Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BabbleOnto (talk | contribs) at 23:33, 15 March 2025 (→German Federal Intelligence Service 2020/2025: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. (RfC, February 2021): There is no consensus as to whether the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a "conspiracy theory" or if it is a "minority, but scientific viewpoint". There is no rough consensus to create a separate section/subsection from the other theories related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) 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): How a disease spreads, what changes its likelihood to spread and mutation information are, I believe, biomedical (or chemical) information. But who created something or where it was created is historical information. [...] 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.
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021)
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. (RfC, December 2021): Should the article include the sentence They have dismissed the theory based in part on Shi's emailed answers. See this revision for an example.[2] [...] Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow... - it is obvious that there is clear consensus against including this.
  8. (RFC, October 2023): There is a consensus against mentioning that the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy announced in 2023 that they favor the lab leak theory in the lead of this article.
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)
  10. In the article COVID-19 lab leak theory there is no consensus to retain "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism" in the lead. Neither, however, is there a consensus to remove it from the lead. (RFC, December 2024).

Last updated (diff) on 19 March 2025 by Just10A (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

Secondary coverage of expert survey

Here's secondary RS news coverage of the expert survey.

Enserink, Martin (February 6, 2024). "Virologists and epidemiologists back natural origin for COVID-19, survey suggests". Science. Retrieved January 31, 2025.

  1. "On average, respondents assigned a 77% probability to a zoonosis, 21% to the lab-leak scenario, and 2% to the “other” category. One-quarter of respondents seemed to be very sure about a zoonotic origin, giving it a probability between 96% and 100%."
  2. "Only 12% of respondents said no further studies are necessary. Thirty-seven percent said “some” additional research is needed, and more than half—including 43% of virologists—said studies should continue because “major gaps” remain in the investigations done so far."

This coverage actually breaks things down in a more useful way.

  • the majority of scientists favor natural zoonosis but are not certain.
  • "One-quarter of respondents seemed to be very sure about a zoonotic origin"
  • lab leak is another significant minority view, held by one fifth of respondents.

In other words, Wikipedia agrees with the experts that natural zoonosis was the most likely origin, but Wikipedia's level of certainty is actually a minority view. - Palpable (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you've opened another section for the same survey? the last comment in the other section was only four days ago, so there's no need to split the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a different and better source. The other section has become a back and forth and I assume most people are no longer reading it. - Palpable (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry your right, different survey. I was caught because of how similar the results and the conclusion are. To paraphrase "Most experts do not believe that the virus originated in a lab leak", which the article captures quite well. Lab leak is the minority scientific view, most experts think the virus is the result of zoonosis, and there are many silly conspiracy theories out there -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that it's the same survey! What's different is the reliable secondary news coverage and that it breaks things out by level of confidence a little differently.
My sense is that the current article is considerably more sure of itself than the scientists in the survey, e.g. "misplaced suspicion" in the lead expresses no uncertainty so it is a minority opinion. - Palpable (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And we back to the same repeated arguments. I don't believe that the article has any 'misplaced suspicion', but correctly contextualises the theory as a minority review. The exact position that the article you mentioned also handles it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Misplaced suspicion", as used in the lead, is a dispositive statement implying confidence greater than 95% in natural zoonosis. That is a minority scientific viewpoint.
I'm not sure what to make of the recent arguments here that the article conveys a 20% likelihood of lab leak now. - Palpable (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only time that "Misplaced suspicion" is used is in relation to conspiracy theories, e.g. people with misplaced suspicions have created conspiracy theories. That wording has nothing to do with the minority view, but the nonsense that people have made up about that minority view.
Is the zoonosis 95% more likely than one of the conspiracy theories? Yes, and the lab leak is also 95% more likely than the conspiracy theories. Does discussion of the conspiracy theories say that one theory is more likely than the other? Not in the slightest.
The paragraph on conspiracy theories is going to stay because the conspiracy theories are well documented in reliable sources, and when discussing the conspiracy theories they will be handled as those reliable sources handle them. Discussing the conspiracy theories is not the same as saying the theory of a lab leak is itself a conspiracy theory. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Wikipedia's level of certainty is actually a minority view - that might be true of (some) Wikipedia editors but having reviewed the text of this article and Origins of SARS-CoV-2, I don't think our article text affords any certainty - it seems about as confident as the scientists surveyed, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the tone of the article does not match the opinions of experts at this point. Ymerazu (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The summary of the source is "Most respondents in a global survey of experts said it was unlikely the COVID-19 pandemic originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology." The Wikipedia article states this well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the article doesn't reflect the expert survey. Some examples just from the lead: a) the article calls the theory "highly controversial" b) "available evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats" implies that experts have little doubt about the origin of COVID (whilst the survey suggests experts place a 21% probability on a lab leak scenario), c) we start discussing conspiracy theories in only the second paragraph of the article implying that these are very important part of the lab leak discourse, when in fact it's a plausible scenario assigned a significant probability by experts (according to the survey). PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody dissents from a bat origin, other than the engineered-from-scratch crowd, and they are out-and-out cranks. Bon courage (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes true sorry meant to include the second part of the sentence "and spread to humans from infected wild animals, functioning as an intermediate host, at the Huanan Seafood Market" PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well we follow the sources on that, rather well. Bon courage (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for exploring it so clearly. A reasonable person would conclude that the lead implies the lab leak is a conspiracy theory, which I think is the intent and to the satisfaction of some other users here. I think we should not be too discouraged that a lot of the commenters here think that the lead is unbiased in its present state. The best thing is probably to produce and consider a rewrite or some edits that reflect the situation better. As you say, it is not at all clear from the lead that 20% of scientists surveyed consider a leak to be the most viable theory. Ymerazu (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it the nexus of a load of conspiracy theories as our article explains. 20% of scientists is not really significant. Scientists can believe all sorts of tosh. What matters here is the reliable published sources. Bon courage (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One consequence of having an article that discusses both conspiracy theories and an established and significant minority scientific viewpoint is that the two topics clash with each other. Ymerazu (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimate views about SCV2 origin are at Origin of SARS-CoV-2, not here. Bon courage (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, editor consensus does not agree with you. Unfortunately for our readers, the page does not reflect consensus. Ymerazu (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole idea of voting on what happened is stupid anyway, but... there was a 15% response rate. So, 85% possibly thought, "lab leak? What bollocks! I have better things to do" and binned the missive. All you can say about the result is not "n percent of all experts say X" but "n percent of those experts that find the question interesting say X". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's generally assumed that such statistics only represent the views of the people who actually responded; I don't think any special disclaimer clarifying that is necessary. I don't presume Oral B ads are claiming they personally interviewed all 200,000 dentists in the US and exactly 180,000 of them supported their toothpaste.
Anecdotally, response rates for survey polls over broad fields tend to have very low response rates in general. At least in my specialty, social sciences, you would be ecstatic to have response rates greater than 10%. I don't think a response rate of 15% adds or detracts from the reliability of the poll. (And the implied logic that people who didn't respond could have done so because they thought the answer was so obvious and not worth their time could just as easily be applied in the reverse direction, it's conjecture.) BabbleOnto (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you think about this poll is not relevant. Science is not done by polling scientists, period. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Science is also not done by blatant conjecture. 2601:18F:800:EE00:7EB2:1CFC:41CD:4178 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum. My statement was a refutation of the previous contribution, while your statement has no connection to anything here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you describe scientific consensus in a way that is not effectively a poll of subject matter experts, or is it that too stupid? Your argument against the poll was pure conjecture and it’s not good for determining what sources should or should not be used. 2601:18F:800:EE00:9919:D1D5:757A:788B (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary expert coverage of the totality of the results of scientific studies on the subject, of course.
The opinion of scientists is something the scientific methodology treats as a source of bias and actively strives to prevent from influencing the result of studies by double-blinding. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good lord now you’re just spewing eloquent bullshit. There does not exist a single citable source for that. You look it up in a text book, or a professional society you’ll see the words like, debate, opinion, evidence. No one has ever, in the history of humanity used a double blind study to reach scientific consensus. 2601:18F:800:EE00:9919:D1D5:757A:788B (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that it works like that. I only explained to you that consensus has nothing to do with opinion but with results, and that opinion is seen as a hindrance and a source of error. But this is drifting too far from improving the article. So, I will not respond to your next strawman. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the editorial position of this Wikipedia article should reflect the consensus of scientists as published in peer-reviewed academic journal articles. I've read parts of this report and the Science coverage provided above, and it is interesting. But I strongly object to editors attempting to use the poll to divert this article Wikipedia article away from scientific consensus. -Darouet (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus of the so-preconized “peer-reviewed academic journal articles” (PRAJA) seems to still be on a conjectural stage. A lab leak is considered “unlikely” but without any concrete evidence except for far-fetched probabilistic analyses based on previous spillover events which could be statistically independent of this current one. The reason why such references decided to jump the gun and make almost-peremptory statements in their titles and abstracts based on no categorical evidence would surely puzzle someone ignoring the political context and pressure around this matter. In my opinion, such context does not act in favor of the reliability of PRAJA, and considering only this kind of reference to extract a consensus could potentially lead to bias. 2804:7F4:323D:3A18:91E2:D9EB:9E76:D7C4 (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not our job to sleuth for what "Truly™" is, especially if it means looking a crappy sources. Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge as found in the WP:BESTSOURCES. That's it. Bon courage (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a wonderful world to live in. Wouldn't it? And it's a wonderful goal. But saying wikipedia uses the "best sources" and the wikipedia "reflects that" Is a little bit high on our own supply. We strive to, we do. But man are there a lot of gharbage tabloid sources this website pays far too much heed to. 24.63.3.107 (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is supposed to be reasoning in favor of using the poll (which, from the context of the discussion, it seems to be), the reasoning part is missing. If it is not supposed to be reasoning in favor of using the poll, then what is it reasoning for? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's article on scientific consensus describes it as the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time. Publications inform the consensus of scientists, they don't define it.
    A confidential systematic survey of experts is a direct attempt to measure consensus. It would be nice to have a survey that had been published in a peer reviewed journal, but at this time this is the best available survey of scientific consensus on the subject. Usually this study is cited in arguments against lab leak for what it's worth. - Palpable (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree: The article no longer reflects the current state of scientific knowledge and scientists. The tone of the article is that many want the laboratory hypothesis to be branded as a conspiracy theory - without rigorous evidence, but probably for political reasons. This is contrary to neutrality and balance. "Belief" (which appears several times in the article) is not yet evidence of anything. We should mention this explicitly. Empiricus (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, from a mathematical ans statistical point of view, the laboratory hypothesis has the highest probability, as recently investigated by a study (100 pages).Levin, Andrew T. A Bayesian Assessment of the Origins of COVID-19 using Spatiotemporal and Zoonotic Data. No. w33428. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2025. "The overall odds ratio is 14,900:1, indicating overwhelming evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the pandemic resulted from an accidental lab leak. This conclusion is robust to alternative specifications of the detailed statistical analysis." --Empiricus (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that actually reliable sources in the field of epidemiology regard Levin's conclusions as spurious and off-piste. Which is presumably why they were published (and presumably peer-reviewed) by economists, not by scientists. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

German Federal Intelligence Service 2020/2025

We should add this:" According to research by the SZ and NZZ in March 2025, the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) considers it 2020 very likely that a laboratory accident in Wuhan, China, was the cause of the global coronavirus pandemic. As part of the BND project “Saaremaa”, the laboratory thesis was assessed with a probability of “80-95” percent in 2020. The files were kept under lock and key.[1]

Is already in included.--Empiricus (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though I doubt it will move the moderators even a smidge, here is the source:
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/german-spy-agency-concluded-covid-virus-likely-leaked-lab-papers-say-2025-03-12/
  • Any allegation of 'conspiracy theory' should be removed unless clearly qualified as opinion. Jibolba (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omit. It seems premature to cite a report that has not been made public nor independently reviewed. Google translation of part of the Welt article:

At the end of last year, the German government decided to commission external experts to review the BND's findings. The review has been underway since last December. The group includes the president of the Robert Koch Institute, Lars Schade, and the Berlin virologist Christian Drosten. A final result is not yet available. In response to a detailed list of questions, a government spokesperson stated: "As a matter of principle, we do not comment publicly on intelligence matters." The BND also did not comment.

ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We shouldn't be covering reports the information from which can't be verified. It's entirely UNDUE. TarnishedPathtalk 03:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do the secondary sources suggest their own (secondary) assessments to be premature? We need reasonable cause if we are to distance our articles from secondary material. SmolBrane (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @SmolBrane. Don't think we have a reason to ignore this secondary material from WP:RS. It is relevant and a significant development. It should be included in the article with due weight of course. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 05:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have every reason. It's reporting on an unreleased/unconfirmed report. It's entirely WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPathtalk 05:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has never been the standard and is just made up as far as I can tell. We go off of what RS says, that's it. If we had this standard, then numerous whistleblower or exposé accounts could never be discussed, because there wouldn't be access to the official classified government documents. Obviously that's not the case. We go off of RS, in proportion to it's notability. End of analysis. Just10A (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omit - For multiple reasons:
  • This is secondhand knowledge reported by two German newspapers, not officially disclosed by the BND.
  • Peer-reviewed scientific research is much more reliable than an intelligence agency when it comes to the origins of a virus.
  • The quality of this information is unverifiable because they aren't sharing any of their evidence. It's basically an appeal to authority.
  • This conclusion hasn't been reported enough by reliable sources to justify WP:PROMINENCE, especially when compared to the prominence of zoonotic origins in reliable sources.
  • WP:UNDUE, in a nutshell.
The void century 02:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Second-hand knowledge reported by several RS and so far not denied by the German government.
- You are ignoring the fact that, if indeed a lab leak occurred, peer-reviewed scientific research will be much more susceptible to bias and jumping to unproven conclusions to counter reprimands (cutting of funding, loss of prestige, loss of belief in science, criminal pursuit, etc.) and embarrassment, whereas scientific assessments conducted by intelligence agencies, whose authors are outside of academia/research, are much less prone to suffer from conflicts of interest. Such reasoning is especially valid at a stage when no convincing proof for either natural spillover or lab leak has yet been found.
- What about scientists, especially virologists, pushing the view that a lab leak is “extremely unlikely” without any kind of mildly convincing proof? Isn’t that an appeal to authority as well? We basically decide to believe them because their papers were published in respected scientific journals and peer reviewed by other scientists, while ignoring the fact that scientists, who in general are looking for the truth, are faced here with something more important for their own survival: keeping away the humiliation and embarrassment of having their work and their unsustainable publishing expectations, which they so proudly defend, associated with a pandemic that killed millions of people. Let alone the negative impact this would have on people’s views of science, which has been suffering many unfair blows in recent times. Let us at least be honest and face that natural spillover and lab leak are on the same level regarding appeal to authority at this point. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • not denied by the German government
I don't deny that I'm Superman either. TarnishedPathtalk 03:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • scientific assessments conducted by intelligence agencies, whose authors are outside of academia/research, are much less prone to suffer from conflicts of interest. This is laughable nonsense. WP:FORUM speculative bullshit. This is a speculative WP:FORUM comment.
  • What about scientists, especially virologists, pushing the view that a lab leak is “extremely unlikely” without any kind of mildly convincing proof. Except for the troves of convincing data indicating a zoonotic origin.
  • Isn’t that an appeal to authority as well? We basically decide to believe them because their papers were published in respected scientific journals and peer reviewed by other scientists. The reason those journals are respected is because they publish verifiable research that follows the scientific method. That's the opposite of an appeal to authority.
  • Let alone the negative impact this would have on people’s views of science, which has been suffering many unfair blows in recent times.. The conspiracy theories are what have a negative impact on people's views of science. This is the unfair blow.
The void century 03:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:TarnishedPath - I see that you are pinging everyone who took part in a contentious RFC. I see that this appears to be in a section about the BND opinion, but is then followed by a malformed RFC that has been deactivated. I would sort of like to know what we (all of us) are being asked to comment on or be aware of. Robert McClenon
  • Summary of Issue for Newcomers: There is a section in the article related to various intelligence agency findings. Recently (2 days ago), several RS news outlets have now published articles relating to an unreleased 2020 report from the BND (German intelligence agency) that states that their intelligence agency had given the lab leak an 80%-90% probability. [7] The issue is whether that is worthy of mention in the section related to intelligence agency findings/opinions. Just10A (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Readers should disregard this partisan summary and read above for themselves, since the issue is also whether to include some news stories about German intelligence in 2020, but omit others in (what I would call) a WP:PROFRINGE manner. Bon courage (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is partisan about this? That "additional issue" was only brought up by a single person (you) one time in a reply. I'm obviously speaking broadly. The other summary provided by another editor (immediately below this one) largely aligns with mine and also does not include your "additional issue." I would strike your accusations. Just10A (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much of WP:NOSUMMARIES is relevant. Bon courage (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay about summarizing arguments and consensus, not the issues. Further, the user explicitly asked for a summary. The fact that you're not equally raising this issue with the summary produced by a user on your "side" is the epitome of WP:POV pushing and hypocrisy. Just say you weren't thinking, strike it, and move on. Just10A (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to be making accusations about behavioural issues. Please take it to user talk, WP:ANI or WP:AE. TarnishedPathtalk 06:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon, thanks for your request for clarification. In the RFC a large part of the discussion was about whether the inclussion of the opinions of a few US intelligence agencies was DUE for the lead. While we are not discussing the leads this time, there is discussion about whether reporting on a unreleased, unverified 2020 report from a German intelligence agency is DUE for inclusion in the article at all. TarnishedPathtalk 04:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omit: I agree with user, The void century, the suggested wording and attempts to add attribution and improve it fall flat. Appears UNDUE at this time. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include: Absolutely 0 reason not to include. Die Zeit, Sueddeutscher Zeitung and Reuters are all good sources and this is clearly DUE given the prominent worldwide coverage. Arguing that we can't mention subjects on Wikipedia that haven't been officially confirmed in government reports despite being widely discussed in RS is an absurd position. Just echo the language and tone of the Reuters article as closely as possible. Some editors have long complained that giving prominence to US intelligence agency assessments makes the article too US centric. This is a great opportunity to address this. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A better way to reduce prominence of US intelligence would be to reduce the amount of coverage we give to what is obviously WP:UNDUE, not to increase it with coverage of more UNDUE possible opinions from non subject matter experts. TarnishedPathtalk 06:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CIA assessment was reported in almost every major new source worldwide, vs just a few RS for the German one. That's why we include the CIA and not the German agency. The void century 17:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include: this article's view count didn't triple in the last 48 hours because this material is undue. Omission will reflect poorly on wiki's handling of this contentious subject. Sourcing is strong, it's not us-centric, and whether the report is ever directly released is mostly inconsequential for the secondary coverage as it currently exists. Adjustments can be made later in that event. Consider thoroughly the impact in excluding this substantive development. SmolBrane (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include: Reliable secondary sources have covered this. It is a notable event, even if the report is from an intelligence agency and not a group of scientists. Professor Penguino (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omit. Coverage is marginal and brief relative to the massive amount of coverage for the topic as a whole, and isn't from the highest-quality sources for medical questions like these. The claim here is WP:EXCEPTIONAL due to contradicting the best available sources, and therefore requires more than just brief flash-in-the-pan news coverage. Inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. --Aquillion (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    Just FYI, the disease origin and it's events are considered a historical question, not a medical/MEDRS question, per consensus #2. Just10A (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what consensus #2 says. It says that disease origins are not exclusively a medical/MEDRS question, but also not exclusively a historical question. They can be both in different cases. To quote the RfC: 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. The void century 17:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken. The quote you just cited is normal procedure. The Rfc closing explictly says: who created something or where it was created is historical information. The only aspects that are classified as biomed information are the issues that already fit into that category such as genome sequences, symptom descriptions, or phylogenetic trees. That is not the issue here for this discussion, we're talking about the historical facts of what happened. Just10A (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a quote from the RfC decision, but your interpretation is wrong here. This article's topic is focused on many different hypotheses and speculations claiming that Covid-19 was created. As the lead of the article states, many of these hypotheses are characteristic of conspiracy theories. The scientific community largely concludes that the origin was zoonosis, and there is no scientific evidence that Covid was "created" in the first place. That's not the same context as someone creating/discovering ibuprofin, the example used in the RfC decision. Therefore, the who created something or where it was created part of that sentence is not a premise that we can establish anything on. In this case, it may be historical in the sense that an intelligence agency concluding anything is historical, but it's not historical in the sense of Covid's "creation". The void century 20:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fabrication of a virus in a lab is not a necessary condition for the virus to have leaked from it. The virus may have already existed there previously, as the WIV has many samples of bat coronaviruses. How the virus came to be and how it started infecting people and originating a pandemic are two different things and this article is about a theory to explain the latter. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How the virus came to be and how it started infecting people and originating a pandemic are two different things and this article is about a theory to explain the latter. Wrong again. Read the article. The article covers speculation on both lab creation and lab leak scenarios (plural). The void century 20:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article covering many things does not mean they are equivalent. The article is entitled COVID-19 lab leak theory (nothing indicating creation there) and in the lede the only part mentioning creation is:
    Scientists from WIV had previously collected virus samples from bats in the wild, and allegations that they also performed undisclosed work on such viruses are central to some versions of the idea. Some versions, particularly those alleging genome engineering, are based on misinformation or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.
    Precisely because of what is stated here, the creation/manipulation of the virus is discussed in certain parts of the article. As quoted, the creation is central to some leak theories. They are not one and the same. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The possible manipulation of a natural virus in a lab that subsequently leaked does indeed converge on biomedical science, but several scientists including David Baltimore have said that the origin of the virus cannot be determined from the genome alone, which is a valid and qualified scientific opinion. Ever since DRASTIC leaked the DEFUSE proposal, possible manipulation is not conspiracy theory anymore, and hasn't been for a while. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, and I think this goes without saying, please do not unilaterally edit established consensus templates, especially just to try to reinforce your position in a talk page debate. That’s obviously a no-no. Just10A (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please strike your accusation. The void century 20:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you want it struck? Is there something inaccurate about it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back WP:CIVIL is a core policy of wikipedia and WP:ASPERSIONS are highly frowned upon. I wrote in my edit summary why I made the edit. The template edit doesn't reinforce my position any more than the RfC outcome itself. Just10A reverting my edit equally reinforces their position and makes it easier to misconstrue the outcome of the RfC, which they did in the comment I replied to above. The void century 16:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not an aspersion as its properly supported and it isn't uncivil. You should not have made the edit, period. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is inappropriate for an article talk page. Take it up in WP:AN if you feel this way. The void century 17:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're deflecting. You asked for the accusation to be struck, we're now discussing your request... If the comment was inappropriate you should not have made it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think the aspersion should be struck. Usually, an editor doesn't have to ask twice. I was not deflecting at all, just not engaging here because it's a distraction from the topic being discussed. The void century 20:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back I don't want to edit it, lest I get in an edit war, but I invite you to since it's so clearly contrary to policy. ANI will sort it out soon enough. Just10A (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted your edit per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BEBOLD #Template namespace guidelines, not to support my position. Just10A (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was clear that void wasn't attempting to make new consensus. It is clear that they were updating the template to more accurately reflect the closing statement of the RFC. Given I provided you with advise on your talk page yesterday about COVID-19, broadly construed, being a contentious topic area I would expect you to be cognizant of that and to follow editorial and behavioural best practice.
    As stated by void, you should strike the accusation you've made towards them. TarnishedPathtalk 02:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to accuse him, he objectively changed the template unilaterally during a debate, and that is objectively frowned upon by guidelines. Just10A (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already pointed out a way forward if you believe the update to the current consensus template does not accurately reflect the consensus that occurred during the RFC, then I would suggest taking it to WP:AN. Otherwise accursing editors of updating the template to merely push their POV is not something that should be occurring unless you are going to be doing so at a behaviour noticeboard. TarnishedPathtalk 16:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The accusation appears accurate, the edits were made and are problematic whether or not the intention was the change consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not one person opposed to the update has made any argument that it doesn't reflect the consensus of the RFC. TarnishedPathtalk 16:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That appears to be entirely non-sequeter. I would also ask you to stop bludgeoning this discussion, you've made your points and now you need to stop dominating the discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omit pretty much per the reasoning of Aquillion. I knew there was a policy I was thinking of and they've spelled it out. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include: ... Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Newspapers are not high-quality sources, especially not when they are contradict the peer-reviewed articles in academic journals which are written by subject matter experts (refer to WP:NOLABLEAK for details). Coverage of this would be wildly WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPathtalk 11:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following such reasoning and the adopted policy to consider peer-reviewed scientific journals as the only possible kind of valid source regarding this matter, we may as well delete this article altogether. Especially if we are to continue ignoring the conflict of interest these sources may have with pushing for a natural spillover cause. And if we still have no consistent proof of where SARS-Cov-2 came from, we do have proof that such conflict of interest was playing a role in the peer-reviewed published material since day 1. After the damage done by such, in my opinion, irresponsible treatment by scientists of a completely valid and solid scientific hypothesis, and the role politics played in this, I think we should seriously consider the prominence we give to these kinds of references. If anything, they are plagued by political influence as much as intelligence agencies are believed, by some, to be. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing against the very best sources is a non-starter. No one is claiming that they ought to be the only sources used in the article, however when there is news media reporting on unverified/unreleased documents which contradicts what peer reviewed articles from scientific journals has to say about the subject then we need to consider WP:WEIGHT and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. TarnishedPathtalk 02:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no more to add, we can include this as an attributed (to the media) allegation, not as a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Reliable secondary sources are reporting on this. All of the essays and/or consensus being referred to by the omit side were made before this new information was reported on. A previous consensus or an essay like WP:NOLABLEAK which was made before reliable sources reported on this cannot be used to exclude more recent reliable sources. Ratgomery (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    2020 is new information? TarnishedPathtalk 11:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    what? Ratgomery (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please clarify what this means? The source of the edition we are discussing is from this week. Ratgomery (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The unverified/unreleased report that is being reported on is from 2020. That's a while ago, considering that there are numerous peer reviewed articles from academic journals listed in WP:NOLABLEAK which state the exact opposite and which are more recent. TarnishedPathtalk 12:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The age of the report doesn't matter, as wikipedia goes primarily by secondary sources. There is nothing in Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK that is more recent than the source we are discussion. Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK cannot be used to rule out new information that comes in after it was last reviewed. Ratgomery (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My read of WP:EXCEPTIONAL would suggest that it does matter, especially when the reporting is based of a report written by non-experts. TarnishedPathtalk 12:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know ? The lead of the report was an virologist.... Empiricus (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So their work has been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal then? Please provide source. TarnishedPathtalk 12:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable sources are reporting on it, we don't start selectively excluding relevant reliable sources when an editor judges they're not experts on the subject. This report was previously unreleased, it's now released to the public and we have reliable sources reporting on it. From the point of view of what's usable and reliable for Wikipedia this is brand new information, and it's not accurate at all to try to frame this as old news from 2020. I'll note it looks like you had nearly this exact same discussion already with another editor further up on the page so I'm not sure it's productive to rehash it again. Ratgomery (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    we don't start selectively excluding relevant reliable sources when an editor judges they're not experts on the subject
    Having a reliable source does not necessitate inclusion per WP:ONUS. While some reliable sources may be reporting on an unreleased, unverified report from 2020, we don't have to cover it per WP:UNDUE as the claims are WP:EXCEPTIONAL. TarnishedPathtalk 12:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding onus, the reason for inclusion is so obvious I genuinely didn't think it need to be stated. This is the article for the covid lab leak theory and this is new information regarding the covid lab leak theory, originating from the German government and reported on by reliable sources. I disagree that the claim is exceptional, this has been one of the possible theories for a long time. Although not the prevelant theory, it's never been ruled out, and now we have new information for it. It's always been a possible explanation never completely ruled out, and now we have a reliable source reporting on a government report with new (from what's usable on Wikipedia's pov) information. I don't believe anyone suggested we definitively stating this is the prevalent theory now, only add this new reliable information into the article. It's not exceptional at all to add recently released information into an article of a theory that was never ruled out in the first place, but you're free to disagree with that. Ratgomery (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of any sense in which a German intelligence report from 2020 that guessed about Covid origins based on limited evidence can be considered "new information" in any meaningful sense. If, for example, it came out tomorrow that North Korean intelligence or Indian intelligence believed in 2020 that Covid originated in a lab leak with 80 or 90 percent certainty, that would not affect the plausibility of the lab leak hypothesis in 2025 or its evidence base even to a miniscule extent, as far as I can tell. Newimpartial (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I've adequately explained it twice. Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources and reliable secondary sources reporting on this have only come out 2 days ago. This is new information in terms of what's used on wikipedia. This information was not used when writing the article, forming previous concensus, or writing the aforementioned essay, therefore it's new information for wikipedia and we now have several new sources of it. The plasubilty of the hypothesis doesn't really matter for us, we're just here to present what reliable sources report. The reason I brought up the is in response to the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. There is already a section in the article for responses by governments and intelligence agencies, so inserting another response by an intelligence agency isn't WP:EXCEPTIONAL and the fact the subject is a not ruled out and considered a plausible theory means we're not making a wild exception claim. We're just putting something an intelligence agency is reported to have said in the section of things intelligence agencies have said. Ratgomery (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include: We can also use the article of the Deutsche Ärzteblatt which is reveiwed as a source. Regarding the laboratory hypothesis, this is more of a technical problem of biosafety, whereas the zoonosis hypothesis is a scientific problem. There will never be a scientific study or publication on the biosafety of Wuhan, partly because China has blocked everything here. Chinese scientists or journalists who have investigated this hypothesis have spent years in prison.WP:NOLABLEAK ist not applicale here - time changesEmpiricus (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The very best sources aren't applicable for determining what has WP:WEIGHT? Interesting argument. TarnishedPathtalk 11:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The very best sources for scientific matters may not be the very best sources for historical or political subjects. The scientific investigation of a lab leak theory was hindered by the Chinese government. We are left with other kinds of sources, that in many contexts are considered reliable, and you argue that we ignore them. There is no absolute best source for every single subject in the world, especially when not enough time or opportunity is given for a full-on scientific study. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could have been more civil. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A trifecta of missteps, Ortizesp, to put it kindly: You are assuming your fellow editors act in bad faith, you engaged in an [[WP:NPA|attack on our personal comportment here as editors, and you brought to the discussion your own personal opinion on the issue of the provenance of the virus. The latter is not of the slightest interest and, moreover, invites distracting and irrelevant discussion. I suggest we focus on the issue. So far, you are the only contributor to the discussion who has not offered a substantive argument. -The Gnome (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the idea that an intelligence report from 2020, recently exhumed, might lend to support to the assertion that "Wikipedia is wrong" about Covid origins seems, well, under-explained at the very least. Newimpartial (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians claiming this subject is purely scientific and that intelligence reports do not carry weight are indeed wrong. Also, it appears that you haven't read any of the articles about the report as it isn't only about the 2020 version. Experts have been engaged and high level discussions continued, with the BND's findings reviewed by intelligence agencies, including the CIA, in 2024 and 2025, possibly influencing their recent report. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No official statement Steven. This is basically the news cycle getting excited about an unverified/unconfirmed report from 2020. TarnishedPathtalk 13:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So (and until) the German government makes an official statement, the German government has not said anything, an anonymous person with a government organization has just made an allegation. Itm os not an official (or scientific) report, it is media speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy that says something about "media speculation" and that we can't use something reported by a reliable source if it's "media speculation"? Asking in good faith. Ratgomery (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not argued for exclusion, only that we can't say this is an official German government statement, or a scientific report, (or imply that it is), we have to say it is media speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen another article on wikipedia present something from a reliable source as "media speculation" before, do you have examples? Ratgomery (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here we do (well "media traction "). Yes we do not state as fact media speculation, we in fact do it all the time. I have had my say, this is just media speculation, not an official statement, so we can't imply it is. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The right wording would be media report, specifically a joint report by publications Die Zeit and Sueddeutscher Zeitung [8], followed by a description of what was reported and its significance. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's unverified. DN (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what WP:V says/means at all. Arkon (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term unverified as common meaning and when I and other have used it, at least for me, that's what has been meant. The only part of WP:V that has been referenced during this discussion has been WP:EXCEPTIONAL (I believe). TarnishedPathtalk 02:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not EXCEPTIONAL at all at this point. Nothing in this area is 'verified' in the way you are attempting to use it. Arkon (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. Zeit article for reference. (I speak German, if DeepL or Google Translate leaves anyone unsure as to the meaning of any passage.) More data will be released in due course, says Zeit. --Andreas JN466 13:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. For reasons already stated by others. There is abundant RS supporting it. There is no policy rule whatsoever that states something like: "The original primary source report must be released for reliable secondary sources to be WP:DUE." If we had this standard, then numerous whistleblower or exposé accounts could never be discussed, because there wouldn't be access to the official classified government documents. Obviously that's not the case. We go off of up-to-date RS, in proportion to its notability. Just10A (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the primary source were made public, it is the analysis and reporting from reliable secondary sources that carry the weight of the argument, not the mere availability of the original classified report. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. If anything, to mandate it would essentially just be making an WP:OR requirement. Just10A (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. Given that there exists an article about the lab leak theory on en-wiki, I see no other option but to include. Arguments on the contrary boil down to dismissing the reliable sources reporting on the intelligence assessment by either claiming the assessment is non-scientific or focusing on the fact that the intelligence report has not been released. If the intelligence report were fully disclosed, it would still be discredited by many here as non-scientific or authored by non-experts and it would therefore not be considered proper for inclusion. All in all, such approach would lead us to only be able to write on this article based on peer-reviewed scientific publications, which would in turn imply the deletion of this article and the inclusion of a mere sentence about the “lab leak” being extremely unlikely in the Origins of SARS-CoV-2 article, as per basically every peer-reviewed scientific publication considered relevant so far. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All in all, such approach would lead us to only be able to write on this article based on peer-reviewed scientific publications, which would in turn imply the deletion of this article and the inclusion of a mere sentence about the “lab leak” being extremely unlikely in the Origins of SARS-CoV-2 article, as per basically every peer-reviewed scientific publication considered relevant so far.
    I think this part is extremely well put. Nearly the entirety of this article is written from sources which are, for all intents and purposes, identical in type to the source which is proposed to be added; that is, secondary reporting from major news outlets. Very little of this article is actually sourced directly to scientific journals. Some arguments against this new source's inclusion seem to imply that all information about this topic has to come directly from peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. If that's the case, we would have to effectively delete this article, or reduce it to a single sentence which says "The current scientific consensus is that there was no lab leak for COVID-19" followed by a few hundred citations. For what else could be said? I don't think that is helpful, or ideal. BabbleOnto (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not well put. Peer reviewed articles from scientific journals are without question far superior sources than news media stories. There is no suggestion in this discussion by anyone that only scientific sources should be used in the article. So the argument that if we only used them, then the article would be deleted is a strawman.
    What myself and others are arguing is that we have news media making reports on the basis of an unverified/unreleased document from 2020, which contradicts peer reviewed articles from scientific journals, therefore the claims by the news media are WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Given that, inclusion would be WP:UNDUE TarnishedPathtalk 08:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First, WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not say "exceptional claims are WP:UNDUE." Simply categorizing the claim as exceptional, even if true, does not automatically justify its exclusion. I remind you of what WP:EXCEPTIONAL actually says, which is, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Multiple high-quality sources have been provided this claim. Therefore any additional burden for sourcing if the claim is Exceptional has already been met.
    Second, the idea that no source can be added if it contradicts the current scientific consensus might be true if Wikipedia could only publish the Truth(tm) about any given topic. That is, of course, not true and, again, if that were true then the article would just be one sentence saying, "The current scientific consensus is that Covid-19 did not come from a lab leak." Wikipedia is not just a citation repository for peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals. The lab leak theory is a real, notable phenomenon which, even if untrue, even if you personally do not believe it, even if it goes against the scientific consensus, exists and is frequently reported in by reliable sources. The litmus test for inclusion of materials is not "Is this true" or "Does this appear in peer-reviewed journals," it is "Is this consistently reported in reliable sources."
    Just to reiterate, I am in full agreeance with you that if Wikipedia could only include information that appears in peer-reviewed scientific journals, then this source would not be included and in fact most of the article should be removed. However, this is not the policy, which is why I support its inclusion. BabbleOnto (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the policy:
    Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include ... Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
    Reports from new media about unverified/unreleased documents from 2020 do not constitute "high-quality sources".
    So yes it is WP:UNDUE TarnishedPathtalk 16:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reuters, the BBC, Deustche-Welle, and various other major media outlets are high quality sources. Just because you don't like how they reported on this issue does not mean they are no longer high-quality sources.
    The quality of a source refers to the quality of the institution to whom the information is cited to. These are extremely well-respected news agencies. You seem to be mistaking it to mean "quality of the information that the news agencies are basing their story on." That would be an entirely subjective standard, and indeed is not what it means. We don't get to second-guess the news stories and only include the ones we personally think were handled well.
    If you'd like to start an RfC to have the BBC, Reuters, and DW blacklisted as low-quality sources, then by all means go ahead. Until that happens, they are known high-quality sources , and therefore the burden of WP:EXCEPTION has been met. BabbleOnto (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @BabbleOnto you're confusing 'high quality source' with a community consensus of general reliability. TarnishedPathtalk 16:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. I liked the short summary from Suriname0. Most arguments to omit suggest that the article should minimize anything but scientific opinion on the subject, which is contrary to longstanding consensus that the origin of COVID is not considered biomedical information. - Palpable (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include, it is due based on the coverage it has received. Note that a significant portion of that coverage has been received while this discussion was open meaning that the ground has shifted beneath our feet and the early arguments that it didn't have enough coverage while plausible at the time are now moot. It also isn't extraordinary, it matches the opinions of other parties. Coverage since the discussion opened includes [9][10][11][12]. I think the time has passed for a yes/no due weight discussion, now its time to talk about how much is due... IMO no more than a line or two, if there is more coverage it can be expanded at that time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional omit. As a report from early in the pandemic I think this could be useful in an historical overview, if such a section were added. I don't think it offers evidence for or against a lab leak without secondary sources with an analysis of the report's content. All we know now is an early report exists leaning heavily towards a lab leak. I don't think that these summary revelations in the press are influencing anyone with domain knowledge one way or the other. So, WP:UNDUE for now. Jojalozzo (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In Germany, the report procuded a very big debate, not only because the parliamentary control committee for secret services was not informed. Of course, there are only indications - but recent chinese studies with explicit reference to COVID-19 also show that such accidents in laboratories are possible in principle: Gao, H., Liu, J., Qiu, L. et al. Infection risk assessment due to contaminant leakage in biological laboratories in different scenarios - the case of COVID-19 virus. ARIN 3, 8 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44223-024-00050-7 We should integrate the article as well. Empiricus (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't include an article about possibilities of lab leaks as it would be inviting readers to draw conclusions which aren't supported in the very best sourcing. TarnishedPathtalk 02:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning include. This has been published in a reliable source and originates from a well-known organisation. The WP:EXCEPTIONAL isn't relevant, at this time this theory is anythin but. I'm sympathetic to the argument that this is just one 5-years old report that only has historical value, but there are plenty of *other* sources in the article from the same period, so per WP:NPOV we should include it. Alaexis¿question? 21:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. The subject-matter is from a reliable source, the German foreign intelligence bureau. The finding has been widely published in multiple major perennially-reliable news outlets including, but not limited to, the BBC, Reuters, US News, Deustche-Welle, Yahoo news, and others. Thus, claims that this its inclusion would be WP:UNDUE are puzzling. The arguments I've read so far for this are "more news agencies could have covered this," and "The news agencies should have waited for more information before publishing the stories." Both of those statements are irrelevant when determining if something is WP:DUE or not. It's important to remember that, "...in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." That many editors may believe the bureau's finding is silly, unscientific, or ridiculous is irrelevant. That many editors wish the German media would take more precautionary measures when publishing big stories is irrelevant. It is prominently reported in the reliable sources, regardless of whether we like that fact, and is clearly notable. Therefore it is WP:DUE. Allegations of the fact that this article is seriously outdated by refusing to include any new sources which represent the lab leak theory as plausible have been raised before, and heated debate about the neutrality of this article has been broiling for months now. I remind everyone that we are seeking for verifiability, not truth. Reliable sources prominently report on this; it should be included. BabbleOnto (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The notion that German foreign intelligence is a reliable source in this context is asserted here but not proven, or even supported with evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was only sourced to German Foreign intelligence, that could be valid. Should probably still be included in some manner even if so, but that's not what this is. It's not a press release and hasn't been reported on as such from what I've seen. Arkon (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of your personal opinion on whether German foreign intelligence is reliable or not, our perennially reliable sources chose to report on it and treat it as such. Because no one is suggesting we cite directly the Bundesnachrichtendienst, and indeed we could not, your point is moot. They key issue is whether the sources which will actually be cited to are reliable. And unless the BBC, Reuters, Yahoo, and Deustche-Welle were recently deprecated and I hadn't heard about it, they are. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Important News: The former president of the Robert Koch Institute Lother Wieler who was responsible for the corona virus, considers the labotthesis to be more likely. Empiricus (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now do a peer-reviewed article from a scientific journal. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As we have discussed before, peer-reviewed papers are not the single valid source for the matters discussed in this article. If several experts in virology and people with reputable careers and recognized knowledge, or intelligence agencies whose members are qualified people and experts on the subject they analyze, claim to believe the lab leak origin to be much more likely than, considerably more likely than, or as likely as a natural spillover, and we have good reliable sources reporting on that, we are to just ignore it and keep the current tone of the article, still treating the lab leak as basically a conspiracy and undermining its relevance at every possible opportunity in the text? That doesn’t seem at all adequate. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
peer-reviewed papers are not the single valid source for the matters discussed in this article. That's true, but it doesn't mean a reliable news source reporting on the lab leak should be treated equally to a scholarly source. In this case, we're not talking about new historical information or evidence-- such as Ibuprofen was discovered in 1961 by Stewart Adams and John Nicholson while working at Boots UK Limited and initially marketed as Brufen (see ibuprofin). We haven't suddenly been provided with information such as new evidence has emerged indicating that Covid-19 likely leaked from ___ on ___ as a result of ___. That's the type of historical information that the RfC gave as an example. No, we're talking about an unreleased, unverified intelligent assessment reported by two German newspapers, and then re-reported by others. The only new information is that German intelligence thought a lab leak scenario was likely in 2020. That's not equivalent to a peer-reviewed scholarly study that has gathered, analyzed and published data and can be verified by other scientists. The void century 15:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Up to now we only have comments and opinions on the origin, no strong evidence based on rigorous research. As mentioned above, this BND laboratory thesis has also appeared in the (reviewed Deutsches Ärzteblatt. We can take this as source. Empiricus (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
peer-reviewed papers are not the single valid source for the matters discussed in this article
Not one editor has claimed that in this entire discussion. Please cease raising that point as if editor have claimed that. TarnishedPathtalk 16:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not one editor has claimed that in this entire discussion
Empiricus linked a source from a perennially reliable source at 13:09 for potential inclusion.
Your response at 13:21 was, "Now do a peer-reviewed article from a scientific journal."
Do you understand why your comment implies that only peer-reviewed articles from a scientific journal can be a valid source? You raised no other reason this source should be omitted other than the fact it wasn't a peer-reviewed article from a scientific journal. BabbleOnto (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This can be relevant, but let's stick to the BND inclusion issue for now. Although this does mention it and seemingly supports it. Just10A (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omit There is no report. By the very definition of what we're discussing, there is no finding to report. The BND was compiling information in 2020 and never actually released a report on said findings (and later German research determined that a zoonotic origin was more plausible and that determination was actually reported and published). So we wouldn't be including something that's actual information, but just speculation from newspapers of the information in this unreleased paper. The wording above, especially, is inappropriate because it's giving legitimacy to reporter allegations of a report with no evidence of said report and no backing from even the BND for the claimed report. Because they never published it, because they don't stand by it. Don't give stances to the organization that they themselves don't have. SilverserenC 16:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thats simply not true. The sources state that the BND ran their own investigation, combining intel and science, then presented a report to people under NDA (like Christian Drosten) - but did not provide the scientific sources they used for the report to those people.[4] And no idea what you mean by "later German research". "A" later research from some people in Germany maybe ? With no access to the intelligence sources I assume. The BND event needs to included. Alexpl (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say include this, in the body of the article, but make sure it's in context of any later (post 2020) sources on the German governments position. Also just like the reports from US governmental institutions this is a report form a govermental institution and not a scientific article. It needs to be attributed, and as I've said put in it's proper context. Maybe a section of goverment reactions broken down by country would be an appropriate way of including such reports. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omit. It’s not a scientific finding, and it’s contradicted by later science The article is already too long and too inclined to credulity. --Guy (help! - typo?) 23:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Welt: BND geht bei Corona-Ausbruch von Laborunfall aus – Kanzleramt hielt Akten unter Verschluss
  2. ^ "German spy agency concluded COVID virus likely leaked from lab, papers say". Reuters. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Date= ignored (|date= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "Corona-Ausbruch: BND geht von Laborunfall aus – Kubicki spricht von „Vertuschung"". Die Welt (in German). Retrieved 2025-03-13.
  4. ^ [1]

RfC

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.
Per the instructions on starting WP:RFCs given at WP:RFCNEUTRAL:

The initial RfC statement (and heading) should be neutrally worded and brief. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" There is no actual rule saying that editors who start RfCs must make their initial explanations look like they are responses to the question (e.g., by placing them inside a ===Discussion=== subsection) or otherwise making them less prominent.

If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the initial statement or question, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it. It may be helpful to discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page or at the Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise.

This RFC falls a very long way away from those instructions and so I'm closing this malformed RFC. TarnishedPathtalk 05:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


This article began in early 2021. Within two weeks (at COVID-19 misinformation), an RfC was held to determine whether the lab leak theory should be called a "minority, but scientific viewpoint" or a "conspiracy theory". (No consensus was found.)

Since then, many scientists have weighed in on the issue, but intelligence agencies have, as well. The CIA and the FBI under Joe Biden have both publicly announced that they consider the lab leak to be the most likely possibility (the CIA is mildly confident, the FBI moreso). This week, the German spy agency has been reported by Reuters to have a fairly high level of confidence that the virus came from a lab.

How, then, should the lab leak theory be addressed, in both the lead and the body of this article?

Status Quo. Keep essentially the same:

The COVID-19 lab leak theory, or lab leak hypothesis, is the idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, came from a laboratory. This claim is highly controversial; most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis ... similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history. Available evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was originally harbored by bats, and spread to humans from infected wild animals ... There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic ... Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories. Central to many is a misplaced suspicion based on the proximity of the outbreak to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), where coronaviruses are studied.

2. Treated as at least equally likely. Change the wording to reflect a (relatively) higher likelihood of the virus having in fact leaked from a laboratory: perhaps something like

The COVID-19 lab leak theory, or lab leak hypothesis, is the idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, came from a laboratory. This claim has been hotly debated over the years since the initial outbreak of the virus. Initially, many scientists believed that the virus had spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis ... similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history. However, multiple intelligence agencies have since asserted, with varying levels of confidence, that a leak is in fact the most likely scenario to have occurred. The lab leak theory was initially criticized and dismissed by some as a conspiracy theory due to its contravention of the initial scientific consensus; however...

3. Somewhere in between, perhaps something like

The COVID-19 lab leak theory, or lab leak hypothesis, is the idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, came from a laboratory. This claim, while initially rejected by most scientists, has since been considered to be at least somewhat likely by the FBI and CIA. Initially, many scientists believed that the virus had spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis ... similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history. The lab leak theory was initially criticized and dismissed by some as a conspiracy theory due to its contravention of the initial scientific consensus; however...

Responses

  • Treated as at least equally likely - it has been five years since the initial papers came out in favor of a zoonotic origin, and every year we get new reason to believe that the initial, rushed consensus was flawed.
First, there were clear conflicts of interest in play that compelled certain scientists in early 2020 to state that it clearly was a zoonotic origin... with far more public confidence than what they displayed in private. And the sources bear that out--our article on the Lancet letter (COVID-19) actually gives a pretty good synopsis.
Second, in the past two years, three different highly respected intelligence agencies each determined that a lab leak was more likely than a natural origin. They had no apparent political reason to do so; indeed, China's belligerence at even the hint of a suggestion that the lab leak theory might be true has clearly chilled discourse around the idea. But Biden's FBI and CIA as well as German intelligence now concur. Which source is more likely to be reliable: ones with a very large financial incentive to make you think it's a natural origin, and who are on the record as having exaggerated the certainty of a natural origin, and who made their assertions mere months after the virus surfaced... or the biggest intelligence agency in the world, alongside the largest national police force in the world and the intelligence agency of a
Finally, it's good to remember why the initial article read the way it did. In 2020 and into early 2021, the main public proponents of the lab leak theory were... *gasp* conservative Republicans. And since they were routinely getting excoriated (generally for very good reasons!) for all sorts of crazy things they were saying around that time, it was quite easy to assume that the lab leak theory was also just another crazy conspiracy theory. However, a broken clock is still right twice a day; just because Trump says something doesn't automatically mean it can never be true.
I think it's time to update this article. It's not 2021 anymore and we don't need to be trapped to the same perspective that we had before all this new information came out. I strongly urge us to rewrite this article to reflect the fact that, based on all the evidence we now have, there's reason to believe that COVID-19 may very well have originated in a laboratory; this article should cut out snide remarks like "Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories" or "misplaced suspicion". Red Slash 04:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daft RfC; close and trout OP. It is not up to Wikipedia to take a position on what is "likely", just to report what the WP:BESTSOURCES say. This just seems to an attempt to re-run previous RfCs to privilege cherry-pickings of one or two "intelligence services" over the preponderance of those sources. Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most RfCs on this article are quite old--and the intelligence developments are significant so reassessment is warranted. SmolBrane (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

No Mention of German spy service BND suspecting the theory to be true?

See above. We don't need multiple sections on the same topic. Bon courage (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello, I am new to this editing thing and I would just like to now why it isnt worth to use one sentence or two for the german spy serviec DNS (Bundesnachrichtendienst) giving this theory a 80-90 percent chance to be true? [13]https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/german-spy-agency-concluded-covid-virus-likely-leaked-lab-papers-say-2025-03-12/ Thanks PearLover89 (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Protected

Due to the edit war, I have fully protected the article for a week. Please do not comment in this section unless it is something about the protection. Instead, please continue the discussion above. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1280699080"