That's what the text says happened. But doubtless this is not how Biblical exegesis frames the matter (i.e., the typical victim-blaming is usually employed in theological commentary). A straightforward summary, but perhaps not an uncontroversial one. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"Numbers" 31 is a perfectly good source for the fact that it says something. What it means, or why it says it, requires an independent source. But the fact that it says it doesn't need another source. P Aculeius (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That is far from a neutral summary of the contents of Numbers 31 GPinkerton. Using the term "genocide", not in the text, is an interpretation which would certainly require a secondary source as would "secure their sexual gratification by the concubinage of the remaining Midianite children" which is also an interpretation, not what the text says, similarly using the term "warlords".Smeat75 (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Smeat75: It is neutral. The words genocide, concubinage, and warlord are not in the text, but we don't summarize narratives by rearranging the original words but describing the events. Using terms like "warlord" summarizes the content of the text's "officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle", while "genocide" is the term used to describe the deliberate massacre of all the male Midianites, all the adult female Midianites, and the confiscation of their possessions, all of which Numbers 31 says Moses organized using the more wordy rhetoric of "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him". Moses orders virgins to be spared "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive" adding that they are "for yourselves". I don't really know how describing this process as genocide and concubinage can be controversial at all! It does, however, demonstrate that without secondary sources summarizing scriptural events will not be to everyone's satisfaction. GPinkerton (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No of course we don't use the exact words only in a different order but that is a very slanted summary of Numbers 31. A neutral summary would say something like "ordered them all killed" not genocide and "you can keep the virgin girls for yourselves" rather than "secure their sexual gratification by the concubinage of the remaining Midianite children". Certainly if anyone wanted to use such POV terms they would need to be referenced to a secondary reliable source but a neutral summary does not.Smeat75 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I said that "Numbers" 31 is a satisfactory source for what it says, but I didn't use GPinkerton's wording, which was irrelevant to the point I was making. Obviously it's a questionable description, since it employs anachronistic terms, and seems to be applying modern sensibilities to a description of events that may or may not have happened, thousands of years ago. Naturally any summary needs to be neutrally worded—which is not to say that it can't say anything positive or negative, just that as editors we can't add our own opinions to the way that material is presented by the source. That's what independent sources are for. But it has no bearing on whether the a writing is an adequate source for its own contents. P Aculeius (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Honestly, my recollection of MOS:PLOTSOURCE is that a huge part of the reason for it is because so many works lack secondary sources on their plots - if we were to remove it we would have very little to say about many works at all. Additionally, the reading and interpretation of the plot of most works (especially ones that have few secondary sources) is generally uncontroversial. Both of these rationales are as wrong as it's possible to be in the case of scripture. MOS:PLOTSOURCE even says Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points. Obviously that "sometimes" applies here and the "otherwise" does not, which means PLOTSOURCE does not apply to scripture; but if there's confusion, perhaps PLOTSOURCE should be rewritten to more clearly state that if secondary sourcing exists we are required to use it and not primary sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• In my opinion, referencing a Biblical verse generally leaves less room for distortion than referencing a secondary source. While everyone has an agenda, it is much harder to fit an agenda into a word-for-word translation than into a freerunning discussion of the Bible as well as whatever other subjects one wants to discuss. Also, the reader can easily look up a Biblical source themselves, while an academic secondary source is more difficult to verify and its reliability much more difficult to verify. If someone will object that Biblical translations are often by biased religious groups while acceptable secondary sources are by academics, the response is that there also exist Biblical translations by academics. If there is a specific point in the Biblical text that is disputed (like "genocide" in the example above), then that's the moment to bring a secondary source which summarizes the controversy while giving each side its proper weight. Ar2332 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. That argument would apply to all primary vs. secondary sources; you are essentially arguing that a primary source is always better than a secondary one, which is exactly the opposite of policy. We can argue whether it is acceptable to use primary scriptural sources in the absence of a secondary source, or whether citations to primary sources need to be removed on sight rather than waiting form someone to do the legwork of replacing them; but it is non-negotiable that a (reliable, high-quality) secondary source is absolutely required in any situation where "analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic" text is required,. which is the vast majority of what we do. It is vital that secondary sources will always completely replace any editors's personal statement or interpretation of a primacy source, and it is policy and that we cannot cite entire sections solely to primary sources (certainly WP:NOR is a stronger policy than MOS:PLOTSOURCE.) It is easy to say "everyone has an agenda so let's just use the primary source", but what you're ignoring is that when an editor performs WP:OR using a primary biblical source (something that I would argue is almost inescapable when citing one), we are reflecting their personal agenda as a random anonymous editor; whereas secondary sources have reputations and weight that can be used to evaluate them. Our articles should reflect the writings, interpretations, and focuses of reliable, established scholars of biblical text (or the equivalent in terms of reputation and reliability.) They should not reflect the personal musings, interpretations, focuses, or readings that anonymous editors bring to the primary text. That means that as a matter of policy we should always strive to minimize the extent to which we cite religious texts as primary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a complete misstatement of policy. Primary sources must be used with caution, but they are not inherently unreliable, nor should they ever be removed "on sight". In the case of what a work of literature (not limiting that to fiction, which is what PLOT and PLOTSUMMARY explicitly apply to; while the Bible may not rise to the level of a formal history, and relates many events that are not of a historical nature and not susceptible of proof, it certainly isn't "fiction"—but this is beside the point I'm making here), the work itself is necessarily the most authoritative source for its contents. Where translations differ in some meaningful respect, or different manuscripts give different versions, then of course additional sources are needed—additional, shedding light on what the original text says. In the case of an example cited above, "Numbers" 31, it would be absurd to depend entirely on secondary sources for the content, without citing to the source in which it occurs—particularly as "Numbers" 31 is likely to be the only account of those precise events that secondary sources have to analyze—although of course they may be able to compare what is said with other passages and other events for which additional material is available.

It is not "original research" to report what is said by a primary source, as long as that account is explicitly attributed to it, reasonably accurate, neutral, and verifiable. If anybody can read "Numbers" 31 and see that it says what it is cited for, then there is no problem. And of course if what it says doesn't match what an editor writes about it, or the wording of the article isn't appropriate, that should be addressed by revising or rewording the article, not by removing the source: secondary sources are just as susceptible to being mischaracterized in an article as primary sources. Note, I am not contending that secondary sources are unimportant. They are essential for the interpretation of the material contained in primary sources. But we do not remove primary sources because the secondary sources for interpreting them are lacking, nor simply because secondary sources have been cited. It isn't always necessary to have primary sources, but there's nothing whatever wrong with using them, provided they're used appropriately for the content of what they say. P Aculeius (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton said above "summarizing scripture remains the distinct practice of exegesis". A statement I completely disagree with. Summarizing is not the same as exegesis. A good summary will try not to interpret at all. It is precisely because of this distinction that I am of the opinion that the words "or summarizes" should be removed from WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Debresser (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy that PLOTSOURCE is a bad idea in general, although perhaps unavoidable if there are few sources discussing the plot (although arguably the solution is that marginally notable films and so forth should just be deleted). Without enforcing secondary source requirements it is very easy for editors to do as GPinkerton is demonstrating. For scripture it's especially unjustifiable because there are so many sources discussing it. We should try to use the most reliable sources to avoid cherry-picking the sources that might be pushing a certain agenda with their interpretation. The Oxford Companion to the Bible and The Cambridge Companion to the Bible seem like good places to start. buidhe 23:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Coming to this discussion, I have to admit I'm not quite clear what the central point of this dispute actually is. Are we talking about providing a summary of the book of the Bible in the article? I don't see why WP:PLOT doesn't apply: what any article wants is a concise summary of the written text, with enough detail so a reader can identify which book of the Bible it is, not some paraphrase. (And if the summary is hung up on differences in translation, I suspect that is a warning that the summary is going into too much detail.) Is it about how to use statements from the Bible in other articles? Is there any reason not to treat it as we do any other primary source? We cite it for basic facts (e.g. David was king of Judah & Israel, with chapter & verse), then turn to secondary sources to explicate the text, if it is unclear. If there are significant differences in translations of the passage, & if it matters to the article, IMHO we provide the word in question (from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek) & again turn to secondary sources to explicate the text. Just because the Bible is a religious text shouldn't mean we handle citing it as a source any differently than, say, The Iliad or Pliny's Historia Naturalis.

But these are obvious solutions to this problem; having written this, I feel like I'm lecturing experts in a subject about which I audited a single class. Since there are a number of intelligent editors here I respect, I must be missing what the point of this discussion truly is. -- llywrch (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I found everything you've said perfectly common sense too, Llywrch, but as currently written WP:RSPSCRIPTURE states that Scriptural texts, like the Bible and the Quran, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate. I guess some edits take this to mean that a summary of the content of say The Exodus from the Bible is in violation of this guideline. I haven't really understood most of the arguments put forth in favor of limiting summaries of biblical narratives in this way, which mostly hinge on (honestly, extremely detail-oriented) differences in different translation and the fact that various groups hold only their translation to be correct. It could indeed be that there's some degree of talking past each other here.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Added this discussion at WP:RFCLOSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

@Eggishorn: I guess I am a little confused with the formatting of this section. You said you were moving it here out of the archive—does that mean that you've opened it up for discussion? Right now it's {{cot}}ted and {{closed rfc top}}ped... jp×g 01:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: I've used both templates because the discussion was quite long and restoring that much text to an active board would be somewhat disruptive. Nevertheless, it is an RfC for which a close was requested so I have added a non-admin close. I hope that explains things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Newslinger, pinging you since I assume this means that link #5 at WP:RSPSCRIPTURE needs tweaking at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

​ Done in Special:Diff/1004827597. Thanks for the notice. I would recommend removing the {{cot}} and {{cob}} templates after the discussion is archived. — Newslinger talk 16:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger:, I'll keep an eye on that and remove the templates when archived so the archive page presents the whole discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

List of one-hit wonders on the UK Singles Chart

Hello, I think there is a bit of an argument going on to what constitutes a one-hit wonder in the UK chart, with some editors making their own rules up rather than just reflecting what is posted on the Official Charts Company site...so I want to know if we to take the OCC's word to who is credited with a hit single and how many singles that act have or not... but first some background info...

Originally in 2008, Cexycy updated the list and put this in the comments page...

"I have the Guiness Hit Singles book, edition 7. Yes I know this is a long time ago, however later versions do not seem to include the One Hit Wonders and other interesting bits of pop trivia. I did e-mail them and asked them to include bits and they said they would in the next edition. Sadly this was not the case. In the edition I have, they list the One Hit Wonders, up to 1988, then they list the ones which appeared in different guises, such and Frank and Nancy Sinatra with Something Stupid, etc. It is in this list that John Denver appears as on his own, he IS a OHW, however him and Placido Domingo are technically another artist. Therefore under the guide of (just) John Denver, he IS a ONW, not the sort that should be included in the main list. should be included in the Worthy Note section of the article for this very reason. As should all the other artist collabortations. They have just as much right to be there as the charity acts, who are just the same. I forgot to add, the article itself says Guinness Book of Hit Singles' policy will be used, and they have included John Denver in their list of OHWs in other guises. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but please bear this in mind". --Cexycy (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

and the reply years later was...

"Yes, I agree, the Guinness Book of does list all the collaborations, so fair enough. It's probably worth listing given that he's never had another hit otherwise.
As for the Nancy and Frank Sinatra case - that's a tricky one really, the Guinness Book of does list all those instances as well, as an act in their own right, they are technically a OHW, but I feel that common sense needs to come into it a little bit with these artists - as well as the fact that the list will become very long. If you look - Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin are listed seperately although their No.1 was together, but are in the list because neither had another hit.
It's a bit of a grey issue, but it would seem a bit silly to have Frank Sinatra listed as a OHW, but I won't argue on a technicality and it's up to consensus really. But yes, I agree with you now, John Denver would be worth mentioning at least". --Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Now a few days ago I added "Party Rock Anthem" by LMFAO/Lauren Bennett/GoonRock as it was missing from the list...which is how is is listed on the OCC site. At this point that the one hit wonders list was full of secondary/featured artists and so added it to the article and put the following info in the comments section...

"Info about GoonRock (see below) added under 'Collaborations classified as one-hit wonders' though you might want to move him to the main section. I only have the Virgin book to hand, not the Guinness ones so I cannot check how they listed collaborations between three artists listed equally...though it is likely to be separate in the early days of the Guinness books as something like 'DAVID GUETTA & CHRIS WILLIS' would have been listed as a separate recording act to David Guetta on his own as they've had 4 hits together (if it was just one David Guetta ft Chris Willis that would be added to Guetta's hit total) As the methodology stated in the intro is about two artists releasing a record together and getting to number one and not three artists credited equally by the OCC getting to number one, I wasn't sure where to add GoonRock, but obviously it needs to be on here...

According to the Official Charts Company (OCC), "Party Rock Anthem" is a number one record credited jointly to LMFAO/Lauren Bennett/GoonRock. Of these three acts LMFAO are credited with having five Top 75 hits with their other number one "Gettin' Over You" only credited to David Guetta and Chris Willis at this moment (the OCC have decided not to credit LMFAO and Fergie, even though their names are shown on the website, appearing on the single's cover) Lauren Bennett has never had any other hits under her own name, but has had a few hits as part of the band G.R.L., while GoonRock is a producer who has also never had any credited hits of his own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.169.1 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

...however at this point Tuzapicabit came back after deleting the information...and said...

"I've already removed the entry. The OCC doesn't give accurate credits probably due to space. The single was by LMFAO and featured the other two, so not eligible". Tuzapicabit (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

...however I think that this is not just reporting on what the OCC have put, but turning into a bit of 'original research' by Tuzapicabit as he has put no links to this reasoning...with Tuzapicabit deciding what can or cannot be on the list. However as he didn't want all the secondary artists listed they were all removed from the main list as a compromise...I replied...

"...but you can only go off what the OCC states not what Wikipedia is saying and if the OCC state they are credited jointly then so be it. By the way I have removed all the featured artists from the list because that is your reasoning for GoonRock not being in the main list (he should be, though note that I didn't add him directly to the main list). I have not removed Avery Storm at this point at this point as if you look at the wikipedia article for Nasty Girl (The Notorious B.I.G. song) you can see the cover of the record an it it by Notorious B.I.G. featuring Diddy, Nelly Jagged Edge, and Avery Storm. You can be overly pedantic if you want but all information has to be treated equally, and therefore I expect you to delete Avery Storm from the list if you believe all featured artists are not eligible". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.237.218 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Now the inclusion of featured artists (or more correctly secondary artists) boils down to the introduction in a very old chart book...which is probably 30 years out of date and one which has not kept up to date with the charts, as in the 1980s any artist with an '&' and 'versus' on their name were seen as a completely separate act and given their own entry. However, now the OCC state that Tina Turner's first hit was "RIVER DEEP, MOUNTAIN HIGH" (number 3 in 1966 with Ike) with Tina having 44 UK Top 75s between 1966 - 2020. Its the same for Cher, who had had 42 UK Top 75s between 1965 - 2013 with her first hit being "I GOT YOU BABE", a number one. So are you going to argue with the Official Charts Company, who are the people whose information we are basing the facts on, the people who make the rules? By the way, there seems to be no information to what makes a hit in the current chart rules for a secondary artist...with the only information being found being the following...

"5.0 Combining of Transactions

i) A maximum of three singles within the Top 100 by the same artist will be chart eligible. These will be the three most popular singles in a week based on combined sales and streams. (Also see 6.0 Exclusions)

ii) In the case of singles featuring a secondary artist(s), they will only count towards the primary named artist’s maximum of three chart eligible singles.

iii) In the case of singles that are equal collaborations between two or more artists, a single will count towards the maximum of three chart eligible singles of the artist on the releasing label".

However from the lists of edits it looks like some people have been making it up as they go along, deciding what the rules are...doesn't this go against the idea of Wikipedia, the 'No original research', the neutral point of view, the just 'report on the information from the primary source' idea of the site. I deleted the featured artists from the main list to give people the benefit of the doubt, in good faith, because that what the advice was. But I don't think this is correct, I don't think they should be deleted, I still believe its important information, and I would expect someone to re-edit the information back at some point and maybe put elsewhere in the article.

Its one thing to continue a list from a 1989 Guinness Book of British Hit Singles because the book is not being published, but it does seem that people are sitting on the article, making up their own rules as they go along which is not helping help the wikipedia project, not welcoming to newcomers and you might as well scrap the article and merge it into the main One-hit wonders list as it becomes and as worthy as OnePoll's The Nation's Favourite One Hit Wonders list.

Some of the entries that remain even contradict the OCC's information provided on their site ( "...records with re-recorded vocals (for example, live versions) and Remixes released with substantially different catalogue numbers did not count towards the total and were seen as new hits (see "Blue Monday" as an example)." but if its the Official Charts Company information that people are using to state what is number one then shouldn't it always be the primary source. Do we contradict this source? The people whose chart we are using?

References

Daily Star: is the Irish Daily Star covered by the deprecation?

The WP:DAILYSTAR, https://dailystar.co.uk/ , is deprecated as tabloid trash with a history of fabrication. I've been removing cites to it, as deprecated. I also removed links to the Irish edition, the Irish Daily Star, https://thestar.ie/ - and Silver seren reverted one, and asked on my talk if this was really the same.

So, this is a question worth going into. We treat the Irish and Scottish editions of The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday as being other examples of the same thing. Is the Irish Daily Star the same thing as the Daily Star? Should it be considered deprecated by the deprecation of the UK edition? Is it also tabloid trash that would be a Generally Unreliable source in its own way? Does it have a history of reprinting the UK edition's fabrications? Does it print its own original fabrications? I suspect at this point we need data - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

P2P Foundation

• p2pfoundation.net  

I can't find any indication that P2P Foundation is a reliable mainstream source, and most of the150-odd links appear to be either self-sourcing ("According to P2P foundation, blah, source, P2P foundation saying blah on its own website") or links to its wiki, which clearly fail RS. The sources we cite are long on cryptobollocks and short on third party commentary - I see very little evidence that any reality-based economists are referencing these articles - it looks like standard in-universe blockchain fandom to me, but David Gerard is better informed on that. It looks to me as if this is a fringe pro-crypto source that we should be using much less than we do, and some of the articles around P2P foundation may be PR. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

yyyyeah, I'd use it as a primary source at best. I'd never have heard of it, except Satoshi Nakamoto would announce Bitcoin releases there, and allegedly posted there in 2014. I wouldn't regard it as a suitable third-party source for real things, and those usages should be removed with alacrity. The P2P Foundation article could do with an acerbic eye itself - David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed a pile of these, though not all. There's some tendrils into proper academia. I think each removal will need thought - David Gerard (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P2P Foundation --Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

mantleplumes.org

We currently have 134 citations to mantleplumes.org  , which according to this Earth Magazine article is operated by Gillian Foulger, a Professor of Geophysics at Durham University. Both Foulger and the website are promogulators of what is referred to as Plate theory (volcanism), which argues against the prevailing theory of mantle plumes as the cause of geological hotspots like the Hawaiian Islands. As the Earth Magazine article makes clear, "plate theory" isn't out and out fringe, but the existence of mantle plumes is very much considered the mainstream hypothesis. This came to the attention of WikiProject Geology (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Plate_theory_(volcanism)) due to the recent creation of the Plate theory (volcanism) article, as well as mass rewriting of hotspot related articles by the author of the article SphericalSong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to support the "plate theory" pov and cast doubt on mantle plumes as the source of their origin, citing both mantleplumes.org and Foulger's 2011 book "Plates vs plumes: a geological controversy", see 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 for examples. In my opinion mantleplumes.org displays no evidence of editoral oversight, and is pretty much a self-published source, and self-published sources are totally undue in a topic area like mantle plumes where there extensive reliable peer reviewed journal articles on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the Plate theory (volcanism) article is spotlighted on mantleplumes.org, with the title: "New Wikipedia page established: Plate theory (volcanism)", which suggests that there may have been a COI involved in the creation of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• They claim that Every page on this website has been subject to technical review by at least one scientist conversant with the subject material, but that's an incredibly low bar, particularly since there's no editorial board. The review could just be one person going "looks good" and clicking "publish". I'd say avoid it and stick to the formal literature. XOR'easter (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• This seems fine to me. Apparently, Gillian Foulger was awarded the 2005 Price Medal "for investigations of outstanding merit in solid-earth geophysics, oceanography, or planetary sciences" of the Royal Astronomical Society.[4] That same year she was also made a Fellow of the Icelandic National Academy of Sciences. Like, I don't know if the Royal Astronomical Society is "lame" or "cringe" or whatever, but we live in a society, and this society seems to think she is a volcanologist. I don't think anyone else here so far has been a volcanologist. What does some rando writing goofy articles have to do with source deprecation? jp×g 03:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Foulger is a respected scientist, I never claimed she wasn't. My point is though is that the website is a self-published advocacy source for a minority view in geophysics, and when covering this topic appropriate due weight needs to be given to how the ideas are received by the wider academic community. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It could be a reliable self-published source. But we are not obligated to include information from every reliable source. ElKevbo (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of respectable and even esteemed scientists write stuff that isn't peer-reviewed, like blog posts or preprints that just sit on the arXiv. These are self-published sources and so have to be used with care; for example, they'd probably be OK as a supplemental reference for standard textbook-level material, and they probably wouldn't be OK for the scientist's own research. This website looks to be on the latter end, as it's a self-published advocacy source for a minority view as Hemiauchenia said. It's no slight upon a scientist to run such a website, but that kind of website is not what we ought to look for. XOR'easter (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: the account Gfoulger (who presumably is Gillian Foulger) has responded over at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Marquesas_hotspot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Xposting DanHobley's comments on the reliability of Mantleplumes.org from WT:GEOLOGY

mantleplumes.org is not a reputable source - it's widely recognised as an advocacy website for a specific - and TBH, pretty fringe - point of view on mantle dynamics. Gillian Foulger created the hypothesis, is/was very involved in that website, and it is decidedly non-mainstream.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Reneverdugo.org used at The Last Narc (TV series)

This edit [3] changes The Last Narc (TV series) so that we now describe Amazon's documentary series as "fictional" in wikivoice. The change is based on repeated links to http://www.reneverdugo.org; as far as I can tell it's a personal advocacy website that's hosting WP:PRIMARY sources created 20 years before the production of the documentary.

I don't see the point of using primary sources or reneverdugo.org to claim in Wikivoice that a documentary is fictional, when recent, secondary sources are already available to us (e.g. [4][5][6]), high-quality newspaper and academic sources on the same general topic are also available (e.g. [7][8][9][10][11][12]). -Darouet (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• So, is Reneverdugo.org a reliable source to be used at The Last Narc (TV series), and can we use it to describe the documentary as "fictional?" -Darouet (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Primary sourcing vs. secondary sourcing

Okay, so I'm working a bit on the Bodleian Library at Oxford U.) article and I keep running into a lot of primary sourcing (ie. novels) that apparently use the location as a prolonged backdrop for their story. Most of the time, the library is mentioned in passing or used in a specific scene, while at other times (like for Inspector Morse novels which are set in and around Oxford) seem integral.
As well, different features of the library are used (the front door as a front door to Hogwarts or whatever) for tv and film (though often not by name).
How explicit does the sourcing have to be that connects the novel or a visual representation of a door or a courtyard to the library? My thoughts are that while primary sources are okay (so long as the use of the library is not incidental and therefore trivial), secondary sources that note the novel's usage of the library would be better. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, Yes, your perception is generally accurate, although these concerns are more about original research than reliable sources per se (we have an original research noticeboard). In general, it does have to be an explicit mention in order to avoid original research. Also, some editors may not think that it's WP:DUE unless a secondary source draws the connection. (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, ah yes, I can see how my initial framing seems to fall under ORN, but I think what brought me here was a) the usage of primary sources despite the possibility of triviality and, b) the usage of the Visit Oxford travel website as a source for movies/series that have been shot there. I was hoping for a good way to explain it to others that we can't use these (cites from these sites? lol) as a source of info, as they are essentially marketing fare, and can change at the drop of a hat. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Showbiz411

Is Showbiz411[13] an RS for material about living persons (other than material about the person who is writing the material in question)? Thanks. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A1A3:633:94F3:E5BF (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia, context-sensitive

The current WP:RSPWP states that Wikipedia should never be cited, similar to The Signpost. However I think that there are instances when WP and Signpost can be cited as a primary or about-self source. For example, in the namesake article's History section, the statement "Snow wrote in its first issue: "I hope this will be a worthwhile source of news for people interested in what is happening around the Wikipedia community"" is supported by a Signpost article Snow wrote himself. There's no way this is considered unreliable. Overall, there are more than 10 Signpost citations in that article, all of which are non-controversial. Thus, I think it'd be useful to add in WP:RSPWP that context matters; primaries such as those cited in the Singpost article are allowed. GeraldWL 08:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The entry for Wikipedia (RSP entry) currently has the generally unreliable classification, which indicates that Wikipedia can still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions when there is consensus to do so, subject to due weight. Also, the description of the entry states, "see WP:CIRCULAR for guidance", and WP:CIRCULAR states, "An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia." The second paragraph of WP:CIRCULAR permits the citations in the article for The Signpost. How would you suggest for WP:RSPWP to be rephrased to clarify this? — Newslinger talk 09:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec)WP:RSPWP links to WP:SPS, with WP:ABOUTSELF just below. These give some leeway which I think cover the "Snow wrote..." example (one can of course then bicker on WP:PROPORTION grounds). I'm not sure this needs clarification in the WP:RSPWP-text, The Signpost is a small part of "WP". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, columns like the Forbes.com contributors have words like "unless written by a subject expert matter". The red cross sign can be misinterpreted as "not allowed", and not many will bother to go to WP:CIRCULAR to review references. It'll be useful to have words saying that context matters. GeraldWL 09:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Context always matters, WP:RSP is quite clear on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, but many may not know it. When I first discovered the RSP, I don't understand the legend, the intention, I just looked through the table and the summary. Just like how it matters to note in the WordPress column that context matters, the Wikipedia column must have the same treatment. GeraldWL 10:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:s pages are full of things that many may not know. Often they are told if they ask (and sometimes without asking). Sorry, but I'm meh on this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Are New York Magazine and Infection Control Today reliable sources for the idea that COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab?

Over the past couple of weeks there has been significant agitation by SPA's and some long time users over at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic talk pages that the idea the virus escaped from a Chinese lab is credible and should be treated as such, despite there being absolutely no evidence for this postulation. People have differed over whether the "lab leak theory" comes under WP:MEDRS or not. One of the major sources of the recent agitation is an article entitled "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis" in New York Magazine by Nicholson Baker from January 4th. I and several others on the talk page don't think it is a reliable source, as Nicholson Baker is a writer who his best known for his experimental novels and has no expertise in virology or medicine, and his inclusion would be undue. Arcturus has proclaimed on Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology that Infection Control Today is reliable source that the claims that SARS COV 2 leaked from a Chinese lab are credible, citing an article entitled Idea That COVID-19 Began as a Lab Leak Spreads, which reports favourably on the NYM story. Because Infection Control Today has been cited 33 times according to www.infectioncontroltoday.com   Arcturus stated:

If you search Wikipedia for "Infection Control Today" (using the quotes) you'll see that it is used in many articles as a source. So how is not a RS? It's certainly not included in the list of deprecated sources. Given the articles in which it's used, maybe it's also MEDRS.

I honestly don't know what to say other than this shows Arcturus has serious WP:CIR issues when it comes to our reliable sources policy. Aside from that "Infection Control Today" looks like a marginal source. It's owned by MJH Life Sciences, an obscure company which I can find little about, and all their other websites like Cancer Network look exactly the same, which doesn't inspire confidence. I can't find out anything about the author of the article and most others on the site "Frank Diamond" other than that he is the managing editor, and there is no evidence of editorial control. Their twitter account only has around 5,000 followers, suggesting that they are not a prominent source among medical professionals. Definitely not a WP:MEDRS, and probably not due for claims about the lab leak theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Neither is a reliable source for this topic. Claims about the fundamental plausibility of the "lab leak hypothesis" (rather generous phrasing) require WP:MEDRS-level sourcing because, well, they're biomedical claims. More peripheral statements, along the lines of "the conspiracy theory about a lab leak spread on social-media platform X" might in principle be sourced to the Washington Post and its ilk, but that's not what's in contention here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  So far, every page I've looked at that's cited "Infection Control Today" did so to point at a press release or the equivalent. I'd hazard a guess that the encyclopedia would benefit if each of those ~30 citations were overhauled. (It's also been cited in conjunction with bioRxiv, which is a preprint server and very definitely does not meet WP:MEDRS.) XOR'easter (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  In one form or another, we keep seeing the argument that the risks of scientific research and the topic of laboratory safety are not a part of science. This argument leaves me completely baffled. But the entire case for treating a non-expert's writing in a general-interest magazine as reliable rests upon it. XOR'easter (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  In a way it's too bad that Twitter threads aren't the kind of sources we look for, even when from a bioethicist and a virologist, as they are ... colorful. But they do illustrate that the failure of the New York story involves adaptive mutation and how BSL-3/4 work is regulated and codon usage analysis done in silico, to name only a few points. When reliability turns on matters like these, the topic requires specialist knowledge, and the way we as a community that includes a lot of generalists handles that is by requiring the highest standard of sourcing possible. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Neither for the reasons articulated by XOR. (t · c) buidhe 02:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• ICT is RS, almost certainly Why would it NOT be a RS? The suggestion that the lab leak theory should be supported by MEDRS is bunkum. One might equally argue that a forensic science source is required. I agree, it probably doesn't meet MEDRS, but as I say, it doesn't need to. If it doesn't meet RS, then I'm wondering if there's a hell of a lot of other sources used in medical articles that also don't. Here are some links, some or all, of which may help with an assessment: [14][15][16][17][18] Arcturus (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

According to my reading of WP:MEDRS, questions about the origins of COVID-19 do require medrs-sourcing, because specialized knowledge of epidemiology and medical science is required to determine the answers to those questions. NightHeron (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Just for some background, the debate on this page is only taking place because at the moment we have the subject of the possible Wuhan lab leak branded as "conspiracy" at the Wuhan Institute of Virology article. However, none of the references in the Conspiracy theories section of that article are WP:MEDRS compliant. Arcturus (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

So I started looking at those links - the first one was one of ICT's own press releases that had been reprinted by another website, and the second was in a marketing magazine, estimating the cost of advertising in ICT (although "this might be completely incorrect"). I stopped looking at this point; demonstrating the efficacy of sources requires more than simply copy-pasting every result from Google. So, anyway, Neither is also my comment, both for that and the reason articulated by XOR. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Provided only for background info. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not trying to justify anything by linking to them. Just trying to be helpful, that's all. Arcturus (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You raise the point, If it doesn't meet RS, then I'm wondering if there's a hell of a lot of other sources used in medical articles that also don't. Shockingly, not all Wikipedia pages are up to standard. Sometimes, bad sources slip through. An editor might see a "citation needed", Google it and paste in whatever site comes up. An editor might not be familiar enough with churnalism to tell recycled press releases apart from actual reporting. Conflict-of-interest edits can evade detection. That this happened thirty-odd times with the "Infection Control Today" website is regrettable, but unsurprising. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• The NY Magazine article is written by novelist who is maybe best known for his erotic novels. It's unclear what expertise, if any, he has in virology. This is important, because the basic thesis of his article rests on detailed claims about virology (e.g., about the genetics of SARS-CoV-2 and related coronaviruses). But because the author has no expertise in the subject, he is not in a position to judge the plausibility of the ideas he's writing on. One of the virologists whom NY Magazine asked to verify some claims in the article, Vincent Racaniello, said (on his podcast, TWiV, episode 703) that he told NY Magazine that the article was "science fiction" and "nonsense", but that NY Magazine wasn't interested in his overall assessment of the article. They only wanted to know whether specific claims (e.g., did this person do this experiment in this year?) were correct. This article is a perfect example of why WP:MEDRS exists: the popular press often does a very poor job of reporting on biomedical topics. WP:MEDRS sources are written by people who have extensive scientific training, and are reviewed by relevant experts. Why on Earth did NY Magazine choose someone with no scientific background to write their cover story on the origins of SARS-CoV-2? The answer escapes me, but we shouldn't be turning to the popular press for what is, at its core, a scientific claim, when there are WP:MEDRS sources available. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I will attempt to answer your question on why the New York Magazine published a piece from an outsider. As you may know, there are always concerted interests in scientific circles, where funding is concerned, which can affect the POV of one scientist or group of scientists in regards to a certain issue. One such issue is biotechnology risk, which a group of scientists lead by Marc Lipsitch have written a consensus statement on, opposing the creation of novel potential pandemic pathogens for medical research. In response to this group, Vincent Racaniello created an opposing group called "Scientists for Science", which advocates for a more liberal approach, which you can read about in this Science Article. I hope this gives you insight into the matter. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't follow at all. None of that explains why New York Magazine would choose to publish a story by someone not qualified to write one competently, nor does it make their decision justifiable or the result acceptable. XOR'easter (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of journalists who write for publication aren't experts in the fields they write about. That doesn't disqualify them from writing, nor does it disqualify their their writings from being regarded as WP:RS.Park3r (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

But it does disqualify them from being regarded as WP:MEDRS. If the "lab leak hypothesis" is to be treated as a scientific hypothesis, then it needs scientific documentation. XOR'easter (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS doesn't apply here. I couldn't find any treatment advice in the New York article. Park3r (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS applies to all biomedical information, not just treatment advice. XOR'easter (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Park3r: Actually it kind of does for certain realms of knowledge. The business of journalism is to make interesting reading, and while you can find volumes of journalism considering, say, whether questions remain about who shot JFK, Wikipedia prefers to look to accepted academic scholarship for assertions on this topic. If a notion is at odds with accepted academic scholarship, Wikipedia must either omit it entirely or else contextualize it within that accepted context. This is core policy, and not negotiable. Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

^ This. The first duty of a news source is to be profitable, because if you go out of business, you can't report anything. They published this piece because people would read it, and not because it actually matters that a novelist personally felt like there was "something oddly artificial about the disease" last March and has now turned his unfounded gut feeling and his worries about the risks involved in doing virus research into a nice little story about how, although there's no actual evidence for it, the SARS-CoV-2 virus might have been present in one of those labs and might have been handled by one of the workers and might have infected that worker. (Also: has our novelist ever heard of measles before? SARS-CoV-2 is much less infective and much less deadly than other viruses.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• The origin is not biomedical information, so standard WP:RS applies, and New York Magazine is reliable per WP:RSP. The section Wikipedia:Biomedical information#What is not biomedical information? clearly states that history is not biomedical information. The origin of a disease is obviously history. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Tracking the vector/patient zero of a virus is very much biomedical information ("how a disease progresses"), so we should definitely be sticking to MEDRS here. --Masem (t) 14:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I concur with Masem. First, the page Wikipedia:Biomedical information is a supplement that has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Second, even if we do follow its advice, what it talks about as "history" is bloodletting to balance the humors. It even says, Statements that could still have medical relevance, such as about the effectiveness of historical treatments, are still biomedical — and an ongoing pandemic is obviously still relevant. XOR'easter (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Neither. Especially for a topic area where we have academic, peer-reviewed, secondary material which is directly on-topic. Why would we reach down to these lesser/unreliable sources? Doing so would risk over-exposing an undue POV, for which a WP:REDFLAG flies. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• New York Magazine is a WP:RS in this case. It does not purport to provide, nor can it be construed to, be treatment advice. The history of a disease is a topic of general interest. Whether SARS-Cov-2 accidentally originated in a lab, or jumped species in a market, is not going to reduce social distancing behaviour, masking, or the treatment of the disease, so WP:MEDRS shouldn't apply. The New York article is a secondary or tertiary source, that extensively quotes and links to other sources. In almost any other context, it would be regarded as an excellent source, and I would caution that the strident assertions that this is a "conspiracy theory" and suppression of reliable sources is likely to ripen into a Streisand Effect. Indeed, I had little more a passing interest in this topic, but the unusual way that this is being handled has now precipitated a great deal of personal interest in me.Park3r (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Adoring nanny: The origin is not biomedical information, so standard WP:RS applies, and New York Magazine is reliable per WP:RSP. There are three types of evidence that would support the plausibility of the lab leak theory: 1) Genomics, which require MEDRS from virology experts; 2) Forensics, which require MEDRS from the chinese epidemiologists and veterinarians that traced the cases of early patients; 3) Intelligence, which do not require MEDRS. For the sake of exposition, lets assume that Canada's Intelligence Agency discovers secret video footage of a Russian lab confessing they created the virus and showing how they did it. Then Reuters publishes an article called "Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 being created in a lab has been found". In that hypothetical case, would any editor of Wikipedia allow Reuters to be a good enough RS to report on the lab leak, or would they double down on asking that a MEDRS supports it first, on the basis that it is fringy? Forich (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Forich, I think your hypothetical source would be reliable for a statement that "A Canadian intelligence agency says that a Russian lab confessed to creating the virus" but not for a claim that the virus was actually created that way. This is one of the problems with the way this discussion (and, indeed, with the whole concept of RSP): Our actual rule is WP:RSCONTEXT. It is possible that the ICT source could be reliable for its main point, which is "people are interested in this" (NB: not "it's true"). But I don't think it is reliable for statements of facts. Indeed, when I click through to RSP, I find that RSP actually says "There is no consensus on whether [New York Magazine] is generally reliable for contentious statements", which IMO is importantly different from how you portrayed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's very simple - use in-text attribution cited to RS. Our job is not to identify where the virus started. Mainstream consensus is that the virus originated in Wuhan per NPR: "China has repeatedly pushed back against consensus that the novel coronavirus first appeared in humans in Wuhan," NPR's Emily Feng reports from Beijing. "Officials have suggested without evidence that the virus began elsewhere, including the U.S., and was brought to China." Nature states that WHO has released a plan and investigations will begin in Wuhan. The Guardian states: Wuhan had excellent surveillance, as well as a world-class biosecure laboratory that would later fall under suspicion. The cluster was detected in Wuhan, but it is still possible it came from somewhere else. We publish what prevailing RS are telling us - basically that Wuhan is suspected, and it's under investigation that will probably take years to conclude, if a reliable conclusion is even possible. Atsme 💬 📧 17:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• In-text attribution. The critical issue to me is whether we are saying "this is what actually went down" (which is a confident statement in the encyclopedia's voice, WP:MEDRS obviously required) or "a bunch of people said this was what went down" (per WP:MEDRS itself, Social stigma against a condition or treatment, information about disease awareness campaigns or advocacy groups, public perception, public funding for research or treatment, etc. is not biomedical information). The fact that there are a bunch of people who think CORVID-19 came cawing and pecking out of a lab in Wuhan is notable and well-supported by reliable sources. Whether or not this means it actually did is, well, a separate issue. I haven't kept up on the literature well enough to say whether that's what happened. While there is certainly a lot of hubbub about Wikipedia's coronavirus coverage, it is not our responsibility to never write articles which we suspect could cause someone to hold false beliefs. For example, we have an article about the harmful chemicals emitted by aircraft, despite some people believing in chemtrails. If we tell people that Dogwater Independent Picayune-Star said such-and-such, and the Proceedings of the International Medical Prestigiousness Symposium said another, well, we've done all we can. jp×g 20:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

JPxG hits the nail on the head. Please see below on updated RS on the topic, as it has been covered quite extensively, with a numebr of very prominent scientists saying that the possibility must be considered. Please see my note at the bottom of this section on the talk page of Wuhan Institute of Virology, where I make it clear what content changes I would like to see to describe "what actually went down". All I ask is to remove the POV unsupported by MEDRS from editors who ironically are insisting on a blanket application of the policy on all claims, biomedical and otherwise. Please also see discussions from Forich, clearly delineating information from reliable sources like the BBC, which are not biomedical in nature. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• We have editors pushing carefully selected quotes from selected sources in order to advance this fringe theory on the origins of COVID, ignoring both the consensus of MEDRS sources and of general reliable sources that discuss the subject. This kind of cherry picking is unacceptable, and that should be the point here. Selective picking of sources, which aren’t even the best available sources, is problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the cherry picking of sources to make the "lab leak" postulation seem better supported than it is on the talk pages is pretty ridiculous. The best way of dealing with the cherry picking is by targeting the cherry picked sources, and demonstrating that that they are undue and don't represent mainstream views of virologists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no "mainstream" view of virologists on the origins of the virus that represents scientific consensus. The origins of the virus are completely unknown, and even the WHO "terms of reference" for its investigation notes this, and this statement is made in many other MEDRS compliant sources. Different hypotheses have been made, but unless there is an open investigation, it is unlikely there will ever be a scientific consensus on the matter, with MEDR sources to cite accordingly. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if a scientific community has yet to settle upon a single hypothesis as its consensus position, it is still possible that the relative ranking of hypotheses by plausibility is itself agreed upon. In other words, the mainstream position can be that A is vastly more plausible than B, while the only thing that can be said for C is that it wouldn't technically violate the laws of physics. XOR'easter (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that there should be a relative ranking of hypotheses based on plausibility, however, I think you are missing something here. As it is now, the only hypothesis that is considered by certain Wikipedia editors as "plausible" is the zoonitic jump hypothesis, while the lab leak hypothesis is labeled as "misinformation" in Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and "conspiracy theory" in Wuhan Institute of Virology. There is no mention of a lab leak as a plausible possibility at all, anywhere in Wikipedia, even though nothing has been proven about any possible origin scenario. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Is it not? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not. XOR'easter (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'd sure hope that are editors carefully selecting their quotes and sources when writing articles. You have to find WP:RS that are about the thing you're trying to write, and then quote the relevant portions. I don't think that this is intrinsically sinister. jp×g 03:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, you said that we "push carefully selected quotes from selected sources" in order to advance this fringe theory on the origins of COVID, but thats a total misrepresentation of the discussion:

1. We opened the talk with a general request to discuss the lab leak theory and the best way to include edits mentioning it
2. Opposing editors claimed it was fringe
3. We explained in depth why we believed it was not fringe
4. Opposing editors argued that it was "Wall of text", too long for "lazy" editors to read
5. We narrowed it down to specific claims
6. Opposing editors argued the sources used were unreliable
7. We reached consensus on 6 MEDRS and 4 RS to be used on the matter
8. Opposing editors appealed that MEDRS ruled over the whole article per some exceptional rule on covid related topics
9. We appealed to have biomedical claims backed by MEDRS and non-biomedical claims backed by non-MEDRS RS
10. Opposing editors run out of excuses to avoid debating, so we dissected the claims and asked to debate their due weight, reliability, notability

I personally would not oppose if the consensus we reach is to avoid any mention of the lab leak theory, I have no "dog in the fight". However, it is important that the discussion exhausts and transpires every nuance so that we can display a resulting consensus in the talk page that exactly explains what is allowed and what is not allowed to be edited regarding the issue. Forich (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion has been bouncing between talk pages, AN/I, RSP and God knows what else is a little confusing to me; none of the issues involved really seem like general WP:RS stuff, and none of the conduct really seems like it deserves to be at WP:ANI. jp×g 03:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless certain editors agree to stop conflating the theory of a possible accidental lab leak as an origin scenario with conspiracy theories, then this is heading next to WP:DR. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No one is conflating anything. We are simply maintaining that if a "possible accidental lab leak" is to be treated as a scientific theory, then it needs documentation in scientific sources. One can't have it both ways. XOR'easter (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Some people are conflating between different lab origin scenarios, as I describe below. Treating the "possible accidental lab leak" as a possibility should not require scientific sources as per WP:MEDRS, as it is impossible for scientists to prove or disprove unless you have a way to magically teleport into the WIV, evade all the guards, and grab some forensic evidence. It is also impossible to prove or disprove a zoonitic jump having occurred and no self-respecting science would write a paper claiming to have it (which is why there is no MEDRS sources to back it up), and while evidence for either scenario is lacking, all hypotheses should be considered as possibilities. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to treat the belief that SARS-CoV-2 was present in any specific place before people started getting sick as a scientific possibility, then you need scientific sources. If you want to treat it as something that some politician speculated about, then you need a political source (e.g., any reputable newspaper). As @XOR'easter says, we can't have it both ways. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not MEDRS/biomedical information. The only reason special standards exist for medical information is to make it less likely that readers will harm themselves by their misinterpreting bad medical information. Misinformation about the origin of the virus will not affect the likelihood of readers catching the virus, or dying from it, so it isn't a MEDRS domain. Normal standards apply. This is not an endorsement of these sources for scientific content, only a point about MEDRS scope creep. Geogene (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'd say that misinformation about a pandemic is a public-health hazard in general. Buying into a conspiracy theory can mean taking a crackpot "treatment", exposing others by refusing to take precautions against transmission, etc. MEDRS isn't creeping; it just became relevant to a whole lot of daily life. XOR'easter (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Crackpot treatments are already covered by MEDRS, whether or not conspiracy theories are involved. Geogene (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure. But what I'm saying is that when you say that misinformation about a pandemic's origin has no medical consequences, well, I'm not that optimistic. XOR'easter (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Geopolitical consequences, maybe. Not medical consequences. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Members of the United States House of Representatives have caught the virus, quite possibly because they were forced to shelter in place with colleagues who refused to wear masks for ideological reasons during an insurrection fomented by conspiracy theories. The medical is geopolitical, and vice versa. XOR'easter (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I cannot conceive of any way in which the origin of the coronavirus makes an impact on my daily life. "While the coronavirus is just as deadly and transmissable as before, I read an article saying that it might have escaped from a lab, therefore I will stop washing my hands and go to a huge indoor party"? If little green men had brought the coronavirus here from Neptune, how would this have any impact on whether to have dinner in a crowded restaurant? That just doesn't make any sense to me. jp×g 03:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

What about, "I read an article saying that the coronavirus escaped from a lab. Obviously, scientists don't know what they're doing, so I shouldn't bother listening to their recommendations or getting the vaccine." XOR'easter (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is getting pretty far afield of Wikipedia's rôle. Is this a fully general principle that you think should applied across the project? jp×g 08:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO Wikipedia's role is to accurately represent the facts as understood by high-quality sources, both in the literal meaning of the individual sentences and in the overall impression we give our readers. IMO it is not accurate, according to those high-quality sources, that SARS-CoV-2 was present in any lab before the pandemic started. The fact that a cultural magazine got a novelist to write about how worried he is about lab research (even though he admits that there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was ever in that lab) does not change my view of what the high-quality sources say about this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Geogene is incorrect about why MEDRS exists. MEDRS exists so that our articles are less likely to contain errors and misinformation. It doesn't matter whether the error is a good one ("People need to drink eight glasses of water a day") or a bad one. We want their contents to be accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• New York Magazine is a good RS as long as it was not used for sourcing medical claims. WP:MEDRS is irrelevant here because the accidental leakage from the lab is not a medical claim. Actually, it has nothing to do with science. This is a Laboratory safety matter. A claim that the virus was artificially engineered is different. It would probably require MEDRS sources for claims related to scientific research, but not-MEDRS sources would be fine to document opinions by experts and political aspects of the controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  How is laboratory safety not a part of science? I mean, safety lessons were part of every lab course I've ever taken — first day, usually. How is any procedure determined to be safe — a seal found adequate, a sterilizing agent effective, or whatever — other than by a scientific investigation? XOR'easter (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, one can do research related to laboratory safety. But in that specific case this is just a matter of an investigation (more in a law enforcement meaning) to answer single question: Did they work in this lab with COVID-19 (or not) at the time prior to the outbreak? If such investigation would be conducted (it was not to my knowledge), one would not need any MEDRS sources because this is not a medical and not a scientific question. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"Did they work in this lab with COVID-19 (or not)" - such scientifically illiterate questions as this are an excellent illustration of why we use the WP:BESTSOURCES, rather than the amateur musings of Wikipedia editors. Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am simply trying to explain in plain terms what this is all about. I am sure my comment was understandable. Yes, I could cite this: "Any credible investigation into the origin of COVID-19 demands complete, transparent access to the research labs in Wuhan, including their facilities, samples, personnel, and records." Fact checking: TRUE. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of the US State Department is in question, for obvious reasons. And, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that an investigation, in the law enforcement meaning of the word, finds a vial in a lab, or a suspicious genome sequence on a hard drive. How would they tell that the vial contained a sample of a particular virus, or what the genome was sequenced from? By doing science to it. Even in the forensic setting or against an espionage background, the pivotal questions require scientific knowledge to answer. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no question this is actual statement by US State Department. The only question is about using it on specidfic page. As about investigation, I think we know the answer: Chinese government simply will not allow any meaningful independent investigation. So perhaps we will never know the answer. As about law enforcment people, yes, they are using a lot of standard tests. That does not make them scientists. Only those who are developing new methods in forensic science can be described as such. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; it's been a busy few days. Perhaps we are communicating at cross purposes here. The question is not whether an investigator has the right to list "scientist" on their business card, but whether their work has an unavoidable scientific component. If it does, then it must be held up to scientific standards, and so must anything we write about it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

My point is simple. The "lab leakeage" is not a medical and mostly not even a scientific question. This is just a question if the virus was actually stored and studied in specific lab and what had actually happen. For example, should one use only MEDRS sources for page Sverdlovsk anthrax leak? Of course not. In this regard, the source under discussion is good and it was vetted in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a scientific question that lay sources reduce into nonsense. So when you say "the virus", what do you mean? Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is valid source per WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Yes, it can be used. However, it should not be used for sourcing any specific claims that explicitly belong to Wikipedia:Biomedical information. This is not a biomedical information (as defined in the guideline) because the historical question if the virus was leaked from the lab does not affect anyone's sickness or health. This is a question related to biology of the virus and politics. This is all I am saying. We are not going to debate what is science. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

What do mean by "the virus"? Wikipedia needs to make basic sense and contain at least competently-written text. Do you mean SARS-CoV-2? because if so this "constructed in a lab" idea is a conspiracy theory, as per our very good WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Neither, and MEDRS should be used for any origin speculation that invokes a scientific mechanism. I've described my position in more detail below. JoelleJay (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

But this is not a medical claim, and possibly not even a scientific claim. This is mostly a political controversy. And of course the WHO team will not find anything about it in China, especially if the COVID indeed was studied in the lab and leaked from there. My very best wishes (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• New York Magazine is reliable per current consensus, therefore it can be used as a source. If you disagree with that consensus then start an RFC on New York Magazine to propose deprecation or restrictions on its use. But to exclude a particular article or group of articles on a particular subject just because you don't like what it says is ridicoulus. Its reliable or its not. Its unreasonable to believe that a source would have lower editorial standards for medical topics than anything else it publishes. No opinion on ICT which I don't know enough about, other than it appears to just be summarizing other sources, making in unnecessary in this case.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

From previous conversations at AfD, I am rather certain you are aware that no source is either completely reliable on all subjects or completely unreliable. The context in which a source is used is vital to determining its reliability: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article ... an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable...'. There has been no suggestion that the New Yorker requires a new RfC on its overall reliability but only whether it is a reliable source for this particular information. Stating otherwise is just obstructive smokescreening. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable for this topic - Infection Control Today covers topics for which we have many more abundantly reliable sources, and appears to be little more than a blog with heavy advertisement. The New York Magazine article is written by a novelist, the central thesis of his work is contradicted by all known science regarding SARS-CoV-2, and one of the most pre-eminent virologists in the world, asked to fact-check the article, called it pure "science fiction." If only RSN were always this easy. -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Other sources

Le Infezioni in Medicina

1. Barh D, Silva Andrade B, Tiwari S, Giovanetti M, Góes-Neto A, Alcantara LC, Azevedo V, Ghosh P (September 2020). "Natural selection versus creation: a review on the origin of SARS-COV-2" (PDF). Infez Med. 28 (3): 302–311. PMID 32920565.

This paper evaluates literature only up to April 2020, and finds no support for a lab-origin of SARS-CoV-2 or ideas that it a "bioweapon", stating in the conclusion that "The information and knowledge currently available in the public domain as peer-reviewed publications support a probable bat or pangolin origin of SARS-CoV-2." The paper is otherwise uninteresting as it mostly evaluates what hasn't been said rather than what has. I am not familiar with Le Infezioni in Medicina (infezmed). It describes itself as a "is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal which publishes, free of charge, editorials, reviews, original articles, case reports and letters to the Editor on experimental and clinical investigations concerning any aspect of infectious diseases.". It has an impact factor of 0.748 in 2019, which seems fairly low. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a scientific review article, and therefore a MEDRS source. The impact factor of the journal is hardly relevant. Many unreliable sources are frequently cited. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• It is a low impact factor (not sure what's normal in the field of infectious diseases), but is MEDLINE-indexed, which is good; would probably be okay for nonWP:REDFLAG assertions. Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a decent RS, seems to be a bit of a go to journal for Italian researchers who want to publish their research locally, peer review seems rigorousBoynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  Scopus ranks this journal around the 30th percentile for its field, so it's probably okay but below median.

  I'm not a fan of using impact factors as some sort of magic number, and especially not as a one-size-fits-all-fields number, but a low impact factor can indicate a Predatory journal, so it bears investigation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

independentsciencenews.org

This website has consistently come up in discussions surrounding the "lab leak claims". From its about page it clearly has some kind of fringe (anti-GMO, anti-pesticide) viewpoint, mostly focusing on agriculture, with the additional promotion of "lab leak" claims since the beginning of the pandemic. independentsciencenews.org is published by the Bioscience Resource Project (which has a Wikipedia article may need to go to AfD at some point), which declares itself to be a "non-profit 501(c)3 organization". To me, this mostly looks like an essentially self-published source by the sites main author Dr. Jonathan Latham, who has no expertise in virology as far as I can tell and not a reliable souce for virological claims, and undue regardless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely fringey, with no indications of editorial oversight; could well be one man's pet project. Latham has published journal articles, but nothing substantial in virology AFAICT (only a little on plant viruses, back in the early 1990s), and his only institutional affiliation is the Bioscience Resource Project. XOR'easter (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, plant viruses are a whole different kettle of fish from human viruses. A lot of the citations to "Jonathan Latham" on scholar appear to be to a chemist by the same name who works at the University of Manchester. The paper that Latham published with other members of the "Bioscience Resource Project", entitled "Transformation-induced Mutations in Transgenic Plants: Analysis and Biosafety Implications" from 2006 which has been cited over 160 times, mostly in pesticide related articles. It's clear that he was (at least formerly) a published and somewhat respected scientist. I have managed to find a piece in Wired from 2011 that discusses a manifesto from the Bioscience Resource Project, it is described as "play[ing] a tune that will be familiar to anyone who has encountered the rhetoric of GeneWatch UK: basically, modern genomics is pure hype perpetuated by scientists seeking grant money and corporations seeking to absolve themselves of responsibility for environmental disasters." and states that the central claim of the piece is that "Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have failed to find variants explaining much of the risk of common diseases like type 2 diabetes" but that the "authors rely on a combination of distortions and statistical misunderstandings to make their case." Its an interesting look into the groups ideology, which cements the idea in my mind that they are indeed pretty fringe. I don't know why I did this much digging considering they were clearly not reliable source for human virology anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

a profile on the website Genetic Literacy Project describes them as openly promoting anti-gmo conspiracy theories. The Genetic Literacy Project have been accused, not entirely baselessly of being monsanto shills, so I don't take them entirely at their word. This is getting way off topic, however. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree: This is not a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Washington Post Editoral

A November editoral in the Washington Post, entitled The coronavirus’s origins are still a mystery. We need a full investigation. has often been used to support the lab leak suppostion. In the introduction, the article even states: "Most likely, the virus was a zoonotic spillover, a leap from animals to humans, which have become more common as people push into new areas where they have closer contact with wildlife", though the article goes on to state: "Beyond the blame game, there are troubling questions in China that must be examined, including whether the coronavirus was inadvertently spread in an accident or spill from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which had previously carried out research on bat coronaviruses." It then goes on to reference the 2012-2013 "Mojiang Mine incident" where several workers became sick and died of a SARS like illness in after contact with bats. though no viral samples were ever taken. This is covered in the Mòjiāng virus article about a virus that was collected from the locality several years after the incident and has no definitive connection to the illness cases. It concludes the paragraph that "Conspiracy theorists have proposed more outlandish scenarios of a deliberately created pathogen, but they do not hold much water." Overall the Washington Post editorial is not massively fringe, but I question its dueness here. Per WP:MEDPOP, the popular press are not reliable sources to evaluate scientific claims, such as whether or not it is plausible that the virus leaked from a laboratory. As an editorial, it comes under WP:RSOPINION, which generally should not be used for statements of fact. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep. WP:MEDPOP, WP:RSOPINION. XOR'easter (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• None is MEDRS. And this whole discussion (here and at the host article) misses the point that even if some non-MEDRS source is notionally reliable (a news source, say) it can't be used to debunk or problematize a stronger source. We can't undercut peer-reviewed, academic, expert sources because Bob Journalist wrote a thinkpiece somewhere, even if is is "reliable" for his view. This is an essence of WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  True dat. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No disagreement here, the point of bringing this to the RSN is to give oxygen to the conversation. These sources have been repeatedly brought up, so instead of endlessly going around in circles about them at the talk page with people who are little interested in editing about anything else, we can get a definitive concensus here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree: This is not reliable for any medical or scientific claim at all. It is, however, a reliable source for a statement about what the Washington Post's editorial board believes. It could, therefore, be used to support a sentence such as "The Washington Post said that there should be more research into how and where the virus started infecting the humans". (I'm not sure that sentence would be WP:DUE – we have a whole article on Further research is needed – but it would be reliable for such a statement.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, WaPo is an excellent source on political aspects of any controversy, although not on scientific claims. That one is very much political. Main idea of the publication: "We need a full investigation". Yes, this is something obvious and consensus of many RS. Why do you think WHO team went to China [19]? My very best wishes (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  Editorials are not normally considered reliable sources for statements of facts, political or otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - if WaPo is considered a RS, then they are a RS, unless we downgrade it to something less - uhm, like questionable? If we don't happen to like what they publish at any given point in time, that doesn't make them unreliable overall. The bottomline is and always been for us to use INTEXT ATTRIBUTION, and not say it in WikiVoice. It's actually pretty simple. Atsme 💬 📧 22:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Adding info - Sorry to pile in here but they just released a new editorial[20] yesterday with a lot more teeth to it. Just so everyone is up to date. Feynstein (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

David Relman opinion piece in PNAS

In November, an opinion piece entitled To stop the next pandemic, we need to unravel the origins of COVID-19 was published in PNAS by David Relman, a Professor in Medicine, and in Microbiology & Immunology at the Stanford University School of Medicine. In the piece, it is stated that

There are several potential origin scenarios. First, SARS-CoV-2 may have evolved in bats, which are known reservoirs of immense coronavirus diversity (2), and then spread directly, or indirectly via an intermediate host, to humans through natural mechanisms. The degree of anticipated but undiscovered natural diversity clearly lends support to this scenario, as well as support to other scenarios. Second, SARS-CoV-2 or a recent ancestor virus may have been collected by humans from a bat or other animal and then brought to a laboratory where it was stored knowingly or unknowingly, propagated and perhaps manipulated genetically to understand its biological properties, and then released accidentally.

going on to state that:

Some have argued that a deliberate engineering scenario is unlikely because one would not have had the insight a priori to design the current pandemic virus (3). This argument fails to acknowledge the possibility that two or more as yet undisclosed ancestors (i.e., more proximal ancestors than RaTG13 and RmYN02) had already been discovered and were being studied in a laboratory—for example, one with the SARS-CoV-2 backbone and spike protein receptor-binding domain, and the other with the SARS-CoV-2 polybasic furin cleavage site. It would have been a logical next step to wonder about the properties of a recombinant virus and then create it in the laboratory. Alternatively, the complete SARS-CoV-2 sequence could have been recovered from a bat sample and viable virus resurrected from a synthetic genome to study it, before that virus accidentally escaped from the laboratory.

concluding that "Even though strong opinions abound, none of these scenarios can be confidently ruled in or ruled out with currently available facts." Given that this is an opinion piece it comes under WP:RSOPINION, and shouldn't be used for statements of fact, only attributed opinion. It also doesn't mention the WIV by name. While David Relman seems to be a respected microbiologist (seemingly mostly focusing on gut flora,bacteria and archea, with some viral work as well). its difficult to get a sense of whether this represents the concensus of virologists, and whether or not Relman is a prominent enough microbiologist or not that this would be WP:DUE. (It appears he was stating the same thing back in April according to this BoingBoing article) In my view, we should avoid using opinion pieces entirely when discussing the origins of the virus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with avoiding opinion pieces entirely. Opinions are cheap. XOR'easter (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. Sure, this is a well sourced view, just like almost everything. But I think this is laughable when non-experts censor views by David Relman (a Professor of Microbiology & Immunology at the Stanford University School of Medicine) that were published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. This only shows the degree of POV-pushing around here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not including opinion pieces in Wikipedia articles, even ones published in prestigious publications like PNAS, is not censorship. My point about Relman is that I don't know whether his view represents the concensus of virologists, and putting his opinion in the article could potentially lend undue weight. How have other academics reacted to the claim that "This argument fails to acknowledge the possibility that two or more as yet undisclosed ancestors (i.e., more proximal ancestors than RaTG13 and RmYN02) had already been discovered and were being studied in a laboratory—for example, one with the SARS-CoV-2 backbone and spike protein receptor-binding domain, and the other with the SARS-CoV-2 polybasic furin cleavage site. It would have been a logical next step to wonder about the properties of a recombinant virus and then create it in the laboratory." It clearly shows the "lab leak" postulation is not completely fringe among mainstream academics, but also does not demonstrate that it is probable either. Given that he doesn't even mention the WIV directly, is it even relevant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it should not be used on page about the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It should be used on page Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory (the header of this discussion tells about "the idea that COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab") or maybe on page Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. What other think about "to acknowledge the possibility that..."? Well, these viruses in fact were studied in labs, and the possibility of making a recombinant virus not only exists, but a trivial molecular biology procedure. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur that Not including opinion pieces in Wikipedia articles, even ones published in prestigious publications like PNAS, is not censorship. This isn't POV-pushing, either; I would have the same objection to opinion pieces arguing in the opposite direction. XOR'easter (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

US Government claims

On January 15th, the US Department of State released a document entitled Fact Sheet: Activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that has been extensively discussed on the WIV talk page, in the document, it is explosively claimed that:

The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. This raises questions about the credibility of WIV senior researcher Shi Zhengli’s public claim that there was “zero infection” among the WIV’s staff and students of SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-related viruses.

among other claims. My issue with this is as a US govt document they are a WP:PRIMARY source for the claims, and that the origin of the virus has been polticised, in large part to the actions of the Trump administration, which has also developed a reputation for publishing falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and they cannot be considered a reliable source for the claims prima facie unless they are otherwise corroborated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I won't disagree with you that this issue has been politicized by Trump, but as JPxG very eruditely points out above, Wikipedia has an article about the harmful chemicals emitted by aircraft, despite some people believing in chemtrails. I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, and discount the views of respected scientists like David Relman quoted in reliable sources like the Wall Street Journal (see here and here), just because there are a few idiot politicians misconstruing the science to score political points among Sinophobic constituents. We have to be able to transcend all that as Wikipedians, and conflating different lab origin scenarios, as I have written about below, is highly disingenuous. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. This is an official website of US State Department. Hence this is valid primary (or possibly even secondary) source. It can be cited directly with an attribution to US State Department. Is it "due" on page about Wuhan lab? Yes, sure, because it is directly about this lab and because the official view by US government is important in such context. I am not saying this view is "the truth". My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This post has been archived. I assume this is no longer an official view by US government. But whatever new US government tells about it can be used, with direct attribution. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable for claims of fact (e.g., for claims that people were sick. Also: I, too, "became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses". Does that "raise questions about the credibility of" these same White House politicians in saying that COVID-19 wasn't present in the US back then?). If you wanted to use that source to write that Trump's White House claimed that some WIV staff might have had COVID-19, then I think you'd need another source, both to show that mentioning this document was WP:DUE and to provide an analysis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable for claims of fact, per WhatamIdoing and general concerns about prior history. (I myself did not become "sick in autumn 2019", etc., but a good friend did.) Secondary sources would be needed to establish due weight. XOR'easter (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

False Premise of this post

When talking of the COVID-19 and the possibility of lab leak as an origin scenario, one should not conflate between the different classifications of emerging infectious disease, as clearly delineated here in Wikipedia's entry on Emerging infectious diseases.

For the uninitiated, the Wikipedia entry clearly differentiates the scenario of a deliberate release of a bioweapon from an accidental release of a virus undergoing medical research, and for those who have actually read the New York Magazine piece, this distinction is clearly made, and is clearly distinguishable from conspiracy theories made by the likes of Li-Meng Yan and Luc Montagnier, which have been discredited and retracted, respectively. Other than the New York Magazine, a number of other reputable publications have covered the topic of an accidental lab leak, including the Boston Magazine, Wired Magazine, CNET the BBC, Reuters Bloomberg, The Telegraph, The Times, Presadiretta and Culture France, Le Monde, and multiple Washington Post articles, such as this. None of these articles present the possibility of a lab leak as fact, but in the dearth of evidence for any other scenario, they quote some reputable scientists (like David Relman) as saying that it should be considered as a possibility, and should not be discounted. Further than that, Professor Dominic Dwyer, who is one University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillof the members of the WHO's investigation team told The Australian that he is willing to keep an "open mind" to the possibility of a lab leak, even if he doesn't think it's likely.

The question of whether WP:MEDRS applies here, should only pertain to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and while certain aspects of determining the origins of the virus can certainly be considered biomedical information, there is currently a media and academic black out being imposed by the Chinese government, which was the subject of another reliable source on the possible lab origins of the virus, the Associated Press. The real question we should be asking, is whether there are sufficient reliable sources to establish that there is a controversy around the origins of the virus, to mandate the removal of the "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" terms associated with the lab leak theory in the articles Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and Wuhan Institute of Virology, and any other articles where it may crop up. There is now also confirmation from the United States Department of State that a lab leak is a possibility they want the WHO to investigate, which also gives mention to the unknown provenance of Ratg13, a key piece of missing information that gave rise to the lab leak hypothesis, which was covered in the New York Magazine piece. The USDOS statement has been further covered in reliable sources, like this Telegraph article.

Guys, what we have is a legitimate controversy about a possible biosecurity event that certain scientists have been warning about for years. Instead of trying to topic ban me and delete my stuff, it would be better to engage in a good-faith discussion, without conflating the issues.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, other scientists working in this field have also been warning for years that naturally occurring SARS viruses in South China pose a big threat. I wouldn't set much store by what the US government says on this matter (for a few days), since there's a conflict of interest and a declared policy to blame China/the Chinese for some or all aspects of its own recent failings. GPinkerton (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, Fair enough. What your reference demonstrates is that there are differing views between scientists on the possible origins of the virus. Many scientists have found it odd that a specific virus from a bat species found in Yunan, 1,400km away south of Wuhan, broke out where it did, and how it did. This doesn't prove anything, but nor has any other origin scenario been proven, and in the dearth of evidence for any given scenario, and the uncooperative nature of the Chinese government, many scientists agree that a lab leak scenario should be given consideration. It certainly can't be considered as misinformation or conspiracy theory on Wikipedia. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Heaven forfend that in the 21st century a commodity be transported a few hundred miles before causing an epidemic in a market! Note that the reference I provided has nothing to do with SARS-CoV-2; it's older than the virus, so it most certainly does not provide evidence of differing opinion on SARS-CoV-2's origins. GPinkerton (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly possible for a commodity to be transported. Though there is the small matter of nearby laboratory, which was well known to be performing gain of function research on SARS-like coronaviruses to infect humans, whose sponsor said as much in a Tweet and YouTube interview (timestamped), which was also forced to make an Addendum to a Nature article they had published about a certain SARS-like coronavirus called RaTG13 earlier in the year, which revealed that they had collected it with a number of other unpublished viruses that they were working on in undisclosed ways. There is a legitimate scientific inquiry into this lab and its affairs, especially as it was partly funded by the US gov (via EcoHealth), and should thus be required to divulge certain information, which they are not (and instead they deleted their entire public database of viruses from the web, claiming the server is down). Fain of function research isn't nefarious and "passaging" a virus in a host that it wouldn't usually infect is done in order to generate attenuated strains for use in vaccines, which has been done successfully for diseases llike Polio. But, such research poses huge risks, and the are numerous cases of virus leaking from labs. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This is all on the level of the "lab leak" conspiracy theory (promoted by Russia) that supposed the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal somehow not the Russians' doing just because Porton Down is nearby. Trump's funding decisions are neither here nor there. GPinkerton (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no comparison that can be made with the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. In that case, an investigation was made, with forensic evidence uncovered from various sites, and in this case, no open investigation has been made and no forensic evidence has been found (the WHO Investigation has working on a "Terms of Reference" that precludes the possibility of a WIV lab leak). We have absolutely no idea what went on. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, we know that a SARS coronavirus common in bats in southern China was transmitted to humans in southern China and caused a pandemic in the early 21st century. Then it happened again in 2019. GPinkerton (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, there is one huge difference between the outbreak of SARS-COV-1 in Guangdong in 2002, and the outbreak of SARS-COV-2 in Wuhan in 2019, and that is that the former was not pre-adapted for human transmission from the start, while the latter was. You can read about that from the scientists who published a paper about it, here. One of the authors was quoted in the abovementioned Boston Magazine and New York Magazine articles that you or may not have read. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, and you link a non-peer-reviewed study from last year to claim this? GPinkerton (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, were you thinking of countering the claim? I sent you the paper for you to read and understand one of the most significant differences between SARS-COV-1 and SARS-COV-2. The findings of this paper, which has been noted by numerous other scientists, are confirmed by World Health Organisation in a document they released just last week on their investigation. You can download it here, and you need not go past page 3 to find it, which should tell you something about its significance. You are welcome. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, Please explain how you have arrived at the conclusion you postulate above. There is absolutely nothing on page 3 of that report that supports any of your claims, and refutes several of them that you have made elsewhere, notably the you are working off very old information claim. And yet, this WHO report dwells on the Wuhan market as the source of what it repeatedly calls a zoonotic bat virus. By contrast, no laboratories are mentioned; the word only appears as part of phrases like "laboratory testing". Neither does "pre-adapted" appear anywhere, nor the name of the Wuhan Institute. It is not necessary to repudiate outdated speculation, nor to refute it. I have yet to read of a conclusive study that proves definitely that painting animals on cave walls does not augment the herds in the next hunting season. Yet we are not expected to give that kind of belief system credence in the encyclopaedia. GPinkerton (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, let's take this one point at a time.

First, to demonstrate that the WHO takes the position of the abovementioned paper on the subject of pre-adaption: Current findings show that the virus has been remarkable stable since it was first reported in Wuhan, with sequences well conserved in different countries, suggesting that the virus was well adapted to human transmission from the moment it was first detected. This is also corroborated by the epidemiology and transmission patterns seen since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. (page three)

Secondly, the fact that the WHO dwells on the Wuhan market, like you did, is due to the fact that the entire exercise is a sham, and the United States Department of State has released a statement about it, here. There are many others who have called on the WHO to demand China's full cooperation for their investigation.

Thirdly, if you are genuinely interested in the lab leak hypothesis, you can read a draft that I wrote on the topic. (it needs more work... maybe you can help?). You should also read the sources I provided.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, so you are first promoting the WHO as supporting your claims, and now you say it's all a sham because some red-faced Americans have also made the claim as an attempt to cover their own inadequacy. I see. GPinkerton (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies if this is no longer the right section. Depends on how it is presented. If we are presenting it as a legitimate possibility, we need sources that meet WP:MEDRS. If we are clearly presenting it as a conspiracy theory, we don't. Any more than we need MEDRS sources on the Reptilian conspiracy theory or Resurrection of Jesus, or any other things that would involve medical issues if we presented them as medical theories. --GRuban (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

And why are WP:MEDRS sources not required to present the lab leak as a conspiracy theory? There is currently no proof of any theory. Only hypetheses. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure by what you mean "no proof of any theory". There isn't any proof that it's true? Well, yeah. That's because it's almost certainly not true. We do write about things that aren't true, from Piltdown man to the Flat earth theory. There's no proof that there is such a conspiracy theory? Oh, come on. Forbes, USA Today, NBC News... https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/05/10/a-timeline-of-the-covid-19-wuhan-lab-origin-theory/?sh=2c00c3b5abad https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/did-coronavirus-really-escape-chinese-lab-here-s-what-we-n1199531 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/03/21/fact-check-did-coronavirus-originate-chinese-laboratory/2881150001/. --GRuban (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I may have misunderstood you, and that you may have also misunderstood me. Currently, there is a dearth of evidence to prove any origin scenario as to how the virus emerged, of which there are multiple. The argument that has been going on for the past few weeks is whether the lab leak scenario should be considered as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory", when there are a number of prominent scientists who consider it to be a possibility, as reported by a number of reliable sources (like the ones mentiond above), and now even the US State Department has made a statement on the matter, confirming it to be a possibility they are considering, which they would like the WHO to investigate. Several editors above, including Adoring nanny, Forich, and JPxG, and Geogene agree that MEDRS does not apply here, as the claim that the virus may have originated in the lab is not biomedical in nature, and WP:MEDRS usually only applies to Wikipedia:biomedical information. I believe that we can revert to WP:RS, which indicates there is a controversy around the issue of the virus's origins, and that the "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" tags should be removed. I hope this clarifies the differing POVs being argued. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, the claim that the virus may have originated in the lab is not biomedical in nature is a stunning claim. Other than the word "claim" itself, every noun in it is a biomedical one, and hypotheses concerning origins of pathogenic viruses are biomedical by definition. GPinkerton (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I've seen the "it's not biomedical" claim repeated many times, and I've tried my best to understand it, but I just can't follow. I'd almost call it analytically untrue, in the philosophers' sense — incapable of being true due to the meanings of the words it's built from. Moreover, without MEDRS-compliant sources laying out exactly what the different lab-leak "hypotheses" might be, sorting them into grades of plausibility, Wikipedia doing so would be synthesis. The whole starting point of that effort is incompatible with policy. XOR'easter (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It really depends how it's worded. If I am claiming that SARS-COV-2 definitely originated in a lab that then accidentally leaked it, then for sure I would need a MEDRS source to back it up. If however, I want to content on Wikipedia to reflect the reality, which is that the origins of the virus are currently unknown, and that no hypothesis has been proven, then MEDRS should not apply. The reason for this is very simple. There are no MEDR sources proving anything. There are a number of scientific papers from very prestigious scientists making the case that the virus is most likely not of lab origin, yet even they say the notion cannot be disproven and that it remains a possibility. The most cited paper is Anderson et al, (this paper is quoted in every and any article railing against the lab leak theory) and another one is Baric et al (Ralph Baric is one of the world's formost experts on coronaviruses and synthetic engineering and a mentor/partner of Shi Zhengli). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to say that the origins are unknown and that no hypothesis has been definitively proven, then you still need MEDRS sources, because that's a biomedical claim, just like the claim that the origins are known would be. It's the subject matter of the claim that makes MEDRS essential, not whether the claim is negative or positive. XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that deciding that something's been proven, based on interpretation of primary sources which largely do not themselves say that the thing's been definitively proven, is WP:OR; if this is really as obvious as claimed, it'll be denied by all authoritative sources fairly soon, and newspapers will stop writing articles about whether or not it happened. I mean, all the newspapers could be full of crap, but Wikipedia is not really set up to address that issue. jp×g 03:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec) "There are no MEDR sources proving anything." "yet even they say the notion cannot be disproven and that it remains a possibility." The lay public and media will just never understand that scientists speak in hedgey modals, not certainties. So when they hear an expert hesitate to declare something "impossible" they assume that thing is a valid option; and when an expert cautiously says "might" or "potentially" a lot they may attribute the behavior to a lack of authority or (worse) as dissembling. This is why it's even more important to use only MEDRS for the "origin story". JoelleJay (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJayI understand your point, but in this case, there are a small (but increasing) number of scientists (like David Relman, Richard H. Ebright and Marc Lipsitch) who have specifically said that a lab leak scenario has to be investigated. One of the world's foremost experts in coronaviruses, Ralph S Baric, who is a mentor/partner of Shi Zhengli and collaberated extensively with the Wuhan Institute of Virology put out a paper back in May and explaining why he doesn't think a lab leak is likely, but still says that lacking any evidence for a "natural escape", a "lab escape" will "remain reasonable". Another paper on the topic which was put out in March, and which is perhaps the most cited, is Anderson et al, and they too do not discount the possibility of a lab escape. Both those papers, despite their citations and notability of their authors have been discounted as MEDRS by certain editors who prefer other MEDRS sources more supportive of their POV, based on their interpretation of WP:BESTSOURCES, which I and other users have taken up issue with. There is a real issue of NPOV, as how to present the possibility of a lab leak as an origin scenario for COVID-19 on Wikipedia, and not only is WP:MEDRS not being evenly applied, it is also being misapplied. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So first, the Nature paper was rightly excluded from COVID-19 articles: it is a primary source. End of story. Second, the primary issue I see with both papers is a matter of DUEWEIGHT: neither paper is about the lab leak hypothesis—rather, it is briefly mentioned as a "possibility" (in the exact sense I mention above regarding hedging) before the authors thoroughly discount it. Trying to argue either of these papers can be used as evidence of scientists supporting its plausibility is equivalent to reading basically any mol bio paper and latching onto one of the alternative hypotheses preemptively offered in the middle of the Results subsection for a particular experiment, right before it is discredited without even needing to be tested. It's just a thing in science papers to set up pre-experimental alternative hypotheses and post-experimental alternative interpretations of data and then immediately demonstrate why they are invalid; the fact that such things evidently crossed the mind of the researchers or reviewers is utterly meaningless. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay, by no means did I suggest that those papers can be used as evidence to support the plausibility of a lab leak hypothesis. The exact content changes that I have requested are that the "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" labels be removed from the Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and Wuhan Institute of Virology pages, as they violate WP:NPOV and the MEDR sources cited to support those labels do not differentiate between accidental and deliberate lab origin scenarios (see discussion on that here). I have also written a draft on the lab leak theory here (it needs some more work), and you will notice I didn't use any of the above-mentioned papers to support the theory. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what you're doing when you use them as examples of scientists you say are entertaining the possibility of a lab leak? My comment applied to both sourcing for WP articles and to the general arguments put forth in this thread. JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been banned from talking about a certain topic so I have to be careful what I say, but I didn't bring forward papers (such as Anderson or Baric's papers) as examples of scientists entertaining the possibility (there are other papers for that). Rather, what I said was that those scientists said it cannot be ruled out, yet we have some editors here who want to polarise the argument, and discredit those who entertain the possibility as "conspiracy theorists". The exact content changes that I and other editors sort to make was to remove the "conspiracy theory" label that was being used, and has now been removed from the relevant pages. The scenario of said possibility is intricate, and there are many different scenarios within that are possible, and you can look here to get an idea of them (though you probably already know). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the current US State Department is not only not a reliable source on conspiracy theories, but is, in fact, a promulgator of them (as is much of the rest of the current administration, following the lead of the President of the United States). This is, an a nutshell, the difference between a notable source and a reliable source. That the virus that is, broadly speaking, crippling the globe, is man made (conveniently enough by a political rival of the US administration), is an amazingly impressive claim, and needs really, really good sources before we write about it as a serious possibility. That there are people wildly hypothesizing about it without particularly good evidence is a much less impressive claim, and mainstream media outlets suffice. --GRuban (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't disagree with your view about the Trump administration, but unfortunately, you are conflating two very different theories with each other. Please see my post above about properly differentiating the lab legitimate leak theory as posited by serious scientists, from the "man made" theory presented by kooky conspiracy theorists. They are not one and the same thing, and if you read the New York Magazine article, as well as the Boston Magazine article, this will become infinitely clear. Accidents happen, and it now widely believed that H1N1 flu subtype in 1977 was the result of a lab accident. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to also mention this lab leak event 1978 smallpox outbreak in the United Kingdom which is often mentioned in the field of laboratory safety. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

And, unfortunately, the British had another lab leak 30 years later 2007 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak. Accidents in lab research happen and cannot be discounted in a proper investigation. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Guest2625, and in both instances, the first individuals infected were those one would expect to be infected in such a scenario: the people working in, and the animals grazing near, the respective research laboratory. In the present case, the outbreak happened among people working at a market where infectious animals are known to be housed and sold. Is it really credible that the virus escaped and made its way unaided across town, without infecting anybody at the lab or on the way, solely in order to seek out a location where its native bat hosts are present and then begin infecting the market's employees? GPinkerton (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, it seems you are working off very old information. The Chinese Government ruled out the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market as the site of a zoonitic jump, back in May (see statements from Chinese CDC director here, or listen to him yourself if you understand Chinese, here). No SARS-COV-2 virus was detected in animal samples taken from the market, and were instead found in only environmental samples, and sewage. Furthermore, many of the first cases were found in people who had never been to the market, or had no relatives or colleagues that had been to the market. It is currently a complete mystery as to how a virus from a bat species from 1,400km away suddenly emerged in Wuhan, during their hibernation state. Please read the articles I provided above so that you understand the subject of this conversation. I would start you off with the Le Monde article, here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, more non-peer-reviewed, outdated speculation. GPinkerton (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkertonI hope you read the article with statements from the Chinese CDC director so that you are now aware of the outdated information relating to the Wuhan wet market. You don't have to read the Le Monde piece, but it will bring you up to date on other things. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is a quote from a science source which supports the statement of the editor above. The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market has bee ruled out:

The earliest recognised case of infection with SARS-CoV-2 was an elderly and infirm man who developed symptoms on 1 December 2019. None of his family members became infected, and the source of his virus remains unknown. Furthermore, 14 of the 41 first cases had no contact with the seafood market. In another report, five of the first seven cases of COVID-19 had no link to the seafood market. Thus, it seems very likely that the virus was amplified in the market, but the market might not have been the site of origin nor the only source of the outbreak.[21]

What is known is that the outbreak began in Wuhan, and that the Wuhan Institute of Virology does some of the best and most extensive research on coronaviruses in the world. If the coronavirus outbreak had started in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, would you only investigate the bats in the Blue Ridge mountains? No, you would walk on over to the University of North Carolina campus and knock on the door of professor Ralph S Baric's office and ask him some questions and ask to see his lab's notebooks and virus database. The idea of a lab leak is reasonable as those two cases above make clear. Whether it happened or not is unknown at the moment. Specialists in the field as mentioned already like David Relman, Richard H. Ebright and Marc Lipsitch agree. And, it really should not take such a leap of faith to believe that a lab accident might have happened as has happened multiple times in the United Kingdom and around the world. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Guest2625, without any evidence, a leap of faith over a canyon of Occam's razors is precisely what is required. GPinkerton (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I think. Reliable sources have been presented which state that experts in the field see the hypothesis of a lab accident as possible. Labeling the hypothesis as misinformation or a conspiracy theory is not tenable per wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And just to clarify, for all those people who are in love with that Anderson et. al. Nature article, it is a letter to the editor -- ie it's an opinion piece. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Guest2625, panspermia is possible. UFOs are possible. Nevertheless, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and are worthless without, as in this case. GPinkerton (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel like somebody ought to mention that the Telegraph story linked up there describes the State Department's assertions as going over like a lead balloon: The claims were dismissed by analysts; "Zero details given," noted Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at Scripps Research, rating the statement as "an F"; Mr Pompeo's statement offered little beyond insinuation. Meanwhile, maybe someone can explain to me how "there was an accidental leak and the Chinese government is covering it up" is not a conspiracy theory. And an almost archetypal one, at that. XOR'easter (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine, let it be noted, but that does not mean that the theory should be considered "misinformation" or "conspiracy theories". There are scientists on both sides of the argument, and neither of them are claiming to have the absolute truth. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, there is another discussion on this very page about the Chinese government being an unreliable source, in which every participant (as far as I can tell) is in consensus about the overall issue of their claims not being believable prima facie: I'm not sure how it could be generally accepted fact for all other issues and conspiracy theory specifically when about COVID. jp×g 03:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing science with opinions of scientists. There are scientists who believe in astrology, Creationism, homeopathy, high-dosage vitamins, and other similar stuff, none of which is science. "A scientist believes in it" or even "three scientists believe in it" is not enough to make something credible. Only people who do not understand how science works think it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

HB, your correct distinction regarding what is shown via the scientific method vs the opinions of scientist is not made stronger by needlessly antagonist comments such as this, ”Only people who do not understand how science works think it is.". While not directed at any particular editor it can be seen as directed at a subset of editors and thus is a CIVIL issue. It would be best to hold back such comments and let the reason of your argument stand on its own (sound) merit. Springee (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that I am confusing opinions from scientists with proven hypotheses from scientists. That is not the case, and as I've pointed out, there is currently no proof of any COVID-19 origin scenario. As such, Wikipedia should present all origin scenarios with equal weight, until there is a scientific consensus on the matter. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, Wikipedia should present all origin scenarios with equal weight is patently absurd. There is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic bat pathogen. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Are you seriously suggesting we give an extra-terrestrial or supernatural origin equal space to medical evidence? At this point, this is speculation on the level of panspermia. GPinkerton (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I am afraid you are the one making extraordinary claims. There is no evidence of the zoonitic jump scenario, and as likely as it is, it is not proven. This situation is due to the lack of information coming out of China. There is no equivalence to extra-terrestrials. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, if there is no evidence of zoonosis, why does the WHO source, which you supplied, refer to SARS-CoV-2 as a zoonotic pathogen? This is ridiculous. GPinkerton (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that SARS-COV-2 is bat derived coronavirus (aka "zoonotic pathogen"), does not preclude the possibility that it underwent studies in a lab from which it was accidentally leaked. Please read the sources I provided, otherwise you are just taking up space on this page to ask questions you would know not to ask. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, I would only know not to ask if I interpreted the sources according to the novel method you appear to be using. It is not up to you whether or not others disagree with your claims. GPinkerton (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Occam's razor precludes such assumptions without evidence. GPinkerton (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton No. Occam's razor tells us the most likely origin for SARS-COV-2 is a lab leak. Arcturus (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, no it absolutely does not. GPinkerton (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton Occam's razor: "the simplest explanation is usually the right one". So SARS-COV-2 originated in a city where there's a lab carrying out research on zoonotic origins of coronaviruses, but it didn't come from the lab? That's pretty much on a par with claiming that the effects witnessed after Chernobyl weren't caused by the local power plant. Arcturus (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, "the simplest explanation is usually the right one". What's more likely, an escape of a zoonotic virus from highly controlled biosecurity without any infections at the source and magical transmission to a market across town, or a perfectly normal and frequently repeated natural zoonosis in an environment known to to contain the both the host animals and the first human cases of the disease? What's more likely, some blogs, Daily Mail, and magazine claims being right or the overwhelming scientific consensus being wrong? GPinkerton (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, you might consider a combination of both the scenarios you mention (take out "magical") - not that I've seen it suggested in the MSM - yet. A similar scenario might be cases of Anthrax suddenly appearing in the village of Porton, Wiltshire. What would be made of that? Arcturus (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, so it's just original research and tu quoque. Slicey, slicey. GPinkerton (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No personal attacks intended. I'm merely asking you to consider some scenarios. Arcturus (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of the thread is to make Wikipedia's readers consider the groundless and unsubstantiated "lab leak" conspiracy theory ...

We already know the quality of claims made when there was a "lab leak" conspiracy theory based on the vicinity of Porton Down to Salisbury. I don't see how this is any different: speculation resting on a few seconds' look at a map. GPinkerton (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

> Wikipedia should present all origin scenarios with equal weight

Presenting all scenarios with equal weight violates the NPOV policy, specifically the WP:GEVAL section, which explicitly bans giving equal weight to all scenarios when high-quality reliable sources tend to favor one over another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I just want to give my own view on the underlying controversy. Although I don not think that WP:MEDRS sourcing is required, I also think that it is clear that at this point, the sourcing in favor of the view that this is a conspiracy theory is stronger than the sourcing for the view that it is not. Unfortunately, the way things work on Wikipedia, for our purposes that is more important than the question of whether or not it is actually a conspiracy theory. I would therefore caution users opposed to the conspiracy theory idea, and User:ScrupulousScribe in particular, not to try to go beyond what the sourcing actually supports. WP:FRINGE/PS may apply here. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Which sourcing that advocates the conspiracy theory do you have in mind - sourcing that actually uses those words? Arcturus (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, I appreciate your response. The only sources that indicate that the lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory, are those which conflate it with legitimate conspiracy theories. There is a discussion to be had on why two papers from unknown authors that conflate different lab origin theories should be considered WP:BESTSOURCES, superceding even the most notable coronavirus scientists, like Ralph Baric, who has said that a "lab escape" theory is "reasonable" given the "lack of evidence" for a "natural escape". The USDOS statement is significant, as it reflects US Government policy, and has made a few editors in this conversation reconsider the position, as per WP:DUE, and WP:RS. As the incoming Biden administration takes the helm, one of the most likely things to happen is that the US will rejoin the WHO, and as part of that, it will likely demand for the investigation to be taken seriously, which will give us more statements, and strengthen the case for WP:DUE and WP:RS. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, you appear to be basing your claims' validity on what the US government might do in future, contrary to normal chronological logic and WP:CRYSTAL. We need not wait that long in any case, since reliable sources already discuss this "theory" as a "conspiracy theory". See:
Nie, Jing-Bao (2020-12-01). "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency". Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 17 (4): 567–574. doi:10.1007/s11673-020-10025-8. ISSN 1872-4353. PMC 7445685. PMID 32840850. GPinkerton (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This really is getting tedious! That source claims conspiracy about biological weapons, not about an lab leak per se. Arcturus (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, it explicitly calls the idea of an escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology a conspiracy theory and "groundless" "according to the available scientific evidence". Tedious yes. MEDRS supporting the lab leak conspiracy theory, none yet ... GPinkerton (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So what? There are peer-reviewed papers from scientists making the opposite claim, like this one. Like I said, there are scientists on both sides, and there is no clear consensus. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not MEDRS. You can find scientists saying all sorts of crap in peer-reviewed journals, like that homeopathy works. That's why Wikipedia has altogether stricter criteria for SCI/MED sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This paper's evidence is the same non-peer-reviewed paper from early last year and an article in the Wall Street Journal ... GPinkerton (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

As I've pointed out several times now (over at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology), that paper was written by a botanist and an entrepreneur. Out of the thousands of papers written about SARS-CoV-2, you cherry-pick one written by people who aren't even virologists. Others have pointed out that it's classified as an "Essay". -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This is from Reuters dated January 18, 2021. Factbox: The origins of COVID-19. Wikipedia follows what the reliable sources say. The factbox does not mention conspiracy theory or misinformation. Why wikipedia editors want to interject the term "conspiracy theory" is beyond me and many other editors. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Guest2625, The factbox does not mention conspiracy theory or misinformation. See: argumentum ex silentio. beyond me and many other editors. See: argumentum ad populum. The reliable source linked above says specifically that there is no evidence for "lab leak". ("Though there is no credible supporting evidence, some researchers still do not rule out the possibility that the virus was released accidentally by a specialist lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.") Theories without evidence are called what? GPinkerton (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The statement that the virus "did" leak from the lab is false; however, the statement that the virus "might" have leaked from the lab is true. That the virus might have leaked from a lab is a hypothesis that multiple scientists and the US government say is plausible. Also, these individuals are of the opinion that this hypothesis along with the hypothesis that the virus came directly from bats should both be investigated by the WHO investigatory team. Just put whether the term "conspiracy theory" should be used for the hypothesis that "the virus might have leaked from a lab" to a vote; then everyone can have their say, and this conversation will be done. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Break

This discussion is wasting everyone's time at this point. The question of what sort of sourcing we should rely on is clear. WP:MEDRS is the relevant policy, and Alexbrn has explained how that policy applies to this case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion. However, an important point I got from this discussion is that layman readers like many of us who are not virologists are not prepared to understand the science behind it. I liked that Vincent Racaniello, who disaproved the NY Magazine article, took the time to breakdown the lab leak theory in this episode of his podcast. It shows scientific integrity and open-mindedness from him to pinpoint exactly what parts of the theory are bogus, which we need to understand so that a future reiteration of attempts to edit Wikipedia on it can be properly addresed. So, yes, the sort of sourcing that we should rely when editing stuff about the origin of SARS-CoV-2, is MEDRS, but there are aspects of it that could exceptionally have RS sourcing, and it shouldn't be hard to provide explicit guidelines in that sense. Forich (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to identify a MEDRS source that supports the notion that a lab leak is "conspiracy". If you read the one suggested above by GPinkerton you'll see that it doesn't. Arcturus (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No, one will see no such thing. The paper is all about conspiracy theories. GPinkerton (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It's about biological warfare conspiracy theories, and that's all. There is no real disagreement that this is probably a conspiracy. At issue is the point that all other lab leak scenarios are currently classified as "conspiracy" by Wikipedia. So again, please point to a usable, i.e. recent, MEDRS source that labels such things as an accidental lab leak as conspiracy. Arcturus (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it specifically describes the conspiracy theory of a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. GPinkerton (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The paper details two [conspiracy] theories (quotations given):

First theory

A few days after the lockdown of Wuhan in late January 2020, a U.S. newspaper prone to circulating conspiracy theories linked the origins of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2, then called 2019-nCoV) to China’s covert biological weapons programme ...

Second theory

Immediately after the epidemic (initially called “Wuhan pneumonia”) became public knowledge in late January, an unsettling theory started to circulate in China. Posts with certain variations—but containing exactly the same information and similar wording—spread like wildfire, particularly on Chinese social media WeChat. They tied the origins of the virus to the first China-hosted international military multi-sport event which involved the participation of nearly ten thousand athletes from over one hundred countries ...

The paper does not address anything other than these two very specific theories. It is certainly not "all about conspiracy theories". In fact, the second theory is about the USA being the source. This paper cannot be used as source to support, for instance, the claim that an accidental leak from a laboratory - the Wuhan Lab - engaged in coronavirus experimentation, is a conspiracy. Incidentally, it's a paper from a bio-ethics group. Is this actually MEDRS? I'm not saying it isn't, but maybe someone could confirm that it is. Arcturus (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, the text you have quoted omits the title of the section it was quoted from, which is as follows: Conspiracy Theory Version 1: A P4 Lab in Wuhan. Are you seriously suggesting that there is some other lab in Wuhan to which some wholly separate conspiracy theory has somehow attached? How is this different from claiming that while most aliens at Roswell were a conspiracy theory, the real aliens are somehow bona fide? GPinkerton (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Both theories are described within the context of biological warfare. As far as the current discussion is concerned, it doesn't mater if the paper is RS or MEDRS; it's irrelevant and of no use. Arcturus (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, why? The conspiracy theory alleges there was a leak from a lab. If this paper isn't pertinent to that conspiracy theory, nothing will be and we can agree not to include any mention of the idea at the page suggested, as it is wholly spurious, groundless, and without evidence. I suppose now you'll relent in the "Occam's razor suggests the conspiracy theory is true without one MEDRS to back it" philosophy? GPinkerton (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, it is not at all clear why WP:MEDRS should apply on aspects of Covid-19 that do not constitute Wikipedia:Biomedical information, or on aspects of Covid-19 which would usually constitute biomedical information (such as the mechanism of transmission of the first human infection), but where there is no public information for scientists to assess. MEDRS should be required for things like the purported medical benefits of THC or CBD, but not for topics like decriminalization of cannabis in the US, or how many States have legalized it. There is an ongoing discussion on this topic here.

Also, the fifth pillar of Wikipedia is that there are no firm rules (WP:5P5), and policies can be discussed and changed if they are not working in special circumstances. It is not every day that a virus causes a global pandemic that started in a country that imposes a complete media and academic blackout on its origins. I personally don't think any policies need to be changed, but it has to be discussed as to how WP:MEDRS applies here, given the lack of data for scientists to assess, and the subsequent lack of scientific studies that can conclude the matter.

Discussing the matter of whether MEDRS applies here is anything but a waste of time, and can go right the way up to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee if it has to.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The applicability of WP:MEDRS is clear here, and you're wasting everyone's time by arguing that we should lower sourcing standards for an important biomedical subject. The discussion has played out here. If you want to go to WP:ARBCOM, then you're free to do so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Why should MEDRS apply to subjects "which would usually constitute biomedical information...but where there is no public information for scientists to assess"? How about we just not write anything about which no information is available? And if we're determined to write something based on theoretical evaluations, how about we prefer the theoretical evaluations of subject-matter experts over the wild guesses of anyone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Debate conclusions

First of all, I am going to ask editors, specially on the side of the lab leak theory to keep their comments brief in this section. Now, here are the strongest points made on each side:

Anti lab leak theory best points

1. The sources provided (New York Magazine and Infection Control Today) are not MEDRS. Editing medical articles require MEDRS, thus do not mention the lab leak theory based on Non-MEDRS sources
2. There has been confusion regarding medical peer-reviewed sources and MEDRS. They are not the same, and editors should familiarize with the difference before engaging in editing a medical topic
3. Even if we assume that secondary sources may be imperfect in this case (i.e. they are slow in keeping up with the latest developments, there has been signs of censorship to Chinese scientists, there are ethical accusations against an important subset of the scientists gatekeeping the MEDRS), MEDRS are still the best source for a Wikipedia entry on medical subjects. Moreover, If MEDRS are accused of intentionally ignoring touching the lab leak theory as a way of preemptive censorship, there are independent assesments on the theory by prominent experts (e.g. Vincent Racaniello) that have explicitely debunked it point by point. This should suffice to restore our faith in the mainstream standard channels.
4. Edits that delete lab-leak claims from Wikipedia should not be interpreted as an attack on the personal beliefs of pro lab-leak editors, and civil debate showing how this deletes are grounded in Wikipedia policy should be enough to avoid edit wars. The fact that anti lab leak editors put up this RS Noticeboard is telling of an open mind to understand whether they were missing something.

Pro lab leak theory best points

1. The issue of understanding how MEDRS-only policy works for Covid-related topics is not simple. Repeating that it is simple does not make it any less complicated, and instead seems condescending
2. There is nothing wrong in proposing edits in talk pages in good faith, and edits there discussing the lab leak theory should not be seen as disruptive just because of it being a fringy topic. If it is not your favorite topic, do not read it, and skip to the next section of the talk page
3. It feels unfair to have the lab leak theory completely extirpated from all pages in Wikipedia, given the traction it has received in RS. Wikipolicies should not drive us to the error of complete extirpation of a notable subject.
4. Splitting-hair argument #1: It is wrong to compare the lab leak and the flat earth theories. WHO has admited they will look into the lab leak theory, although it is a remote possibility. No scientific corpus will ever "look into the flat earth theory".
5. Splitting-hair argument #2: To have the virus be of animal origin is not the same as to have animal origin and natural evolution. The possibility of natural origin and artificial recombination in a laboratory is not a semantic game but a distinct instance, so there needs to be a separated discussion of it based on logic sense, regardless of no MEDRS breaking down the lab leak theory into man-made (constructed) vs artificially recombined (manipulated). It would be a straw-man argument to try to debunk both by only addresing the man-made hypothesis.
6. Splitting-hair argument #3: It would be preferable to have sources be discussed mainly by the merits of their evidence and strength of argumentation. Ad-hominems and bringing out certain cherry-picked stains in the CV of authors should either come as secondary rebuttals, or rebuttals aimed at the editorial decision of the publication that allowed a questionable person publish a certain topic in a RS.

Next, I'm asking i) for an independent editor to provide his own take on the conclusion, and ii) is there a chance of a middle ground between the two sides that would allow for productive editing? I hope that we are open to hear proposals in that sense. Forich (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: thanks for the above effort; a good summary. This clearly needs an independent arbitrator to close it. WP:RF3O is only when there's a dispute between two editors, so a WP:RFC might be the next step. Arcturus (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the standard practice is for an uninvolved editor to write a summary in circumstances like these, or when closing a discussion and the like; otherwise, we run the risk of simply escalating the meta-argument another level ("that's not what I said!" "nobody even made that point, why is it here?!" and so forth). XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a not-unreasonable collection of arguments, but the last item should be marked as anti-policy. We do not really want editors to choose sources "mainly by the merits of their evidence and strength of argumentation". MEDRS warns against this: '"Assessing evidence quality" means editors should determine quality of the type of source and quality of the publication. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review.' The alternative is to decide that editors know better than the sources. We need to pick high-quality sources and accept what they say; we should not pick sources based on whether we agree with the contents (e.g., "their evidence and arguments"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutral: Origin unknown

There is only one question in this discussion: that is whether the term "conspiracy theory" should be used for the hypothesis that "the virus might have come from a laboratory accident". The US government has stated it most clearly:

The U.S. government does not know exactly where, when, or how the COVID-19 virus—known as SARS-CoV-2—was transmitted initially to humans. We have not determined whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan, China.[22]

Multiple scientists have also stated the same thing. If a conclusion is needed, a request for comment can be opened on the relevant page and a conclusion decided there by a tally of the participant's opinions. --Guest2625 (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Disagreed. "Neutral" by no means implies "middle", "central", or "no position". Experienced editors should all be familiar enough with the NPOV principle, where neutrality has a specific definition. Also, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, so decided there by a tally of the participant's opinions is also questionable. Normchou ^💬 06:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Abusing MEDRS is destructive and harmful

I would like to point to a recent discussion in a specific context on Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#WP:MEDRS, where I argued the specious use of MEDRS has the destructive effect of censoring significant viewpoints supported by reliable sources. This is harmful to the Wikipedia project.

Also, I cannot help but raise the issue about WP:CONDUCT even though this is a RSN discussion. As Forich has mentioned above, there is a certain sense of condescension among some of the editors who frequently cite MEDRS in their editing decisions, regardless of whether or not they are correct. Actually, as I noted earlier on the ANI, I can sense quite some tribalism and WP:BITE mentality when I examine the editing history of some of those editors. I am not sure how long this phenomenon has existed on Wikipedia, but definitely feel it is causing harm to the community if continued. Normchou ^💬 07:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(Repurposing from my comment at ANI): So right now, all the non-biomedical "evidence" we have of a lab leak is the lab's proximity (location- and research-wise) and the shitty opaqueness of the Chinese government. These are both circumstantial and unconvincing, so the media rely on overinterpreting scientists' opinions of the virus's genetic origins to strengthen their narrative. The evidentiary details that we can actually empirically analyze are all dependent on expert interpretation of viral evolution and epidemiology. That is to say, any "evidence" we have to boost this out of misinformation territory requires a) constructing a timeline that fits with the known epidemiological timeline; and b) proposing a mechanism that would align the genetic history with what one would expect if there was passage within the lab beforehand. Both of these necessitate MEDR sourcing reflecting expert agreement. The consensus among scientists, from very early on, has been to assume a zoonotic origin with natural transmission to humans, because that is how prior epidemics have arisen and there is nothing to suggest otherwise in this instance. Of course there are lots of unknowns in the early days; we almost never have a clue as to who patient zero was for any epidemic. But given the corpus that has been published over the last year, the vast majority of scientists did not try to fill those holes with allegations of lab passage. Instead they looked at the available data, found it comports with the standard origin assumptions, and did their analyses using those assumptions. That a handful of academics, many not even in virology, have spoken up about a lab leak does not change the consensus. This is best demonstrated by the fact that when the lab leak is addressed at all in the literature, even in articles directly relating to viral origin, it is treated as a hedged "sigh" note to humor the pressures of laypeople before being discarded. It is extremely important any claims by non-MEDRS be couched in the context of widespread expert opinion of those claims; when such consensus is unavailable, the details of the claim are not DUE. This translates to not including non-MEDRS proposed origin mechanisms (even when the ref is said to quote a qualified scientist) when such mechanisms are not directly addressed by strong MEDRS. If hypothetically there were no review articles discussing the furin-like cleavage site in the context of engineered GoFs, then relaying MEDPOP interpretation of it as evidence of lab manipulation would be giving undue credence to FRINGE. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Excellent conclusion, no one could have said it better. The lab leak theory has two solid starting points but a missing link in the middle makes the whole logical chain flawed.

On one side, if hypothetically the exact same virus strain of SARS-CoV-2 was reported to be in a freezer in WIV, and all the other evidence and narratives remained the same, the lab leak theory would not be fringe. This proves that to have a lab leak per se is not the contended issue.

On the other side, scientists do not know how to weigh the two hypothesis explaining the emergence of the virus, it either gained its adaptability to humans and stability by i) cryptic evolution (meaning that for many years people or wild animals somewhere had SARS-CoV-2 but poor surveillance kept it an obscure fact) or ii) it evolved in accelerated conditions that left no traces of circulation (either in a lab or some miracle of nature). From this side, the absence of evidence on the cryptic evolution has been used by lab-leak-theory guys as evidence of absence, thus claiming that accelerated evolution had to happened.

For the lab leak theory to be substantiated, the missing link needs evidence: did the WIV had in secret a 99.9% similar strain? Does WHO's investigation (antibodies, forensic sampling of wildlife, tracing of early cases) rules out the cryptic evolution hypothesis? Maybe these are clues that will never receive further investigation, since the narrative has stablished that the origin is well-understood. Forich (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, at this point, the lab leak idea is unfalsifiable. The most in favour anyone reasonable can say is that it "can't be ruled out" or "we might never know". If this is the case, unsubstantiated claims about an artificial origin fail the test of falsification and are factually meaningless. On the other hand, the assumption that viruses are subject to evolution like everything else and this one is probably no different is verifiable and falsifiable in principle, and therefore it is more meaningful to make truth-apt statements about the one than the other. GPinkerton (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: You are an economist, so it surprises me that you consider Maybe these are clues that will never receive further investigation only to be associated with narratives, whereas in reality there is also a big incentive issue that has not been fully scrutinized. A scientist is, first of all, a human. They need respect, prestige, and money (funding) to continue their career. As Stuart Turville, an immuno-virologist at the Kirby Institute in Australia said, the possibility of a "lab leak" keeps us up at night and is the nightmare within nightmares [23]. Why do you think they are so afraid of this scenario, provided that they are supposed to be only "discoverers of the truth"? The user above, JoelleJay, has mentioned that the vast majority of scientists did not try to fill those holes with allegations of lab passage. Is this phenomenon a pure consequence of the scientific methodology and/or established norms within the scientific community regardless of any conflict of interest? Now, suppose there exists a significant non-scientific, human factor that incentivizes (in a conscious or unconscious way) these scientists (as humans) to focus more on "zoonotic origin with natural transmission to humans" and less on the "lab leak", then we have a general bias that is difficult to be self-corrected by the scientists only. Such a bias can already exist before all these scientific investigations are conducted and research papers written. Normchou ^💬 17:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Normchou, This sounds like confusing a "possibility" of "nightmare" with a statement of fact worthy of note in an encyclopaedia. GPinkerton (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Read the article and understand the context of the "nightmare": This theory is the most uncomfortable and most controversial. If true, it would have severe and lasting ramifications on research, geopolitics and trust in scientific institutions. I am not for or against the "lab leak" theory, but merely pointing out the incentive issue that has been ignored in all these discussions. We should allow a NPOV (one of the WP:5Ps) presentation of the issue using other RSes that balances the "over-dueness" of the "scientific" narrative on this specific issue, which is actually subject to the human incentive issue I've mentioned above. Normchou ^💬 18:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC); edited 18:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Re:Nightmares: Dara O'Briain on fear scenarios (first 32 seconds, but the whole thing is good). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

In this recent article [24] by Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, he also pointed out this incentive issue and raised the concern about any real or perceived conflict of interest using the example of Peter Daszak, a member of two prominent investigative teams searching for the virus' origin. Normchou ^💬 19:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay (talk · contribs) puts it well, and that should be the end of this stupid debate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay, it is great to have Wikipedians like you who argue the point, instead of attacking the credibility of other editors, as others here have done and continue to do. Since I've been banned from a specific topic related to this thread, I would like to make only one very specific point about something you said in the previous ANI which you brought here, specifically that "there nothing to suggest otherwise in this instance". In truth, there is something very different about the emergence of SARS-COV-2 from the emergence of SARS-COV-1 and from other emerging diseases in the general, which is it's seeming pre-adaption to humans, and which is the subject of a peer-reviewed paper here. The author's hypothesis was proven when the virus jumped from humans to minks in European fur farms, and the mink version began to rapidly mutate (paper here), and this is the subject of further study. The fact that the virus has been well adapted to humans from the very start, is also mentioned in "Current knowledge supporting origin tracing work" (page 3) of the WHO's "Terms of Reference" document for its investigation, here. This peculiar fact and associated papers/authors have been referenced in a number of reliable sources, and continue to get referenced (like in this BBC report from last night), that were put forward by myself to make certain content changes. I hope you read those papers, and unfortunately, I won't be able to reply further in this thread, as may get too close to the topic I can't talk about. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, the first link you supplied (yet again) and which you described as "peer-reviewed" is no such thing. You have clearly missed the large yellow label at the top of the target page which states: bioRxiv is receiving many new papers on coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. A reminder: these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information. and then again missed the next notice on the top of the page (a little lower) warning that: This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review. The BBC source you supply does not credit the lab-leak claim, and quotes experts repudiating it, and furthermore describes the WHO terms of reference report as "mentioning many of China's talking points, including foreign origins and food-chain transmission" with a "hint at the politics behind the scenes", so hardly the most impartial source for whatever hand0waving you'd like the encyclopaedia to reproduce. GPinkerton (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay, the above post from GPinkerton is a great example of an argument that doesn't really make any point. The WHO document says that the virus is well adapted to human transmission from the moment it was first detected. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

These arguments you're repeating have been shown to be specious and your claims about the sources demonstrably false, a point proven numerous times already, but to no avail. Your quoting of irrelevant phrases from documents that expressly disavow the American government/Daily Mail narrative of lab leak does not help advance any cause. GPinkerton (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that bioRxiv preprints are not peer-reviewed is an incredibly important point to make. XOR'easter (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• MEDRS is really nothing more than a recommendation to use really high-quality sources, which isn't ever a real problem. Abusing WP:MEDRS could be bad, agreed, since sometimes trivial claims can have trivial sources. But using WP:MEDRS is great, since it helps us keep our sourcing standards high when they need to be. In my experience, editors complaining about this are editors the Project would be better off ejecting. Alexbrn (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It can be used as a device to keep primary source material out when the claims are not addressed in any secondary source. This might be in aggregate desirable, but this is not technically the same as a recommendation to only use the best sources. Talpedia (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • MEDRS doesn't prohibit primary sources (a common misunderstanding), but they are generally not used for certain kinds of claim. Which is just in line with wider policy. If something primary isn't discussed in other, secondary, RS, why should Wikipedia (which is meant to be a tertiary source) be mentioning it? Alexbrn (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• MEDRS is a collection of guidance and recommendations that would apply to any Wikipedia topic where there is a similar abundance of recent, reliable secondary sources. If art topics had the same huge quantity of recent research and review as medical topics generally enjoy, then ARTRS would be just as sensible an extension of RS as MEDRS is. Much of the problem we observe with these complaints about MEDRS is that it makes it far more difficult for POV-pushers to swamp articles with poor quality, "fringy" sources that they are fed from off-wiki conspiracy sites and social media. The time is coming when we are going to have to show the POV-pushers the door immediately without all the timewasting we go through at present. And we are going to have to understand the difference between manipulative accusations of WP:BITE (along with insincere howls of "censorship") and preserving the integrity and accuracy of Wikipedia. In the current climate, we have to choose to support one or the other. --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the accusations of censorship are probably sincere but ill-founded. Talpedia (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A manipulative and thinly-veiled ad hominem attack against "POV pushers" without any actual evidence should not be representative of the level or quality of discussion that a typical Wikipedia admin is supposed to uphold. Normchou ^💬 23:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • MEDRS is a collection of guidance and recommendations that would apply to any Wikipedia topic where there is a similar abundance of recent, reliable secondary sources. This is only half the reason for MEDRS; the other half is that (like with BLP) the Wikipedia:Biomedical information topic area is one where errors can lead to serious, immediate, and hard-to-reverse real-world consequences, which means we have to approach it more cautiously and with higher sourcing requirements. (In fact, on many fringe topics there are not high quality sources available - part of the point of MEDRS is that in that case we ought to ignore those topics entirely rather than risk the harm of covering them from a poor source.) While we always want the best available sources, the same urgency and risk does not imply to non-biomedical claims. --Aquillion (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Claiming that mere information from Wikipedia—whether or not it is correct—can lead to serious, immediate, and hard-to-reverse real-world consequences is susceptible to a slippery slope, and seems to have completely disregarded the actual cognitive processes of information handling and decision making (including decision making under risk) in autonomous, well-functioning human beings like most of us. Normchou ^💬 23:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Nonetheless, however you feel about it, that is indeed part of the rationale behind the tighter sourcing requirements for WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS. --Aquillion (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree mostly with what is said above in particularly in JoelleJay's statement. That said, there are times where non-MEDRS but otherwise normally good RSes (NYTimes) are appropriate for statements that are very high level and make no attempt at a novel medical or scientific claim but otherwise readily collaborate with MEDRS. For example, using a NYTimes source which backs the statement "The first known COVID cases originated in China." would be 100% reasonable. Using a NYTimes source to broadly document high-level methods of reducing spread of COVID like mask-wearing and frequent hand washing would be appropriate, even though we have numerous MEDRS studies that affirm the effectiveness of these, we don't need to fall back on such high level advice. Using a NYTimes source to back a more "precise" statement "COVID originated from a lab leak near Wuhan, China." would be inappropriate at this time since that would require MEDRS to be affirming, or saying that "COVID is able to affect the host body by using ACE2 enzymes." (a very specialized piece of knowledge that is not high-level and thus should be sourced to a specialized, MEDRS source.) There is some common sense when talking use of non-MEDRS in talking high-level medical related information and I've seen some cases where adherents to MEDRS may jump too much to disallow non-MEDRS in these cases. But I will fully agree that anything related to this claimed lab leak theory needs a clear MEDRS source, since that's a virus/disease origin aspect that requires specialized knowldge. --Masem (t) 21:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Rules can be rules-lawyered, principles invariably contradict one another, finding how to trade off principles and which best apply is hard. Lots of this is just the way of the world. I don't think there is antyhing here beyond the standard issues with conflict. I suspect the "abuse" here refers to whether a claim is medical, journalistic or sociology and appling MEDRS standards to arguably journalistic claims. Talpedia (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Complaints about "abusing" the project's standards of sourcing generally seem to put the cart before the horse. We don't decide that a topic is important and then lower our standards until writings on that topic clear the bar. We write about topics when adequately-reliable sources cover it to such an extent that it is noteworthy. Sometimes, I regret that; there has been more than one occasion when I would have liked to write about a thing, but it was too niche or too transient. XOR'easter (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that MEDRS is frequently abused and in fact is irrelevant to this topic. The stated reason for MEDRS is that Wikipedia articles "are widely used among those seeking health information." In the case of COVID-19, this helps us for example to ensure that readers are not given false information about hydroxychloroquine, which some people have falsely claimed can cure the illness. But whether COVID-19 originated in a lab or from animals is irrelevant to what treatment someone should seek. Wikipedia policies, including RS, WEIGHT and NOR, are adequate to prevent the articles from being false or misleading or misrepresenting the weight of expert opinion. TFD (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  The Four Deuces, and the fact that these same virologists who're being accused of leaking this on the world and denying it have been, unheeded, telling everyone to minimize human contact with bats in Asia is what, irrelevant to peoples' health? If we give false credence to speculation that this pandemic was anything but the long-expected result of insanitary overlap between SARS-CoV-carrying bats and humans, how is that any different to giving false credence to speculation that antimalarials might be beneficial in some way in its treatment? If, entirely unsupported by any securely known facts, we allow Wikipedia's authorial voice to allow readers to take away the notion that Covid-19 is somehow not, prima facie, a predicable and predicted, ordinary natural occurrence, then NPOV will have failed by default. Pandemic zoonosis is routine, and logic demands extraordinary evidence to overturn the obvious consensus that no artificial "missing link" is necessary, just as in the other bat coronavirus pandemics in the 21st century. GPinkerton (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That makes no sense. People are not going to increase their contact with bats just because they don't think they were the source of COVID-19. In fact, scientists do not think that COVID-19 came directly from bats but from an unknown intermediary animal, such as an anteater. TFD (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, yes, they will. Throughout the region, bats are encouraged to roost above or near the home in order to collect guano for fertilizer, a fact which has caused coronavirus pandemics more than once this century already. Anteaters are not thought to be involved by anyone. GPinkerton (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If anteaters are not thought to be involved by anyone, then you might want to correct the article COVID-19 pandemic, which says the source is "Possibly via bats, pangolins, or both." (Pangolins are often referred to as anteaters.) Bats can transmit rabies, which is far more serious to the individual than COVID-19, and guano is known to cause illnesses, all of which are far more likely than someone contracting COVID-19 from a bat. Seriously, no one would say, "Well I know I can get rabies or other sicknesses from bats, but I don't care about that. What I do care about is the possibility that one person once contracted COVID-19 from a bat."

Pretty much all human activity has some health consequences and if we carry MEDRS to extremes then we will seriously limit sources. Universal health care, war, gun control, imprisonment, cooking, climate change, poverty, fracking - all of these have impacts on human health, but we don't have to source all the related articles to medical journals.

Fringe theories about science rarely receive extensive coverage in medical journals - that's why we call them fringe theories. They may however receive extensive coverage in social sciences. For example white supremacist race theories are not extensively documented in medical journals because they are not real science. But social scientists may study them extensively as social phenomena. The investigator from the SPLC does not need to be a medical doctor nor do they need their reports to be reviewed by medical experts. All they need to know is what any educated person knows, that racist claims have no support in science. They don't have to know how the human genome was sequenced for example.

If we want to write about the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 originated in a lab, we should be able to use articles by responsible journalists and academics who write about it. While they will not typically have medical degrees, they will have sufficient understanding to write about it responsibly.

TFD (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I have never heard of pangolins referred to as anteaters, which is taxonomically less accurate than referring to a dog as a kind of giraffe. Similarly, I have never heard of gun control as a health matter of any kind (must be unique to America). While war, poverty, and other aspects of the human experience may influence health in general ways, it is entirely disingenuous to claim that a virological question of immense import and with specific medical ramifications is an appropriate venue for the inclusion of non-medical opinion (i.e. not-fact) and the relaxation of Wikipedia policies surrounding reliable sources for medical matters, as has been done elsewhere in this thread, simply because we trust and expect random journalists and academics to be suitably qualified and unbiased. GPinkerton (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There's an article, "Alpine race," which "is a historical race concept defined by some late 19th-century and early 20th-century anthropologists as one of the sub-races of the Caucasian race." It was thought that optimal diets for humans differed according to their sub-race. Mediterranean people for example were thought to be better eating fish, while Nordics should eat red meat. Are we supposed to source all these articles to medical journals? After all, someone may change their diet, which has health consequences, based on their supposed membership in a racial sub-group. TFD (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Further information: tu quoque
  GPinkerton (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• @GPinkerton: This doesn't seem very productive. While the discussion has been going for quite some time, I don't think that spouting Latin at each other is going to cause the situation to be resolved any quicker — I don't even understand how you could call that a tu quoque, perhaps it would be helpful if you explained what you meant? jp×g 10:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@GPinkerton:, see "Call for papers: Gun violence epidemiology and prevention," BioMed Central (BMC), "a United Kingdom-based, for-profit scientific open access publisher that produces over 250 scientific journals," owned by the German-British academic publishing company, Springer Nature (of which one assumes you have heard): "Gun violence is a major public health issue that is affecting the lives of individuals around the world and is the cause of more than 500 deaths and 2,000 injuries per day."

You are the one being disingenuous, because all human activity has medical consequences. However, medical science is not the only subject of rational study. We can for example write about gun violence using criminology sources. We can use mainstream media as a source for individual cases of gun violence or for political debates about it. We can even say that someone died from a gunshot wound without consulting the pathologist's report.

Certainly no article about the origins of COVID-19 should use non-MEDRS sources. But an article about the conspiracy theory should mention who created it, who promotes it, who believes it, what are the political and social consequences, etc. You for example are certain that if people hear about the theory it may make them want to get close to bat guano. But that claim is within the realm of social sciences, not medicine.

Here's an article from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). "Coronavirus: Trump stands by China lab origin theory for virus." Why do you think the BBC is incompetent to report what Trump said?

TFD (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, that's not what this discussion is about, and further appeals to irrelevant unrelated examples does not reduce those appeals' fallaciousness. Comments about my postulated opinions on Springer and the BBC contain more strawmen than a barn-dance of scarecrows. Public health is not the same as disease, and even if it were, the "epidemiology" of gunshots is nothing like the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Gun violence is something people decide to do, and something it is possible to take different political positions on and for neither side of dispute to be wholly right or wrong. The objective facts of the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 cannot and will not be the subject of meaningful political debate, and claims about the origin of any virus are necessarily either right or wrong truth-claims which could, at least in principle, be verified or falsified (if neither, then factually meaningless). If such medical claims are to appear in the encyclopaedia's authorial voice, then they must be backed with appropriate medical sources. If such sources do not exist or where they contradict the claim in question, these claims must not appear on Wikipedia. GPinkerton (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A further, minor, point to raise is that a call for papers indicates that the work is neither written nor published, which makes it problematic as a source in support of the idea of gun violence being somehow equivalent to virology in terms of relevance to the discipline of medicine. GPinkerton (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You are digressing into pointless discussion and avoiding the issues. Yes, the papers that have been called for have not been published yet, but there is already a body of papers published. Yes pangolins are not true anteaters, but that is a common term for them. Yes public health is not disease, but both come under MEDRS. Yes gunshots and viruses are different but they also come under MEDRS. None of this has any effect bearing on the discussion. The issue is that since all human activity has an effect on human health, tendentious editors can and do bundle anything into MEDRS. The fact that you are bringing up the claim that if people don't think COVID-19 came directly from bats (which incidentally we don't know) that they are going to surround themselves with bats and guano despite the already documented dangers of getting worse diseases from them. Anyway, you seem savvy enough to understand that. I enjoy reading your responses since you show great creativity in stubbornly tailoring your responses to new arguments, but it seems unlikely to lead to any progress. TFD (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It's trivial to come up with ways in which any subject whatsoever falls under WP:MEDRS. Trial of Socrates? Please refer to Conium maculatum#Toxicity. Trichord, chromatic scale, and chord progressions? Why, that's the Neuronal encoding of sound. Obviously these are biomedical subjects, on which it would be dangerous to peddle the uneducated disinformation of mere classicists and musicians. We can progress down every article in this way, using more or less consistent arguments, until Wikipedia consists solely of medical subjects — deigning to declare astrophysics a subfield of radiology and theology a subfield of psychology — but why? To what end? You have not explained why this is a good idea. You have instead talked about "a barn-dance of scarecrows"; I am not seeing any reasoning for why others should adopt your views, other than the claim that they are being disingenuous, which — well, I'm not, so please try to come up with a different tack. jp×g 22:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you cannot see the difference between infectious disease and suicide by hemlock vis-à-vis MEDRS I'm afraid my pointing out that constructing more straw men to engage in whataboutery is fruitless will not improve matters. If the bald fact that the origins of pandemic diseases requires proper sourcing is not immediately apparent I don't think my saying so again is going to convince ... GPinkerton (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should review Wikipedia:Biomedical information. One takeaway from this is that we should definitely clarify whether a disease's origin falls under that definition or not (my impression is that it currently does not, although as it says at the bottom Information that is not typically biomedical may still require high-quality sourcing if the context may lead the reader to draw a conclusion about biomedical information, as can occur with content about human biochemistry or about medical research in animals - I see some arguments pointing towards that reasoning above.) But in any case it would be helpful to unambiguously place, as a base case, whether a disease's origin is on one side or the other of the is / is not divide on that page. The obvious places for it are population data and epidemiology if it is biomedical or history if it does not - it could fit into either but does not unambiguously fit with the current examples they give. --Aquillion (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Let me use a concrete example. Are we allowed to say, based on the BBC article I referred to, that Donald Trump said COVID-19 originated in a Chinese lab or do we need to add a MEDRS approved reference explaining why he is wrong? Are we allowed to say that lemons contain higher levels of vitamin C than limes, based on a peer reviewed study by a chemist who is not a medical doctor? These discussions constantly arise in articles about fringe theories and their advocates. My view is that unless we are making specific claims that could be taken as medical advice, that MEDRS does not apply. If someone concludes that because Trump believes something it must be true, or that there are health benefits in exceeding recommended intake of vitamin C, that's their problem. We don't have to annotate all these cases with expert medical opinion. TFD (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • We can relay what Trump said, but per WP:VALID would probably need to add context that he's spouting a conspiracy theory; the vitamin content of a fruit is not biomedicine. "Medical advice" on Wikipedia is absolutely verboten so that consideration should never arise. Alexbrn (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Academia.edu

Are papers from Academia.edu reliable? I particularly want to know about [25].--2409:4073:4D8D:DE3C:9C1:F364:6881:5B1C (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally no, you can put anything you want on there. A lot of what is on there is undergraduate and post-graduate essays, and some really fringe stuff. There is also a lot of stuff there which is reliable, but also a copyright violation, so we can't use. However, there is some stuff on there which is legit, usually academics who post their own stuff. You should link to the published version of their paper in that case.

The source you link obviously exists elsewhere, as it has the layout of a printed pamphlet. But I don't know enough about the topic, publisher and author to tell you whether the original would be RS. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The source is self-published, so if you could find a legitimate copy, this would apply.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If it is used to support medical claims, does not meet WP:MEDRS. —PaleoNeonate – 07:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)