Template talk:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus)

Frutos and Shi

Frutos does dismiss LL based in part on Shi. This is a fact, not an opinion. I see multiple responders in the relevant RfC Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive_10#RfC_about_how_we_should_use_the_Frutos_source who state this in their responses yet still vote no. See the responses by Shibbolethink, Novem Linguae, Mx. Granger, and Bakkster Man. See also the source itself, which explicitly refers, twice, to a news article about an email from Shi, and uses the emails to come to its scientific conclusion about LL. There is simply no doubt that that is a portion the source's scientific reasoning. That being the case, there is nothing POV about saying so in our consensus. See WP:SPADE. Adoring nanny (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The only thing of interest I see here is one person not being happy that consensus is against them (a consensus which there is no point in relitigating). The horse is dead and buried. Move on. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, all we can do here is state the close. We cannot reinterpret the close or the responses in our own way, we must only represent the closing comment consensus. The consensus template does not take a stand on the veracity of the claim, it simply states we "cannot describe it as". This is the most neutrally worded way to restate the close. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

FBI DOE

You guys are sure making Wikipedia look like a clown show. Carry on. "The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead, because it is WP:UNDUE (RFC, October 2023)" 2600:8804:6600:4:BD84:27CE:9D3F:EBC5 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

BRD on adding "exclusively" to the paraphrase of consensus #2

@Just10A, thank you for your comment on my recent edit where you said Do not unilaterally change consensus template unless a new discussion/consensus is made.

That's not the policy. WP:BOLD edits are perfectly acceptable and expected on wikipedia. If an editor (in this case, you) disagrees with and reverts the edit, then the WP:ONUS is on the reverted editor (in this case, me) to initiate the Discuss part of the WP:BRD process. BRD stands for Bold Revert Discuss.

Lets begin the Discuss part.

My edit added the word "exclusively" so the template reads There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) exclusively as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)

As I noted in my edit summary, adding the word "exclusively" clarifies the linked RfC decision so it cannot be misconstrued (as you did here). Here is what the RfC decision says: Sources for information of any kind should be reliable, and due weight should be given in all cases. A minority viewpoint or theory should not be presented as an absolute truth, swamp scientific consensus or drown out leading scientific theories. This is already covered by WP:RS. And this is why adding the word "exclusively" is warranted. The RfC decision didn't mean to say that disease and pandemic origins aren't covered under WP:MEDRS, it meant to say that there are specific aspects of disease and pandemic origins that are historical, and so not exclusively defined as biomedical information. In the case of COVID origins, the lab leak hypothesis proposes a historical element which deserves some coverage, but there is still a scientific consensus/ leading scientific theory. Scientific consensus is usually considered more reliable than the news when it's related to an academic topic. WP:RS reads: Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics

The current discussion around the German intelligence assessment in Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory may in fact be one of the cases where a non-academic source is WP:DUE for inclusion. That is to be decided based on the best policy arguments per WP:CONSENSUS, (not a majority vote as you have claimed elsewhere).

Your turn. What is the argument that the word "exclusively" should not be included based on what's written in the RfC? The void century 20:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Bold edits on a consensus template are now perfectly acceptable and expected? This is a consensus resulting from lengthy discussions and many editors spent their time and effort on it to reach a collective guideline to be followed. If you do bold editing on it, you are putting yourself above what was previously collectively agreed on for a contentious topic guideline. If you do it at the same time that such consensus is being brought up in another discussion in which you are involved, it looks even worse, bordering manipulation and distortion. Regarding the merit, I find the current form of the template (before your edit) adequately reflects the RfC conclusions and should remain as is. It has been in force for a long time with no such controversy ever being brought up before, in fact it has been used for a long time to support many omissions/suppressions in the lab leak theory article. I do not think that consensus has changed, but checking is always possible. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Noone said consensus has changed. Those "many editors" who reached a collective guideline include myself, and my edit is only as bold as other editors who summarized the results of the linked RfCs to the best of their ability (and have done so on more than one occasion). The consensus discussions in question were the actual RfCs, not necessarily the summaries used by this template.

If you do it at the same time that such consensus is being brought up in another discussion in which you are involved, it looks even worse, bordering manipulation and distortion -- strike your accusation at once. The void century 22:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with how this was conducted without previously opening up a discussion or even signaling that an edit had been made at the same time as the template was being referenced in another discussion. I also disagree with the reinstate done thereafter, on which I have commented below. However, considering I should assume good faith, I sincerely apologize for my previous comment which cast doubt on the integrity of your edit and I will strike it. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I've reinstated void's edit as it merely clarifies what consensus was arrived at in an RFC. The claim that a a new discussion would need to occur to determine consensus is incorrect when anyone can go and read the RFC itself. TarnishedPath^talk 01:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don’t see how your reinstate is compatible with this revert you did just a day ago. The proposed change then also reflected what was in the RfC, namely that when the RfC took place there was no consensus. Still, the original phrasing that there is no consensus (implying this is a current view and not dating four years back) was promptly kept by you, and the argument for your revert was that a discussion should have been previously had (not merely opened) and a consensus reached. I cannot understand what the difference is between these two cases, except for the template edits in each case aligning with somewhat opposing currents in the lab leak talk page. Void opened a discussion only after his edit, and the discussion has not yet been had. In my opinion, we should try to be consistent in our editorial decisions regardless of our personal opinions. So, for consistency and fairness, I would kindly request you to either revert your reinstate until a discussion takes place or reinstate the edit you previously reverted. Thank you. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Your arguing that new discussion need occur in order to accurately reflect the outcome of a previous RFC is not a good one. The difference between obtaining consensus for changes to an article and updating a current consensus template to accurately reflect what consensus was are miles apart. If you think my reasoning incorrect perhaps raise it at WP:AN where the outcomes of RFCs are typically called into review. TarnishedPath^talk 12:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to two changes of consensus template, one that was reverted and another that was reinstated, both by you. I found it to be inconsistent, that is all. I do not want to call into review the outcome of the RfC, I want to know exactly what is the criterion to be able to make a change to a template that reflects the opinion of the RfC without opening up a discussion, because you did request a discussion to be opened in order to change “There is consensus” to “Four years ago, there was consensus”. How is “Four years ago, there was consensus” contradictory with the current RfC? It clarifies that the consensus was obtained 4 years ago, which can be seen in the RfC, no different than what is claimed for the “exclusively” that was reinstated. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The criterion to making changes to the template is that it accurately reflects consensus. You have not provided one argument that the change does not accurately reflect the consensus of the RFC in question. TarnishedPath^talk 15:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Ps, your four years ago bit is your commentary. That is unneeded in a current consensus template. TarnishedPath^talk 15:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad you cited WP:BOLD, because you should read it more closely. Particularly, in the part about templates, which explicitly says "Before editing templates, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects." You didn't do that. You unilaterally edited it to add a word, and then immediately posted a comment with that same word and used the template as backing, without mentioning that you had just edited it. Again, clearly not good procedure.

I (as well as others it seems) do not think the addition of "exclusive" is accurate, and it is not found in the RFC closing. There's no consensus for this change, especially without a broader discussion. Just10A (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It says to "consider" it. I did and didn't think it necessary to take up other editors time to add a single word for clarity. The types of discussions you're referring to have rarely happened for any of the summaries on this template as far back as I can see on this talk page, so most of what's here has been "unilateral" in the same sense that all edits are. It has been editors like myself noticing when something is off and improving the wording ad hoc. The void century 16:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, the word "exclusively" is found nowhere in the RFC close, and the addition to me seems to be completely ignoring the "for the purpose of WP:MEDRS" language. No one is saying that STEM field research is irrelevant. The question is solely: Is the "disease and pandemic origins" field inherently a MEDRS issue, which the answer is "no" based on both consensus and general reason. That's all we're concerned with. As already stated in the consensus, the things that would previously fall under MEDRS still do. MEDRS topics are MEDRS topics and this is not one of them. Obviously it can become a MEDRS topic if it's combined with an actual MEDRS topic, but by itself it is not. That's all the consensus is saying. This is just muddying the waters.

All you've cited is normal RS policy. That's present throughout wikipedia. That's not a medical field or page consensus issue. Obviously all topics have a weighing system and a hierarchy of sources. Again, not a MEDRS issue. This wording is just trying to make it a pseudo-inherently-MEDRS issue, which is not supported by the RFC. Beyond that, you haven't really given much justification other than "I think it's more accurate." So there's not much for me to work with. So, since it is clear at this time that the guidelines were not followed and there is dispute, unless consensus is reached, it's going to be restored per WP:QUO and/or WP:NOCON. Just10A (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep clarify - I have no interest in discussing how the word "exclusively" was added. As for should it be, I think it clarifies the RfC's lengthy close and that clarification will substantially improve discussion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz since you're still active and were the RfC closer, would you be willing to clarify what your intention was with that RfC outcome? We're trying to arrive at an accurate summary of your decision. The void century 23:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The void century, I wrote that conclusion 4 years ago and don't directly remember writing it. After reading it again, what I see is this: origins, locations, who invented/discovered something etc is historical information. If you had to explain how COVID-19 works to an alien scientist, you wouldn't talk about lab leak theories or countries. Aliens don't care about our artificial borders, politics, inventors or lab leaks.
Obviously Wikipedia should describe COVID-19 origins, but I don't believe that's biomedical information. The way I see it, biomedical information is like math: universally true. 1+1 always equals 2, regardless of language or whether you use a base 10 numeral system or not. The statement may look different (uno et uno cest dos, rock plus rock is rock rock, I + I = II), but the math remains the same. The origin of Arabic numerals however is not math, that's history. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't mean to assume, but as someone who edits a lot of biology articles, sees a lot of arguments about this, and has a degree in biology, I have to ask-- are you a creationist? You do believe that humans and other life forms originated via evolution and were not created by a supernatural entity right? Generally speaking, origins of life forms are the domain of the life sciences. Some of those sciences have historical elements, such as paleontology, but they follow the scientific method. History is a social science. Viruses are not considered life by most biologists, but they do evolve via viral evolution. I agree with you that the "discovery of x virus" is historical, but the Covid-19 pandemic if the first time that so many people have postulated that a major pandemic-causing virus was artificially created in a lab. Scientists largely believe Covid originated via zoonosis, and it is hotly debated by wikipedians on a regular basis. Every other major pandemic originated from the natural world via natural processes, and most reliable sources agree on that. The void century 13:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The void century, the way I see it, discussion of how something could originate/spread is biomedical. (humans could evolve from other mammals, or be synthesized by aliens, or dripped from the FSM, cloned, or a wizard did it, yada yada yada).
How something actually originated in a particular instance (e.g. on earth, in Wuhan, China, in December 2019) is history. Or a criminal investigation. Or both. :-P — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The natural sciences may occasionally use terms like "history" to refer to the origin of a disease, but broadly speaking, natural processes aren't studied with the historical method, they're studied with the scientific method, and there are meaningful differences between the two methodologies. There often isn't a date such as "December 2019" for the origin of diseases. I agree that there are historical elements to the beginning of a pandemic or epidemic. For example, one of the theories for the emergence of the HIV epidemic to humans was the bushmeat practice in rural Africa, and knowledge of that practice is partly in the realm of social sciences. But the actual explanation of how that infection might have occurred, and namely, the evolutionary origin of HIV, falls under the natural sciences.

The distinction I'm making is important because the quality of sources differs between natural sciences and social sciences/humanities, and wikipedia is guided by quality of sources. There may be fringe theories that life was created by aliens or wizards, but we don't include those in articles like life, because they don't come from high quality sources. If the CIA issued a report saying they had concluded that creationism was the most likely explanation for the origin of life, we might deem it DUE for inclusion in that article as a historical event, but it wouldn't affect the lead sentence saying that creationism is pseudoscientific, because wikipedia is biased toward science and biased against pseudoscience. The void century 16:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)