Archive 1 Archive 2

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Francesco espo (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC) I'm the owner of laboratoryleak.com! You can find my face and name under every article.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Francesco espo (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the copyrighted content, but I'm the owner of that website!

You should see WP:DONATETEXT if you really want to use the same text. Alternately, just re-add it in your own (different) words. Primefac (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sources

@Hemiauchenia: Hi. I see that you've taken a large chunk of the article's content out. I will explain why I disagree with this:

Firstly, the "UnHerd" reference is, well, I've never heard of this site. Maybe they are bozos. But I took a look at them when I was expanding this section of the article, and they seem to have a staff which engages in oversight and exercises editorial discretion. The article did not say anything crazy, and I was very limited in what I incorporated from it anyway. The main thing I was citing to them was, specifically, their opinion (which is why it was presented as a quote with inline attribution). The opinion in question wasn't even particularly positive (they said that they "hurtle down blind alleys"). The other thing I was citing to them was the number of people in the group (which is already mentioned in another source, but I don't see the harm in including both as citations for that).

Secondly, there were a few other sources you removed, like the Washington Post, Telegraph and CNET citations. I don't really understand what was wrong with those, since they're pretty reliable and commonly used sources on Wikipedia. Could you explain your thinking here? jp×g 19:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Cnet is only usable for computer tech news. UnHeard appears to only be a blog. Why do you keep reinstating these? —PaleoNeonate – 07:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not terribly attached to UnHerd (although it's only cited for two things: as the second source for the number of members, and later as an inline-attributed citation for its own opinion per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). As for CNET, however, RSP lists sixteen separate discussions of CNET (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16); is there one I'm unaware of that concluded it was unreliable for some purpose? jp×g 21:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: in the last few days, there have been new articles primarily focusing on the exploits of this group in The Hindu (RSP entry) ("generally reliable"), Vanity Fair (RSP entry) ("generally reliable"), The Print (no RSP entry, I don't know), and Newsweek (RSP entry) ("case-by-case basis"). jp×g 04:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Propaganda

In case this survives it would be interesting to look for sources describing the propaganda efforts made on Wikipedia by members, including with the misrepresentation of sources, —PaleoNeonate – 07:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope you understand the fine difference between propaganda and investigative clarification or science ?
General: What we should certainly clarify in this context is the possible propaganda of China or the CPC in the COVID 19 area of the Wikipedia, e.g. by the famous 50 Cent Army, paid editors or state officials. The whole framing here - especially to the origin in Wikipedia - is interestingly and paradoxically strongly Chinese, synchronous with Chinese state propaganda, here one example of the Chinese Embassy in Germany. That is one to one the line, which is represented here unreflectively. Good idea with wrong propaganda - we should turn that off.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Empiricus-sextus: This comment is inappropriate and incivil; PaleoNeonate has been an editor for over five years, and has made more than 26,000 edits. You link to the 50 Cent Party: do you really think the Chinese Communist Party spent $13,000 for this person to disagree with you on a talk page? You are perfectly free to disagree about politics, but WP:ASPERSIONS are neither a helpful nor welcome contribution to the discussion. jp×g 07:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for advice. This was no personal note for Neonate. Sorry for missunderstanding. I had a "little confrontation" with chinese officials in the German Wikipedia concerning COVID 19 already, first friendly, later with super strong PA (with IPs from Berlin and Hamburg). I´m not sure if they are active here -possible yes ! To say DRASTIC makes "Propaganda" and "misrepresantation of source" is a little bit too much bashing. I don't know DRASTIC more deeply, but I already realize that it is very dangerous to get into a confrontation with China on this issue - even outside of China ! That one has to protect oneself, especially Chinese who are active as whistleblowers here and pass on many insider information to DRASTIC. I think there are good reasons to respect these people / group and not to connext them negatively - e.g. with propaganda, conspiration theory, etc.. he whole discussion has become considerably objectified and something like this (first three sentences), for example, is a kind of bashing (implicit PA). Whether she was right or wrong, we should be more sensitive about this persons..--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
One example of obvious misrepresentation was presented here for instance. As for members trying to use Wikipedia as a promotion platform for their ideas, the various threads in the WP:FTN and WP:AN archives are testimony. Those familiar with last year's events on WP have seen coordinated online campaigns, persistent canvassing, sockpuppetry (including resurrection of sleeping accounts), editor harassment, people using Wikipedia as a soapbox to push their personal and speculative beliefs as if they were facts, dubious motivated papers being spammed (including by people with a conflict of interest, sometimes their author), sources misrepresented, etc. This is not my opinion and can be easily assessed, considering that almost everything on Wikipedia has public logs.
Allegations that I might also be a paid agent is ridiculous, as others have pointed out (and is by itself a conspiracy theory, not helping your case). To most established independent editors, it doesn't matter if what WP reflects also ends up corresponding to some of what is perceived to be what China says or not, the important being to reflect the best sources on the topic and to avoid promoting undue speculation. Public statements like this from reputable sources would also not be necessary if campaigns pushing undue speculation were not a problem... As for this article, it seems that there still are few sources who wrote about DRASTIC and although my above point is relevant, if no source covers this, it obviously cannot be in the article in my own terms... —PaleoNeonate – 22:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Since I'm editing again in this area lately, maybe a last important note on this: to maintain credibility a group also needs a bit of self-reflection and leadership. Science is not done in Wikipedia or in popular science journalism, that is for the history of old material (or if about bleeding-edge material, is considered to be the propaganda method). The proper scientific journals are where to post scientific results. To WP these become primary sources and are rarely usable anyway, but if they really are the right journals for the field and the articles pass peer review, then become highly cited by other scientists, it may get traction (including fair scientific criticism and gradual refinement). When secondary reliable sources report about those is when it may become interesting for this encyclopedia. A random mostly anonymous community is difficult to guide, but if there's any leadership, a reminder may be in order for members to be aware on how credibility may be built or lost. To emphasize: popularization attempts before conclusive investigations and science, cannot be considered legitimate, it is motivated. —PaleoNeonate – 00:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Members of Drastic have openly harassed Wikipedia members example. Portraying Drastic as "scientists and analysts" is I suppose technically correct if the meaning of that sentence is "scientists with no relevant expertise in virology" and the term "analyst" being a vague term that could be used to describe literally anyone, as many members of "drastic" don't have any relevant experience or qualifications. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: The post you've linked to is quite unpleasant. Is this the Twitter user referred to in the article's sources (and, if so, are they related to the Wikipedia editor of the same name?) jp×g 05:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I can confirm that the "BillyBostickson" in the linked tweet is the same "BillyBostickson" that is mentioned in the articles about drastic. I cannot directly comment on the Wikipedia account per WP:OUTING, but only one person appears to use the "BillyBostickon" monkier outside of Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The article says Their pseudonymity and style of engagement with other scientists although there seems to be no evidence that they actually are scientists too. Removing the "other". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, there are purportedly some scientists in this group per this VF article: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins/amp although since there are also some non-scientists in this group, also per this VF article, perhaps removing "other" is still desirable.2600:1012:B01C:48CE:B84C:7768:3198:FB9C (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
"Purportedly" is not enough to justify the word "other". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree that using the word "scientists" is loaded in this context. I almost removed it as well but didn't want the drama. so I support removing it. Neither of the Data Scientist or Project Manager that are referenced in the Vanity Fair article are fairly considered "virologists." personally I wouldn't consider either of them "biomedical scientists." and that would be the fair characterization of the use of "scientists" in this context. In context, we are clearly referring to "laboratory scientists." This group is basically hacktivists and hobbyists. Do any of them engage in laboratory research professionally?--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, does anyone here (besides me) engage in laboratory research professionally? I don't think it matters a whole lot. jp×g 18:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
It might be worth pointing out that evaluating competing evidence is not limited to scientific training. In fact, so much so that nowhere in the world do we restrict fact-finding to scientists alone (consider, e.g., juries and judges). Equally, plenty of solid contributions to COVID related matters have been done by non-virologists. A virologist does not necessarily do a better job at doing a metaanalysis than a trained epidemiologist or statistician would, even if it relates to her field. While I agree that DRASTIC is dreadfully short on relevant scientific credentials, we need to be careful with what we mean by that. Laboratory scientists are specialists in their field. Where the question is 'what is the best approach to do X', they might not be the person to ask. Equally, an epidemiologist with zero clinical or lab experience might have a better comprehensive understanding of what cancer treatments work better than others than a clinician (which is why epidemiologists write metaanalyses that clinicians then read and assimilate into their practice). Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Ari T. Benchaim, broadly agree. I would include epidemiologists, biosafety people, biosecurity experts, etc. along with virologists under the banner of "relevant expertise" in the origins investigation. I would not include prison janitors [1], project managers [2], statisticians [3], or high school science teachers [4] under that umbrella. But it also matters what they're talking about when they claim expertise. I would say a cybersecurity professional has expertise when discussing the recovery of deleted data, for instance. But not when discussing whether it is normal or typical for someone to take a virus genome database offline from harassment and persistent DDOS. A lot of the claims/conspiracies about the origins of the virus boil down to "what is typical practice in the field" versus "what is maleficent or suspicious behavior." And I gotta tell you, it grinds my gears when I read people who have never even step foot in a BSL4 lab talking about how "unusual" X, Y, or Z thing is.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Shibbolethink, I totally agree (okay, not totally – there are statisticians I would consider to have a good understanding of this stuff, esp. biostatisticians). On the principle, I think we're agreed. So are we on what grinds one's gears. :-) Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories?

Guy Macon please can you revert your edits not supported by sources? --Francesco espo (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

No, because D.R.A.S.T.I.C. Research is indeed a Twitter group promoting COVID-19 conspiracy theories.

For example,[5] says:

"How biased some virologists can be. You write about the lab leak hypothesis that is “pushed by a vocal minority”. We are a minority because of mislabelling it as conspiracy by @nature and @TheLancet at the beginning of the pandemic. Pushing? We express just another opinion."

Also, as the author of the web page https://www.laboratoryleak.com/drastic/ you have a clear conflict of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

They came to my page asking for evidence of them having a COI... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: is this dispute really necessary? jp×g 21:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Conflict of Interest regarding Covid-19 --Guy Macon (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Are you [JPxG] suggesting that we should just remove all that very well-sourced WP:SUMMARY language? Or that we should be kinder to POV-pushers? I guess I agree on the latter but absolutely do not agree on the former. EDIT: I cannot actually find a good source that DRASTIC is "promoting conspiracy theories" explicitly. I will keep looking. I think that's a fair WP:SUMMARY of our current sources, but it would clearly be better to have direct quotations for such a contentious statement.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I am fine with waiting for the sources to catch up rather than getting into a dispute with other veteran editors over this, but I will be very surprised if reliable sources don't eventually come to the same conclusion I came to. Writing things like "conspiracy by @nature and @TheLancet" is pretty damning. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
"I’ve learned to be on the conspiracy side of the fence"[6] -- Francisco de Asís de Ribera, member of DRASTIC --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

oooh that El Pais article is really good for this. I would say with those two refs I support the conspiracy language. but I understand that other editors may not agree. we either need to wait until it's absurdpy uncontroversial or RfC and see what most people think. I can write one up if you want, Guy Macon. I would make it extremely simple. just quotes from those two articles and a question: "Is it accurate to refer to this team as "conspiracy theorists and hobbyists" or something just on the side of neutral like that.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Before posting the RfC, I would go to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask (with a link to the source) "is El Pais reliable for direct quotes from DRASTIC? Are their conclusions about DRASTIC reliable with attribution?. I would do it, but I am a bit swamped. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
That seems relatively uncontroversial to me, and seems as though it would devolve into the same questions as the RfC... "Can characterizations of some of the group apply to the group" etc. So I think I'm just gonna do the RfC. I'm sorry if you think that's gonna screw up the order, I can withdraw the RfC and go that route... Apologies--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
No problem. You are right; the same issues would come up either way. Go for it! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

fungus or coronavirus

Scientific American, describing what Shi Zhengli told them about what sickened the miners:[7] "Although the fungus turned out to be the pathogen that had sickened the miners . . ." Adoring nanny (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That's what Scientific American said, not what Shi Zhengli said. They're paraphrasing, and we need better sourcing if we want to say she was 100% convinced. This also may be a case of bad translation, if anyone is determining that Shi Zhengli somehow thought differently in working with those master's students. It's all in all not high enough quality sourcing to avoid WP:BLP in my opinion. If there's lots and lots of disagreement about this, we can bring it to the BLP noticeboard.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Ultimately, my point here is that if we want to say that somebody lied about something, in wiki-voice, or even in attribution voice, we need an actual QUOTE of that person saying that thing. We can't just use hearsay to accuse someone of malfeasance. That would be BLP all over the place. And in these very controversial topic areas, that is a very frought thing we need to be careful of.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Just as an example, what if it was a coroner who determined the cause of death to be fungus, not Shi Zhingli? Or a state minister? Or the police detectives? And Zhingli ultimately still thought coronaviruses were a possibility? Then it would be inappropriate for us to say this. I have no idea who actually made that determination, or if it was determined 100% by anyone. Just making clear: BLP needs us to be very firm in these citations in articlespace.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

"amateur sleuths" vs "internet sleuths" vs "internet activists"

thoughts? for the lede.

in 2017, Yuri Deigin called himself an "amateur theoretical biologist." [8]

as I described above, "sleuths" seems the best to me, as it often includes professionals acting in a hobbyist capacity and true amateurs. Consider, for example, what people trying to crack the Zodiac killer code are called. Or what they used to call the people hunting EARONS on internet forums. They're called "internet detectives" [9] or "amateur sleuths" [10] or "internet sleuths" [11]. I think in cases like this when we have professionals in adjacent fields or similar fields (off duty cops, investigative journalists) acting as interested sleuths tracking stuff on the internet, "internet" or "web sleuths" seems the term of art. [12] because that's what separates them from professionals. they're working on the internet, and not getting paid to do it. Thoughts? --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I worry a bit about the term "sleuths". It doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. I prefer the wording from a few days ago that said: DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19) is a loose organization of scientists and amateur researchers investigating the origins of COVID-19, in particular the lab leak idea. However, doesn't this section overlap with the RFC? Perhaps we should hat this section to prevent duplicating the RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
That RfC was intended to answer a narrow question that has become more broad over time via discussion. I should have been more careful in my original framing to target the question as "Conspiracy theorists: Yes or no or attributed or non-attributed?" but I didn't, and I can't change it now, so. I get that people are now unhappy with the term that the article said when the RfC was created, so I was attempting to create a separate discussion about that non-RfC (but, admittedly related) question. Overall I think it is going to get in the way of building any consensus, a very delicate procedure on these talk pages. But I don't think I'm actually helping at this point, so I'll let it run its course. One of those moments where getting more involved doesn't actually help. :)--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree except that investigators is not good because it can mean both scientists or detectives in such context (not clear which). My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Cherry-picking CNET

The CNET source[13], from the title on down, is about how DRASTIC is rewriting the origin story of covid. However, our current use of it misses that completely. Instead we have a throwaway quote about thugs and conspiracy theorists that CNET was using to contrast with DRASTIC's substantive contributions. From our article, one gets a misleading impression of the CNET source. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I edited this per the consensus on the RfC above. Most respondents agreed that the appropriate way to handle this was to quote with attribution that epithet. We must follow consensus via compromise, we can't just disregard an entire RfC because of a few edits made in the meantime that do not substantially change the sources cited. Interpretation of those sources is the appropriate angle of the RfC, and it is what happened. Many editors disagreed with me that we can put it in wiki-voice, but agreed that we should put it in attribution-voice. So that's what I did.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I also agree it's cherry-picking and the cherry-picked quote is attributed to vague "authorities" such as "serious scholars", "historians say", "some researchers", "many scientists", and the like...no specific examples of identifiable individuals from that group are named who could be used to verify the statements or beliefs attributed to the group (many scientists). When it's a contentious label like conspiracy theorists, a vague attribution to unknown scientists is really not acceptable, as it can't be verified by a specific individual in that group. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so, to be clear, you want to directly not do what most people wanted to do in that RfC above?--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, which option in the RfC are you saying had consensus? I have not been keeping up. jp×g 20:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Personally I think D/E is what is the result of consensus-via-compromise. As I said elsewhere and I will say here again, I prefer A. But I am not opposed to D. I just think D / E is what is clearly what most people in that discussion preferred. They quibbled about specific wordings etc. but agreed on the attribution and inclusion with attribution.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
"The abrasive attacks have, at times, overshadowed the team's work." Directly from the CNET article. We cannot accept the things we like from a source, and disregard the things we dislike. THAT would be cherry picking.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
It does appear from the source that they traded accusations on Twitter with a couple of named people (not about "working for the Communist Party of China"), but a fair summary would be not the phrase you selected, but the next one, i.e. an attributed view provided in the article: While I admire their tenacity, they are very much on the edge from a scientific perspective," says Nikolai Petrovsky, a vaccine developer at Flinders University in Australia. "They definitely have a role, but more as detectives sifting through the evidence than as scientific commentators." The point here is obvious. Source say these guys were criticized by scientists. That's fine. We must provide some info saying how exactly they were criticized by scientists, and such views must be attributed to specific scientists. The quotations just above would serve such purpose. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Worth noting that CNET's general reliability is limited to technical topics. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I mentioned this elsewhere on this talk page, but as far as I can tell, the specificity of that RSP blurb isn't based on anything. There are 16 RSN discussions of CNET linked as notes, and none of them impugn CNET's honor as a non-IT source. My guess is that that's how the RSP blurb was typed because there wasn't a discussion with an explicit consensus as reliable for non-IT topics; obviously, that's not the same thing as being unreliable for non-IT topics'. In fact, the wording of the entry should probably be edited to reflect this, but I don't think it's very wise to do that (or propose it be done) while it's a hinge on which other arguments turn... jp×g 15:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't use Newsweek in this article for statements of fact

See WP:RSP which specifically states "Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis." Why do we think this case is any different from the many others where Newsweek is being click-baity? I certainly think they're being click-baity here.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. As the final sentence in above statement suggests, and you yourself seem to support, let's evaluate this source on a case-by-case basis. I'm aware of general concerns regarding Newsweek. Newsweek has been independent from IBT since 2018. The author in this case is Rowan Jacobsen (Bio), a notable freelance journalist and science writer, not some fresh staff hire sweating to post X articles a day to meet quota. And he has written several longform pieces about COVID-19 research before, including for Scientific American, MIT Technology Review Mother Jones and Boston Magazine. The Newsweek article in question is one of the longest pieces I've seen directly on the subject of DRASTIC: at about 4250 words of prose (not counting image captions or headlines), it surpasses in length the articles by CNET (~3050 words) and El Pais (~1670) articles, exceeded perhaps only by The Week (~5080) and Vanity Fair. Jacobsen's Newsweek article indicates standard journalistic conventions and original reporting (interviewing TheSeeker, reaching out to Daszak for comment, etc.). The online title "Exclusive: How Amateur Sleuths Broke the Wuhan Lab Story and Embarrassed the Media" might sound a bit click-baity, but is not very different from CNET's "How the Coronavirus Origin Story is Being Rewritten by a Guerrilla Twitter Group." Titles are generally not proposed by journalists, and the "Exclusive" is not even part of the title: it's more of an editorial prefix akin to "Opinion: X is Good" or "Cover Story: Why humans like dogs". The print version of the Newsweek article appears to have a more subdued title of "Inside the Wuhan Lab Leak Story: How amateur sleuths broke the Wuhan lab story" (and maybe even simply "Revenge of the Nerds"). The point is that titles, click-baity or not, don't determine the reliability of a source (WP:HEADLINES). Even venerated popular sources such as Scientific American appear guilty of occasionally massaging their headlines to increase online attention: the print article titled "Life, New and Improved" was posted online as "Artificial Proteins Never Seen in the Natural World Are Becoming New COVID Vaccines and Medicines", and other online headlines include "Aliens Might Already Be Watching Us". Online journalism needs eyeballs and yes, clicks. I'm not saying Jacobsen's Newsweek article needs to be given any undue weight, but I don't think it should simply be summarily dismissed as unreliable or "click bait". It could be used to support or clarify claims made by other publications, and potentially add novel context. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Rejected DARPA proposal

The purpose of the research was to assess the risk of coronaviruses, work on ways to prevent outbreaks and vaccinate bats against the virus, according to the proposal.

Details of the leaked grant proposals were released Tuesday by Drastic research, a group of international scientists investigating the origins of the pandemic.

Drastic reported that a whistle-blower leaked the proposal, and a former member of the Trump administration confirmed the proposals’ authenticity to the Telegraph.

However, the $14 million grant was rejected by DARPA over fears that it could result in gain-of-function research, which could make the virus more transmissible and infectious.

Source: https://moguldom.com/373775/leaked-grant-proposals-wuhan-scientists-planned-to-release-coronaviruses-into-bat-population-18-months-before-covid/

J mareeswaran (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

One more link:

The documents, which were given to an internet-based group researching the origins of the pandemic, have since been confirmed as authentic by a former Trump administration official.

The group, known as DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19), has posted the documents online.

https://m.theepochtimes.com/leaked-documents-reveal-funding-proposal-by-daszaks-organization-for-developing-covid-like-virus_4011711.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true

J mareeswaran (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

J mareeswaran, what are you proposing to add to the article? If the Telegraph is the only RS reporting this it's probably not DUE. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
more sources are popping up: for example, this news.com.au report J mareeswaran (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Epoch Times, not an RS, basically blacklisted. Telegraph is not an RS for this. News.com.au comes closer, but overall I am not sure how DUE this is given that this is basically a rejected proposal. They didn't actually do anything. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
This sounds DUE to me as it establishes a certain line of enquiry. The approach to research proposed establishes the kind of gain of function research that was in the realm of the possible. Pakbelang (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Now there is an intercept post on this. I see that intercept is considered as reliable. J mareeswaran (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

One more from The Atlantic J mareeswaran (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you might need to reread this source if you think it supports what you've said above. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
what I have said: "DRASTIC has uncovered/leaked a rejected DARPA proposal that proposed a modification in a corona virus that would have made it more transmissible (this same modification is present in SARS COV 2 also)." All sources I linked above support the statement above J mareeswaran (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I was referring specifically to this statement you made: "The documents, which were given to an internet-based group researching the origins of the pandemic, have since been confirmed as authentic by a former Trump administration official." The documents are still very much contested, though they may end up being mostly legit. No one has verified the contents in their entirety, and definitely no one has verified DRASTIC's executive summary as fair or legitimate. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: How should we refer to DRASTIC team?

Because this RfC was withdrawn, there may still be some issues that need to be resolved. Editors should feel free to continue to discuss any open issues in the appropriate venue(s). Closure requested at WP:ANRFC (permalink) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 01:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

. RfC withdrawn as no consensus. I'm withdrawing because these articles are so contentious and discussions tend to devolve, and I think it's good to recognize when an RFC has outlived its usefulness. This discussion has devolved already, and I don't foresee any closure being helpful. No need to continue to clog up the RFC pages. If someone here wants to make an RFC about their preferred wording, they may, but I would suggest they have a discussion first to gather all the options and the best way to present those options. This way, no one feels the need to add their own, further sending the RFC into chaos and making it useless. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

How should the first sentence of this article refer to its subject? This inevitably affects the rest of the article, but this is the crux of the issue. Four basic options:

--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Edits made 22:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Option E: "conspiracy theorist" accusations are provided with attribution in the body of the article, per WP:DUE: "A CNET article said that they had been "branded by scientists and researchers as maniacs, thugs and conspiracy theorists""
  • Option F: "conspiracy theorist" accusations are provided without attribution in the body of the article: "They have been "branded by scientists and researchers as maniacs, thugs and conspiracy theorists""
  • Option G: accusations are provided without attribution in the voice of the encyclopedia in the lead: "DRASTIC...is an organization of maniacs, thugs, and conspiracy theorists".
jp×g 18:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
One more basic option:
  • Option H: is a loose organization of scientists and amateur researchers investigating the origins of COVID-19, in particular the lab leak idea. (status quo).
Adoring nanny (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Adoring nanny, please strike your above statement that your suggested option H was the status quo when this RfC was formed, it was not. Option B was, as I've indicated above with a diff showing the state of the article from before I authored this RfC. Thank you.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey

1. It's how several of the team's own members refer to themselves.
Quotes from members of the group describing a tendency for "conspiracy" beliefs.
  • (Industrial engineer Francisco de Asís de Ribera): "I’ve learned to be on the conspiracy side of the fence; when I explained, we were called crazy..."[1]

(This quote shows how members of the group may identify with the "conspiracy" mindset or "side of the table.")

  • (On the "official" website): "How biased some virologists can be. You write about the lab leak hypothesis that is “pushed by a vocal minority”. We are a minority because of mislabelling it as conspiracy by @nature and @TheLancet at the beginning of the pandemic. Pushing? We express just another opinion.[2]

(This quote shows how members of the group know they are labelled conspiracy theorists, even if some of them may not label themselves that way.)


Sources
  1. ^ Colomé, Jordi Pérez (2021-06-18). "The online detectives sowing doubts about the origins of the pandemic". EL PAÍS. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  2. ^ "How biased some virologists can be". D.R.A.S.T.I.C. Research. 2021-04-06. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
2. It's how several WP:RSes refer to the subject, and how others have referred to the group.
Quotes from WP:RSes describing D.R.A.S.T.I.C. as "conspiracy theorists."
  • (El Pais referring to DRASTIC's research endeavours): "All of the research was conducted under the shadow of being labeled a conspiracy theorist – an inevitable consequence of doubting the origin of the virus a year ago."[1]

(Demonstrates that it is notable that others refer to DRASTIC this way.)

  • (The author of the Vanity Fair article on Fresh Air discussing the DRASTIC team's findings and motivations): "people felt they were absolutely determined to fight against what they saw as a conspiracy of this magnitude....let me just say that faced with this fact pattern, there have been conspiracy theories that go, you know, so far beyond what is merited here. Nonetheless, I think there are legitimate questions to be asked about the controls over that money, what the money was being used for."[2]

(Demonstrates that members of the team also perceived events/machinations as conspiracies.)

  • (CNET, in an article profiling the group): "This unorthodox approach has seen them branded by scientists and researchers as maniacs, thugs and conspiracy theorists."[3]

(Demonstrates precisely who it is that refers to DRASTIC this way.)


Sources
  1. ^ Colomé, Jordi Pérez (2021-06-18). "The online detectives sowing doubts about the origins of the pandemic". EL PAÍS. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  2. ^ Gross, Terry. "Did COVID-19 Leak From A Lab? A Reporter Investigates — And Finds Roadblocks". www.kpcw.org. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  3. ^ "How the coronavirus origin story is being rewritten by a guerrilla Twitter group". CNET. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
3. Theories about various actors conspiring together are quite literally what the group repeatedly proposes:
Examples of conspiracies proposed by D.R.A.S.T.I.C.
Disclaimer: What follows is WP:PRIMARY and a little bit of interpretation/analysis of preprints the group has posted.
Warning: What follows is original research/interpretation of preprints the group has posted.
  • DRASTIC repeatedly argues that the Chinese government, media, and scientists are engaged in a massive coverup.[1][2][3]
  • DRASTIC often takes unproven or or tentative data that is public, and uses it to try and argue that a conspiracy has occurred to cover-up that same publicly available information.[4][5]
  • DRASTIC has argued that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was conducting bioweapons research in tandem with the Chinese military, a claim for which no evidence has been provided.[6]
  • DRASTIC argues for unproven conspiracy theories asserting that gain-of-function research was occurring at the WIV which created SARS-COV-2,[7][8] claims which have been debunked numerous times.[9][10][11] Seriously, this is the single most disproven conspiracy theory about the virus, just read WP:NOLABLEAK.
  • DRASTIC argues that the Chinese government misled international investigators and either falsified employee testing records or selectively omitted records, all in order to cast doubt on the lab leak theory.[12] This claim is so WP:FRINGE that no secondary sources have covered it. But as a virologist who did his PhD on the antibody responses against emerging virus infections (seriously), I can tell you they make several basic mistakes about which tests should've been conducted and when. For example, they claim IgM should be used to test active infection 2 - 6 weeks post symptom-onset. This is false.[13] They also commit basic errors of binomial probability, assuming that lab workers are as likely as the general public to be exposed to the virus, when their likelihood (in the absence of a lab leak) is actually probably lower given the % of time they spend wearing PPE inside a heavily controlled environment.


Sources
  1. ^ https://drasticresearch.org/2021/05/30/is-patient-su-covids-patient-zero-ian-birrell-whos-led-the-way-in-exposing-beijings-lies-reveals-how-a-woman-aged-61-was-diagnosed-with-virus-three-weeks-before-china-admits-that-it-even/. Retrieved 24 June 2021. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ "Information removed from WIV website". D.R.A.S.T.I.C. Research. 2021-04-17. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  3. ^ "Illustrations of the amount of "coincidences" that definitely point to a lab scenario". D.R.A.S.T.I.C. Research. 2021-05-31. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  4. ^ Birrell, Ian (13 April 2021). "The Covid dissidents taking on China". Unherd. Retrieved 24 June 2021. The Beijing line, rubber-stamped in the WHO report, claims the first confirmed Covid case was on December 8, 2019...Yet Prof Chuanhua told the magazine there were 47,000 cases on his database by late February, which included one suspected fatality — a patient who had fallen ill on September 29, 2019 — followed by two suspected cases on November 14 and 21.
  5. ^ "An investigation into the WIV databases that were taken offline". Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  6. ^ "Bioweapon tag". D.R.A.S.T.I.C. Research. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  7. ^ "Mystery of Q498: SARS-CoV-2 appears to be the only member of it's entire clade that bind human but not mouse". D.R.A.S.T.I.C. Research. 2021-06-04. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  8. ^ "Covid Origin Mystery: Was Covid Created In A Chinese Lab? India First With Gaurav Sawant". D.R.A.S.T.I.C. Research. 2021-05-20. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  9. ^ Rasmussen, Angela L. (January 2021). "On the origins of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 27 (1): 9–9. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-01205-5. ISSN 1546-170X. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  10. ^ "Did Fauci Fund 'Gain of Function' Research, Thereby Causing COVID-19 Pandemic?". Snopes.com. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  11. ^ Andersen, Kristian G.; Rambaut, Andrew; Lipkin, W. Ian; Holmes, Edward C.; Garry, Robert F. (April 2020). "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 26 (4): 450–452. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9. ISSN 1546-170X. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  12. ^ Quay, Steven; Demaneuf, Gilles (2021-05-28). "An analysis of the results of routine employee testing for SARS-like infections within the WIV and other Wuhan labs raises serious issues about their validity". D.R.A.S.T.I.C. Research. Retrieved 24 June 2021.
  13. ^ "Antibody Testing". Retrieved 24 June 2021.

--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC) (edited)-- 20:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the Fringe theories noticeboard. 18:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been advertised at the Neutral Point of View noticeboard. 18:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been advertised at the Biography of Living Persons noticeboard. 18:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended discussion

It seems strange to me that every option presented in this RfC includes calling them "conspiracy theorists" in wikivoice in the lead. This doesn't seem warranted at all; per my argument above, the only "evidence" of them being conspiracy theorists is that a couple of articles said that unspecified people had called them conspiracy theorists at some point in the year 2020 (and either going on to say that it wasn't true, or going on to say that this had happened in the past). This doesn't really justify mentioning it in the lead. I propose an Option E, where the lead does not call them conspiracy theorists at all, and it's mentioned in the body in a WP:DUE way along with the rest of the article's content. jp×g 18:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Options B and D do not include calling them "conspiracy theorists" in wikivoice in the lead. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah JPxG, what you've described is essentially option D, but you'd rather we put the "has been called conspiracy theorists" in the body of the article. That's fine with me, especially since this article doesn't really have a lead versus a body at the moment. I'm sorry that you found my set of options problematic, and I'm glad you added your own that you felt more comfortable with.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I also wanted to add, by the time we have enough reliable source coverage of this group to actually have a lead vs body, we probably also will have a better idea of whether it is appropriate to call them "conspiracy theorists" in the body, lead, or in wiki-voice or attribution. Right now, I think you're probably right, that calling them conspiracy theorists with attribution is the way to go. A lot of arguments posted above swayed me on that. I'll wait for this RfC to expire or for someone to close or whatever, but as of now I plan on going the E route, which is indistinguishable from D. That's my read of the consensus via compromise anyway.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
It's choice architecture presenting the options in a way that nudges/bounds our decisions. Also, note the current version in the lede is missing from the alternatives. Terjen (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
That was partly me: I gathered that some people were probably basing their choices on the incomplete and shoddy state of the Wikipedia article, and not reading reliable sources, so I took action to improve and expand the article accordingly. As someone once said (probably at least twice), people would rather argue for days over a single word than write a single paragraph. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that the Lab Leak Hypothesis was itself called a conspiracy theory by mainstream sources for a long time, it seems a bit wrongheaded to call DRASTIC conspiracy theorists for pursuing it while it was so considered. Most sources now agree the original "conspiracy theory" treatment was wrong. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Animalparty. Terjen, and Adoring nanny that's all well and good, I respect your contributions, but you cannot edit against consensus to insert POV here. The options were made based on an earlier version of the article. I'm gonna try and incorporate the consensus from that RfC with your edits, but don't freak out if I'm WP:BOLD about it. You made lots of improvements and I appreciate that as much as I hope you appreciate mine.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I was happy to close/withdraw per above ask, but was asked to reopen. So I did. I posted this at the relevant noticeboard to get someone uninvolved to do it, Wikipedia:Closure_requests. I think at this point we are going WAY beyond the original point of this RFC, which was to answer the very narrow question: Should we call DRASTIC team "conspiracy theorists," and if so, how (wiki-voice vs attribution), and if so, where (first sentence vs rest of article)? I'm sorry if that was unclear to anyone here. I made this RFC in what clearly later became a much more unstable article. We should not keep expanding this RFC to mean a bunch of other things that have since come up. Make new discussions for those questions, please! If not for any other reason, for the sake of my sanity. Thank you.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC) More votes from more people, just gonna let it run its course.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Note to closer

I would personally prefer it if you handled the questions of

separately from

I think that would be the optimal way for us to build consensus and move forward. Mostly because I perceive a fragile but useful consensus on the former questions, versus a lot of confusion and considerable disagreement about the latter question. Ultimately it's your call, but that is the structure that I see resulting in the best outcome for the stability of this article. Thank you.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, was my edit against consensus here? I don't find "internet activists" to be the predominant term in the reliable sources referenced here. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

From my perspective, you have not accurately summarized the consensus from this discussion, which is certainly more likely to be "no consensus" than it is "consensus in favor of Option H." In such an eventuality, we default to what the article said before. But most of all, from reading the responses here, it appears to me as RfC opener that the most popular option via consensus of compromise is actually B or D. And most importantly, you are no longer an uninvolved editor, and as an IP, it would be highly irregular for you to close this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Shibbolethink it looks like it was you that withdraw the RFC as no consensus. Why did you close it as no consensus instead of leaving it open? Which sources say they are "internet activists"? 217.35.76.147 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I withdrew it as no consensus because it was going to hell in a handbasket. More and more options being added, more and more confusion about which options were from where and when. It just wasn't worth it. Several users described the RfC as a "shit show" or "unfair." So I opted to withdraw it and let organic consensus run its course. And withdrawing was by far a better option to see if anyone cared enough to start a new RfC. It appears nobody did.
To be 100% clear, we don't need a source to refer to someone precisely as "internet activists" for it to be a fair encyclopedic summary of the sources' descriptions. Indeed, summary means we are taking the phrasing and concepts used in all our sources, and condensing it to a palatable phrase that is encyclopedic. From the discussion above and below, it is clear that many users felt the most appropriate terminology included some sort of use of "amateur" or "activist" or "investigator/sleuth." From my reading of this, there is no consensus in favor of the term "scientist" being included. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with your characterization of the group as "internet activists" and I do not think it is based on "accurately summarized" consensus "from this discussion" either. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Interestingly, I never said there was consensus here from this discussion. You have mischaracterized my position entirely. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
You reverted my change to a label that is based on inaccurate summarisation of this discussion, which to me, seems to be your position. You then described my change as "edit warring" and "disruptive" in your page protection request. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I actually wanted the label to be "conspiracy theorists." The current wording is not my preferred one, but it is one I find acceptable. That's how consensus via compromise is supposed to work. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:34, 4 October 2021 (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.

Evidence of Most VS Many

Since I'm being accused of stiffling discussion no matter what I do; might as well just close this now before it degenerates further. What discussion was to be had in light of Wikipedia policy and guidelines is obviously over and this has now only become a magnet for SPA disruption and poor attempts at ignoring WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.


I have reverted the change claiming "most" scientists and expert believe SARS-COV-2 had a natural /purely natural origin. I've done this twice in the last few weeks, and no rebuttal has yet been posted to justify they change to most, so I hold the status quo of 'many' as the best descriptor. There remains no actual evidence that "most", which we can take to mean a polled majority of 50% or more, hold that belief. The wording "most" is used in one Nature article, but it is unevidenced and unreferenced. Until a reliable source confirms "most", Wikipedia should not exaggerate and make primary claims. The descriptor "many" is more appropriate. Aeonx (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact is such sources already exist, as documented at WP:NOLABLEAK (for example: "There is consensus within the scientific community to consider that SARS-CoV-2 has not been engineered and is a naturally occurring virus." (Frutos et al., 2021 - or even the Nature article, which is indeed a reliable source; or this recent article which is unequivocal: "To be clear, most scientists think animal spillover is the most likely explanation because that's where most new diseases come from.") and in the excellent sources template, which I think is at the top of this talk page or at least most related ones. We don't need a poll (a primary source) if we have secondary sources which tell us otherwise, nor do we second guess reliable sources because the scientific mainstream is different from the popular opinion mainstream. As the last page I link explain, this is not a popularity contest. If you think that "most" is inappropriate, you're free to present an actual acceptable source which contradicts this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I have added the sources template. I agree that the WP:BESTSOURCES say this is the position of "most" experts/scientists. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
As noted in my revert edit summary, it was already supported by a cited source at the time: "Most scientists say SARS-CoV-2 probably has a natural origin, and was transmitted from an animal to humans" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3 —PaleoNeonate – 06:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

A user essay is a not a reliable source. I disagree W that the nature article is reliable when it statea "most", it's being cherry picked. There is no evidence or a polled majority in ANY of the sources. How any source claims to speak for a majority without having actually surveyed a significant portion to establish a majority is a falsity. It's wrong, plain and simple. There is no evidence for "most". Aeonx (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a shorthand for the reliable sources in the essay. That's what's being cited, not the essay itself. It's not cherry picking, as the remainder of the Holmes et al source (for example) also supports the conclusion that most scientists think the zoonotic explanation is the most likely. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
You can think it is wrong as much as you want, but without good, high-quality reliable sources which say so, it doesn't matter. See also WP:FLAT, most notably "if Wikipedia had been around at the time of Galileo, it would have had a duty to report the claims of the Catholic church as fact, without qualification, despite the conspiracy that undoubtedly existed." - a statement which is perfectly coherent with every single major content policy (WP:V, to begin with; NOR and NPOV next). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
You clearly are not familiar with Hitchen's Razor, the burden of proof doesn't lay with providing evidence of the contrary position, but with the claim. The claim being made is that 'most'(i.e. greater than 50%) of scientists and experts believe SARS-COV-2 had a natural orgin. Again, there are no sources which provide any quantifable or qualified evidence of this through any sort of survey or poll. So the question remains, how do we know? Because someone said it and it got published in a reliable journal? No. That's not how we know things are true. You are right, WP:FLAT does apply. The references are not reliable for the specific claim that "most" scientists and experts because it is Argumentum ad populum, it's a logical falacy, and it has no encyclopedic value. Aeonx (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I have provided sources which say exactly what is in the article; I have provided sources of scientists saying why that this is indeed the most likely hypothesis; I have even explained to you how things usually go on Wikipedia. The best I can give you at this time of day and after all the obvious signs of WP:IDHT would be undignified contempt, so I'll spare you that, but I strongly suggest that you stop substituting your opinion for that of reliable sources. And you still haven't presented a single reliable source which makes the point you make, so you also have failed to substantiate your position. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
"Many" is the second example named in MOS:WEASEL. Congratulations for hitting the bullseye of how not to do it. RandomCanadian is exactly right with everything. Although "consensus" would be better wording than "most" - "most" could be 51%, while "consensus" means something like "everyone except a few outsiders who do not have a leg to stand on". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Whoops. Shibbolethink is also right, of course. :) --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Uh since when has scientific consensus required a literal vote among scientists? As if there's any universe where DRASTIC members would be allowed to vote on this topic anyway! This whole discussion is pointless since it rests on the bizarre assertion that MEDRS descriptions of current understanding are less reliable than a random editor's opinion on those sources. JoelleJay (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for clearly stating your bias on this issue. You may join the others that need to recuse themselves from editing here. 2600:8804:6600:C4:9DD6:8ED8:6B65:A506 (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
It's interesting that so many anonymous editors wish to call out anyone who represents the current consensus position of editors here to recuse themselves... I will remind you that not only is this an inappropriate baseless claim, it is in an inappropriate location. Claims about COI and conduct of other edits are inappropriate on article talk pages, and should only be placed on user talk pages or WP:ANI or WP:COIN. (with evidence) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:25, 4 October 2021 (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.
More