Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lab leak BND (rhymes?)

I'm working on a close of Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 48#German Federal Intelligence Service 2020/2025. I'm fairly confident in my assessment but not in some of my wording:

Those in favor of omitting believed the claim did not have the required WP:Exceptional sourcing. As the discussion progressed, the claim was picked up by several mainstream WP:ReliableSources, which a mounting amount of supporters cited as sufficient for Exceptional. Since there were no guidelines pointed to indicating that the breadth of mainstream media coverage did not satisfy Exceptional or otherwise were not WP:Due enough for inclusion (only guidelines indicating, the supermajority here indicates consensus to include in the article a mention of German intelligence not publishing a report in favor of the lab leak theory in 2020. Note that this is not consensus that the lab leak theory is as probable as the report states.

However, the mention to be included is not necessarily the text proposed at the start of this discussion, to which a substantial amount of supporters registered opposition, supporting Suriname0's wording instead. Many supporters also recommended the mention be placed next to the German government's later findings and with attribution, though this aspect was not discussed much and might need further discussion.

Emphasis ("italics") added and will not be present when I paste this draft closure. The emphasized phrase is the biggest thing I'm unsure of. Would this phrase invite objections that WP:RS was raised to prefer scholarly sources, though that doesn't apply since much more participants agreed that the fact of BND—German intelligence agency—having an unpublished report doesn't equate to contradicting scientific consensus to the extent where MSM coverage is not enough and academic sources are needed? (Should I include this reasoning in the close?) If so, what is the best/a much better way to word this instead? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu, what existing guidelines could be "pointed to" to support an editor's judgment that a given amount+quality+type of coverage does not rise to WP:EXCEPTIONAL or WP:DUE? I don't think any exist, and if I'm correct about that, then "You didn't do something that is literally impossible to do" is probably not what you want to write in a closing summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I meant that since there's no more guideline- or argument-based advantage to be weighed what's left is whether there's a supermajority. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be fair to say that we make decisions based on three things:

1. Rule compliance ("If you want to use DRN, you must follow these steps" or "All direct quotations require an inline citation")
2. Common-sense arguments/editorial judgement ("This is a good way to explain this complicated situation")
3. Supermajority votes (e.g., WP:RFA outcomes or decisions to create a new rule)

The words you italicize above mention #1 but your reply below indicates there were no instances of #2 in the discussion. Is that really true? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I mean that I felt like the two common sense arguments that oppose each other were of equal inherent strength: one was that widespread mainstream media coverage was enough to satisfy Exceptional and the other was that it wasn't enough. Thus, to evaluate which argument is stronger, the only thing that remains is which argument gained persuasive favor with the participants, thus which side has a supermajority. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm also shy from instead saying "Since there are no guidelines indicating..." because that is an absolute. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. Have you considered shortening the sentence? Lop off the first half, and say something like "Editors disagreed whether the breadth of mainstream media coverage satisfied..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

So just "Editors disagreed whether the breadth of mainstream media coverage satisfied WP:Exceptional. There is consensus to include..." instead of that sentence? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that something along those lines would simplify the summary in a helpful way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think I should include something in the middle of this sentence saying "and neither argument had a stronger PaG basis. Thus, numerical supermajority indicates..."? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

maybe you should it will make sense @WhatamIdoing 105.116.12.60 (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)