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 Objective3000 (talk | contribs) at 00:59, 10 July 2025 (→Request for Comment on placement of NPOV cleanup template: 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.[1] [...] 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!

German intelligence services

Procedural close as this discussion already concluded with a consensus outcome. TarnishedPathtalk 16:33, 27 June 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.

Following the closure of the above RfC, Just10A has taken it upon themselves to edit their own personal version of the text into the article (difference from that proposed in the RfC), and revert any mention of the "other" German news reports that don't favour the LL narrative. Problematic in several respects. Bon courage (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

? My "own personal version" is a word-for-word reflection of the version made by @Suriname0 referenced in the closure, with the exception of a typo fix. If that typo fix is wrong, I'm more than happy to fix it. (indicated -> investigated) Just10A (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It just said (among other things) that version got support, not that it was the mandated text. In any case leaving out one set of news stories while including others would be blatant POV-pushing, and that's not allowed. Also, be mindful of edit-warring. You are at 3RR. Edit-warring is also not allowed. Bon courage (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally the exact passage that the closure said got support. Immediately editing it is clearly violating WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and reverting that twice is perfectly called for (if not outright mandated by policy. Also, WP:AGF. Just10A (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu Hate to drag you back into this mess. Some clarity of the closure might be helpful. Just10A (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many things 'got support'. That doesn't equate to there being one rigid mandated text. Bon courage (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so we have the exact version that got support on the page. You want to make an addition, so now the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion, which you, at least right now, do not have. What's the issue exactly? That I added exactly what the closure said obtained support and then didn't agree with your unilateral addition? Sorry I guess? Just10A (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many supporters also recommended the mention be placed next to the German government's later findings and with attribution. Bon courage (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and what does the closure say after that?
Spoiler alert: Saying something was not discussed much, but might get consensus in the future ≠ something having consensus. Again, I literally just put in the article exactly what the closure said got consensus, no more, no less. It is of course possible to have an addition, but the ONUS is on you to get consensus for that addition, and if it's not achieved, it's not going to be included. I really don't know what else to say. Just10A (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"but might get consensus in the future" ← can't see that wording. Something gets consensus when it sticks, like this text has, and WP:DRNC is wise advice too. Bon courage (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
when it sticks, like this text has. It's been added for 2 hours. And is actively being disputed. And the edit's said why they were reverted, and it wasn't "no consensus." Just10A (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one has disputed it. Reverting is not 'disputing'. Bon courage (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also fixed my typo fix so that it's the exact version mentioned in the closure to quell any issues. Just10A (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Typo fix"? You also reverted (again) the mention that this is just newspaper reports, not facts (as the source is careful to). Can't skirt core policies like WP:V with a local consensus you know. Bon courage (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to me changing back my good-faith fix of indication -> investigation. What's on the page now is the exact version referenced in the closure, plus your end addition, which is being edit warred in despite not having consensus. Just10A (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rereading the closure right now and it seems perfectly reflected in Just10A's edits. Much more so than the weasel words you've added. Ratgomery (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The changes as of now are highly misleading, given that the German report was never published and such an assessment was not endorsed by anyone. I recommend a prompt revert. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is POV-pushing. Bon courage (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extremely bizarre accusation. This was the version proposed in the RFC which was closed with consensus include, indeed noting that the consensus wasn't necessarily for this exact phrasing. Since the closure did not find consensus for the exact phrasing it's fine to suggest changes or alternative proposals, but how could it possibly be POV pushing to take the exact phrasing used in the RFC proposal that was voted on? To suggest a better phrasing is one thing but how can you accuse someone of POV pushing for using the exact version proposed in the RFC as a starting point. Ratgomery (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, the title changes. Bon courage (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate. Ratgomery (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are not in Wikivoice anything so strong as "assessments", more rumours of documents that may exist. Bon courage (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize but I don't understand what this post is trying to say. Can you please elaborate more on what is POV pushing about the title changes, preferably in full sentences. I'm not trying to be rude with that comment but I'm not following what you're saying and I think it's because of the terse replies. Ratgomery (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper reports of rumoured documents should not be billed as "intelligence agency assessments". Bon courage (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the sources calling these "rumoured documents" so it seems like original research to add such qualifiers. The sources refer to the documents without such qualifiers. Ratgomery (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Reuters source is very careful to say the assessment is only as "two German newspapers reported on Wednesday" or what "papers say". Wikipedia goes beyond that and asserts there is a report. Bon courage (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great. So you have a problem with the wording that the closure deemed got support. File a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Just10A (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That attribution was needed also 'got support'. You have reverted it a few times now. Bon courage (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can perhaps see your argument for that, although to me the Reuters report looks to be refering to the assessment as existing in their own voice and is only mentioning their source. Regardless, I do not think this justifies accusations of POV pushing. At worst it's a detail that can be worked out constructively. Thanks for elaborating. Ratgomery (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus from the RfC was to include. The constant goal post moving is getting a bit ridiculous at this point. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has become more unlikely that we get better info about the services (BND) findings due to a series of court rulings. The Federal Administrative Court ruled in April, that the BND does not have to make report available to the public [4] and last week the same court decided that the BND should not reveal how its lab-leak-conclusions got to the press in the first place,[5] and gave the cryptic explaination, that this could damage the relations between China and Germany. So for the foreseeable future, there will be no conclusive updates on this story. Alexpl (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. There was consensus that the sourcing was exceptional enough to have this exceptional claim—that the intelligence agency made a report in 2020 finding lab leak was likely, a conclusion subsequently withheld—in the article, although most people objected to it having any more weight than two sentences. (That obviously does not include the proposed context.) Consensus that the sourcing was enough formed despite rejected objections e.g. those ScienceFlyer mentioned.
  2. I don't know what consensus the idea of including in context had: it went unopposed among the supports and the omits mentioned this as part of their argument, but as I mentioned in the close statement it was underdiscussed. If Just10A wants to argue against that for some reason he is free to do so although I would've presumed consensus slightly stronger than the Bold in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss before anyone objected to such context, after which we do discuss. I agree with Bon that DRNC. Just discuss whether that added context's appropriate.
  3. I assumed that there was a source that put this discovery in context or at least something that said Germany later didn't think lab leak theory was true! (else I wouldn't be able to rationalize why so many participants argued the 2020 BND report reflected a historical view that was overturned) Is that not the case? Personally I think the postfix favored by Bon might be improper synthesis; we don't even know if that's in chronological order.
  4. I don't see any reason to add "German newspapers said that" as Bon did (the attribution strongly suggested in the RfC was attribution to the intelligence agency, not to the newspapers) but I don't see much reason to revert that addition either. In general it's usually best to avoid edit wars especially for such trivial matters.

Aaron Liu (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying Aaron. And as far was your questions go:
1.) Yeah I think we're on the same page. Broad consensus for the 2 sentence inclusion, the rest certainly has a possibility but wasn't really fully discussed.
2-3.) This will clarify for you in one go, the issue isn't DRNC as much as WP:AGEMATTERS. I'm with you, I'd imagine that if Germany's posture has changed since news of this broke, or if when news of this broke, they now contradicted the past report, they had said it. TMK though, the only source they're adding for their addition right now is an article from May 2020. So we have an article from 2020 saying "BND thinks X" and then a number of articles coming out in 2025 that allege "Actually, in 2020, BND thought Y." That's a pretty much a textbook WP:AGEMATTERS scenario, and thats the disputing reason. I couldn't find better/more recent sources in a cursory glance. That's the issue you outlined in #3, TMK, we don't have anything since then that indicates Germany's posture. That would make the add. at worst improper synthesis, and at best an WP:AGEMATTERS conflict.
Agree 4 is more minor, that's mostly in conjunction with the other edits and the fact that clearly changing an agreed passage by close should almost certainly just be done by WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, not WP:LOCALCON. Just10A (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I can say there's consensus that the mention has to be included (verbatim) like Suriname0's version; just like those who wanted the claim to be within context (though to a much lesser extent here as Suriname0's version was very prominent in the RfC), participants did not discuss the merits of that version itself much other than it being superior to the original proposal. It went unopposed but that's not necessarily consensus, and there's definitely not a consensus that the mention must not deviate from Suriname0's version. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Inclusion of it got consensus but that doesn't mean in can never be changed/can never deviate. But the changes obviously would have to get consensus first. Just10A (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "Actually" would be original research, so a no-no. I think that's your invention, and not in the proposed text though, so is straw-man argumentation. Bon courage (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What version? Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC

Proposal

I've argued elsewhere that if we are to include updates from media reporting of differing governments/government agency assessments/reports/etc that it should be done in a manner that does not lead to a net increase of the section. With that in mind I propose the following wording for the whole section:

Some intelligence agencies have assessed the possibility of a lab leak origin for SARS-CoV-2. Such assessments evaluate source credibility rather than conduct scientific research.[1]

In 2020, German newspapers cited an alleged Federal Intelligence Service report estimating an 80–90% probability of a lab leak.[2] However, in the same year, Der Spiegel reported that Germany’s Defence Ministry, in an alleged internal memo, dismissed lab leak theories as a U.S. political distraction from pandemic policy failures.[3] In late 2024, the German government requested an external review of the unpublished report.[4]

An August 2021 U.S. report, commissioned by President Biden, found no evidence of Chinese foreknowledge of the COVID-19 outbreak.[5] The inconclusive assessment included four agencies (and the National Intelligence Council) favoring zoonotic origin with low confidence, three undecided, and the FBI supporting a lab leak with moderate confidence.[6][7][8] British intelligence deemed a lab leak "feasible".[9]

In February 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy shifted to a "low confidence" lab leak assessment, indicating unreliable sources.[10][11][12][13] FBI Director Christopher Wray reiterated the bureau’s stance, accusing China of obstructing investigations.[14][15] National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated that there was "no definitive answer." to the pandemic origins' question.[11][16]

A declassified June 2023 Office of the Director of National Intelligence report found no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in labs or biosafety incidents but could not rule out a leak. Most agencies (with low confidence) favored zoonotic origin.[17][18][19] Lab leak proponents accused intelligence agencies of bias or incompetence.[20] Science reporter Liam Mannix called it the end of the lab leak theory.[19][20]

In 2025, the CIA stated the virus was "more likely" from a lab leak but with "low confidence".[21] On April 18, 2025, the second Trump administration removed the online hub for federal COVID-19 resources and redirected the domain to a whitehouse.gov page endorsing the lab leak theory.[22] Virologist Angela Rasmussen called the page "pure propaganda, intended to justify the systematic devastation of... programs devoted to public health and biomedical research"[23]

TarnishedPathtalk 10:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Just10A, @MasterBlasterofBarterTown, @Newimpartial, @ScienceFlyer, @WhatamIdoing, @Aaron Liu, @Bon courage and @Ratgomery from the discussion above. TarnishedPathtalk 10:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2020, German newspapers cited an alleged Federal Intelligence Service report" should be "In 2025, German newspapers cited an alleged 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report". And "However, in the same year, Der Spiegel reported" would be better as "In 2020, Der Spiegel had reported ..." Bon courage (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to that. TarnishedPathtalk 11:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"cited" seems a bit obtuse to me. How about In 2025, German newspapers alleged that an unpublished 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report estimated...? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know that the report favorable to lab leak was made before the internal memo? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu, see Bon's suggestion. I believe that resolves that question. TarnishedPathtalk 12:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we lack sources that put these two things next to each other in this order, we should just line them in chronological order no matter what. If we know the withheld report was written before the memo then I think this is fine; otherwise, I would put the memo as the first sentence since that's the order in which these things were reported. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Combined with the time fix Bon suggested, it should be this at the least. Additionally, we should name the papers's instead of just vaguely saying "german newspapers": "In March 2025, Die Zeit and the Süddeutsche Zeitung published a report (/article/whatever)" Lastly, I still maintain the 2020 memo has no business being included unless we can find a much better source than a single May 2020 article. Not only is it probably WP:AGEMATTERS, but the fact that we can't find another modern source that even mentions this with the new report gives it a pretty good WP:UNDUE argument. We reflect what the RS says, and if RS is widely covering this new BND article without trying to caveat it with this older claim, then neither should we. Just10A (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Age doesn't matter here, unless you want to imply some new stories trumps others. Bon courage (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not "trumping" so much as nearly directly contradictory. Which then yes,WP:AGEMATTERS applies. Also, you still have the DUE issue. If RS doesn't use it as a caveat neither should we. Just10A (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no sense in which one story can be said to supersede (or caveat) the other. If we're going to surface primary news stories (good grief) then it's just a question of not cherry picking to adduce a desired narrative and putting the undigested mess out there as it is. If we're going to bollix-up the job of writing an encyclopedia, it needs to be done properly. Bon courage (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"No, there is no sense in which one story can be said to supersede (or caveat) the other."
How exactly do you figure that? Source 1 says: "In 2020, BND allegedly thinks X." Source 2 says "Actually, in 2020, BND allegedly thought Y."
No one is asking for the stars here. We're asking to produce any source that's not 1.) a single one from the stone-age of the pandemic that's not directly contradicted by more recent sources or 2.) One that mentions this old report with the new one in any way that suggests RS thinks it's relevant at all today. The bar to meet is pretty much on the ground. The fact that you're instead choosing to spend your time further protesting about how we're bollix-up the job of writing an encyclopedia and how you still disagree with the closing is pretty indicative of the strength of that argument/those sources. Just10A (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone's info: Took a deeper look and found no other mentions/recent sources. Only other even acknowledgment of it is a short blurb on Reuters released the exact same day back in May 2020 [6], so still same problems. Just10A (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only "problem" would be if editors decided to include / exclude primary sources depending on what they thought they meant, or in order to push a POV. I don't think anybody (else) is convinced we should be doing that. Bon courage (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If by "depending on what they thought they meant" you mean "depending on trying to follow WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:DUE", sure dude. Just10A (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your enthusiasm for the aggregation of information. But sometimes, I feel like we should cut back on aggravating language a bit. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Just10A has found all the relevant discussion of the report from Der Spiegel. A different news wire report (longer than the Reuters one) was published by Agence France-Presse; it was translated into English and published as far afield as the Hindustan Times; it also appeared in much its original form in the Le Journal de Montreal.
It is simply not true that, outside of Der Spiegel, the 2020 leaked memo was only "acknowledged" in a single "short blurb". I see no justification for suppressing this report, as offers valuable context on the German government's position (which did apparently continue to regard the lab leak hypothesis as a distraction throughput Covid's pandemic phase. Newimpartial (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Agence France-Presse is the article we're already talking about. Just10A (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Just10A I can't see a distinction between Reuters and AFP sources in your comments above. There are a minimum of three relevant news reports:
- the primary Der Spiegel report
- the brief Reuters piece (secondary)
- the longer piece from Agence France Presse (also secondary)
If you meant to be recognizing that sourcing situation, that's great, but that's not how I understood what you wrote.
Anyway, to zoom out for a moment, the reliable sources report two facts, at similar levels of certaintly:
- the BND prepared a report stating that a lab leak was likely, which was read and then shelved by Angela Merkel;
- the BND prepared a briefing for Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer casting doubt on US claims of a lab leak and characterizing such claims as a attempt to divert attention.
To the best of anyone's knowledge, both of these news stories are accurate, and any attempt at meta-analysis to determine what the BND "really thought" and why, would be speculation/WP:OR. And the obvious explanations for the 2025 news reports being amplified more than the 2020 report is that there is much less "new" Covid news available now, and that the 2025 report much more conveniently confirms the priors of some important audiences in 2025. Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from the beginning, the source cited by TarnishedPath's version was the Agence France Passe one. It's still there. Just10A (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Just10A is saying that he cannot support inclusion of the 2020 memo as context unless there's a source that mentions both the 2020 memo and the unpublished report at once, so as to avoid WP:SYNTH. (Though I feel like there's no new conclusion implied if we put the memo first and only mention the unpublished report after mentioning the memo.) Aaron Liu (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just put them in separate sentences without any connecting logic. Bon courage (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Partially, it's not a requirement so much as that would definitely be sufficient. Other modern discussions of the old report as relevant, even separately, would probably do the trick as well. But we don't even have that. The argument for inclusion is essentially "We are including the new report articles, and so the only way to give full context is to equally include the old report articles." However, I'm pointing out that if the position of: "The only way to accurately convey to the readers the full context of the situation is to include both articles/reports" was the actually case, then you'd think RS would reflect that, and they don't.
I agree that placing it in chronological reporting order with no connecting tissue significantly helps the issue (the original "however" language was particularly egregious). But I still do not see how the position of "These things absolutely HAVE to be included together" is so strong when tmk literally 0 RS seems to share that view. Just10A (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @Bon courage above, that there is no WP:SYNTH as they are completely separate sentences. TarnishedPathtalk 02:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know the order. We don't really know anything, other than what the primary news sources say. (Which is why it would have been ideal to wait for WP:SECONDARY sourcing to make sense of it). All we can see is there were news stories rumouring A, and there were news stories rumouring B. No, it doesn't make sense, but we are of course forbidden from drawing our own conclusions. Bon courage (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I feel like there's less feelings of editorializing and synthesized conclusions if we put the news of the 2020 memo first. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be that saying this report was published in 2020, even though we do not even know if it exists, seems like "editorializing", So we would have to say "2020 a report (alleged in 2025) was allegedly published, or somesuch, or we put in in 2025, when it was alleged. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with In 2025, German newspapers cited an alleged 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report?
To be clear, I am recommending

In 2020, Der Spiegel reported that Germany’s Defence Ministry, in an alleged internal memo, dismissed lab leak theories as a U.S. political distraction from pandemic policy failures.[3] In 2025, German newspapers cited an alleged 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report...

Aaron Liu (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2025 Die Zeit article says that the BND assessment was buried: the best-kept secret of Berlin for years. It has been under lock and key for five years now, stamped deep red as a "secret." (better translation welcomed). That seems to address the apparent contradiction between the 2020 secret report and contemporaneous public statements. - Palpable (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we will have something dated 2025 before something dated 2020, does that make any sense? Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the order particularly matters; it's going to be bad whatever because it's impossible to avoid implying something about precedence. It's like an argument between film stars about whose name is first on the poster. Bon courage (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you support what I suggest? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NO, the claims surfaced in 2025, not 2020 so it goes in after 2020. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "[reply]
I'm pretty sure that's what he said, Slater: otherwise, I would put the memo as the first sentence since that's the order in which these things were reported Just10A (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh Well in that case I have no issue with their suggestion. We include the momo first, the alleged report second. All that back and forth made me forget who said what. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me we even include all we have said about the German reports, or nothing. We should, it's called context. What we should not do is raise two (anonymous) new papers reports to the status of fact. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the claim that intelligence assessments evaluate source credibility rather than conduct scientific research is false, and should not be stated in wikivoice cited to an opinion piece. This has been discussed before on this page: FBI has thousands of scientists on staff, DOE Z division has deep bio expertise, and IIRC the only internal document we have from DIA was written up by scientists. - Palpable (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the cited source:

The important factor for intelligence assessments is the veracity of sources, whereas scientific conclusions depend on data and the coherence of the argument the data support. ... The scientific data are available to the public, unlike the reporting that underlies the intelligence assessments.

SO it would seem the idea of there being some private scientific data is editorial fantasy. Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think both are fine, Aaron Liu. -Darouet (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu, I have no issue with yours and @Bon courage suggestions taken together. TarnishedPathtalk 02:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet, @Slatersteven, @Aaron Liu and @Bon courage. Please see below update proposal based on Bon's and Aaron's suggestions. TarnishedPathtalk 02:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal mk2

Based on @Aaron Liu and @Bon courage suggestions above we would have:

Some intelligence agencies have assessed the possibility of a lab leak origin for SARS-CoV-2. Such assessments evaluate source credibility rather than conduct scientific research.[1]

In 2025, German newspapers alleged that an unpublished 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report estimated a 80–90% probability of a lab leak.[2] In 2020, Der Spiegel had reported that Germany’s Defence Ministry, in an alleged internal memo, dismissed lab leak theories as a U.S. political distraction from pandemic policy failures.[3] In late 2024, the German government requested an external review of the unpublished report.[4]

An August 2021 U.S. report, commissioned by President Biden, found no evidence of Chinese foreknowledge of the COVID-19 outbreak.[5] The inconclusive assessment included four agencies (and the National Intelligence Council) favoring zoonotic origin with low confidence, three undecided, and the FBI supporting a lab leak with moderate confidence.[6][7][8] British intelligence deemed a lab leak "feasible".[9]

In February 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy shifted to a "low confidence" lab leak assessment, indicating unreliable sources.[10][11][12][13] FBI Director Christopher Wray reiterated the bureau’s stance, accusing China of obstructing investigations.[14][15] National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated that there was "no definitive answer." to the pandemic origins' question.[11][16]

A declassified June 2023 Office of the Director of National Intelligence report found no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in labs or biosafety incidents but could not rule out a leak. Most agencies (with low confidence) favored zoonotic origin.[17][18][19] Lab leak proponents accused intelligence agencies of bias or incompetence.[20] Science reporter Liam Mannix called it the end of the lab leak theory.[19][20]

In 2025, the CIA stated the virus was "more likely" from a lab leak but with "low confidence".[21] On April 18, 2025, the second Trump administration removed the online hub for federal COVID-19 resources and redirected the domain to a whitehouse.gov page endorsing the lab leak theory.[22] Virologist Angela Rasmussen called the page "pure propaganda, intended to justify the systematic devastation of... programs devoted to public health and biomedical research"[23]

TarnishedPathtalk 02:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! However:
  1. Now that I look at this again, what do we think of replacing the second "alleged" with "said" (or "reported") and removing the first "alleged" per MOS:ALLEGED and MOS:SAID?
  2. You missed the suggestion from Slater and me that would order things chronologically.
This'd be the second paragraph if both of the above points are taken:

In 2020, Der Spiegel reported that Germany’s Defence Ministry, in an internal memo, dismissed lab leak theories as a U.S. political distraction from pandemic policy failures.[3] In 2025, German newspapers said that an unpublished 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report estimated a 80–90% probability of a lab leak.[2] In late 2024, the German government requested an external review of the unpublished report.[4]

Aaron Liu (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu do we have details taken from reliable sources which establish the chronology, or is that still be debated? Apologies if I've missed that part of the discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 06:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since we don't have sources, the order to respect is the chronological order of reporting. The memo was reported 2020 and the lab leak thing was reported 2025. This also presents less potential original conclusions since the chronological order is a neutral order. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we can do that then until we have any better detail. TarnishedPathtalk 01:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal mk3

Updated proposed wording based on discussion above:

Some intelligence agencies have assessed the possibility of a lab leak origin for SARS-CoV-2. Such assessments evaluate source credibility rather than conduct scientific research.[1]

In 2020, Der Spiegel reported that Germany’s Defence Ministry, in an internal memo, dismissed lab leak theories as a U.S. political distraction from pandemic policy failures.[3] In 2025, German newspapers said that an unpublished 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report estimated a 80–90% probability of a lab leak.[2] In late 2024, the German government requested an external review of the unpublished report.[4]

An August 2021 U.S. report, commissioned by President Biden, found no evidence of Chinese foreknowledge of the COVID-19 outbreak.[5] The inconclusive assessment included four agencies (and the National Intelligence Council) favoring zoonotic origin with low confidence, three undecided, and the FBI supporting a lab leak with moderate confidence.[6][7][8] British intelligence deemed a lab leak "feasible".[9]

In February 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy shifted to a "low confidence" lab leak assessment, indicating unreliable sources.[10][11][12][13] FBI Director Christopher Wray reiterated the bureau’s stance, accusing China of obstructing investigations.[14][15] National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated that there was "no definitive answer." to the pandemic origins' question.[11][16]

A declassified June 2023 Office of the Director of National Intelligence report found no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in labs or biosafety incidents but could not rule out a leak. Most agencies (with low confidence) favored zoonotic origin.[17][18][19] Lab leak proponents accused intelligence agencies of bias or incompetence.[20] Science reporter Liam Mannix called it the end of the lab leak theory.[19][20]

In 2025, the CIA stated the virus was "more likely" from a lab leak but with "low confidence".[21] On April 18, 2025, the second Trump administration removed the online hub for federal COVID-19 resources and redirected the domain to a whitehouse.gov page endorsing the lab leak theory.[22] Virologist Angela Rasmussen called the page "pure propaganda, intended to justify the systematic devastation of... programs devoted to public health and biomedical research"[23]

TarnishedPathtalk 01:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Aaron Liu, @ActivelyDisinterested, @Callanecc, @Hemiauchenia, @Just10A, @MasterBlasterofBarterTown, @Newimpartial, @ScienceFlyer, @Slatersteven, @WhatamIdoing, @Ymerazu, @Bon courage, @Ratgomery, @Alexpl, @Palpable and @Darouet as editors involved above for final comment. TarnishedPathtalk 01:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath I'm fine with it. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good! Aaron Liu (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It reads weird to have an incident in 2025 placed before one in 2020. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven Isn't the 2025 thing placed after the 2020 thing here? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, each of these really needs a separate sub thread, as it is hard to follow which one is which. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
will do TarnishedPathtalk 13:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)][reply]
No issue with the New, New new (or is there another new) suggestion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we can finish it with this. I'll wait a day and see what other comments there are. TarnishedPathtalk 14:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Rofer C (3 March 2023). "Lab-Leak Intelligence Reports Aren't Scientific Conclusions". Scientific American. Archived from the original on 28 September 2023. Retrieved 28 September 2023.
  2. ^ a b c d "German spy agency concluded COVID virus likely leaked from lab, papers say". Reuters. 12 March 2025.
  3. ^ a b c d Agence France-Presse (8 May 2020). "Germany Doubts US Claim of Wuhan Virus Lab Leak". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved 10 Jun 2025.
  4. ^ a b c d "Corona-Ausbruch: BND geht von Laborunfall aus – Kubicki spricht von "Vertuschung"". Die Welt (in German). Retrieved 2025-03-13.
  5. ^ a b c Nakashima, Ellen; Achenbach, Joel (27 August 2021). "U.S. spy agencies rule out possibility the coronavirus was created as a bioweapon, say origin will stay unknown without China's help". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 29 August 2021. Retrieved 29 August 2021.
  6. ^ a b c Merchant, Nomaan (27 August 2021). "US intelligence still divided on origins of coronavirus". Associated Press News. Archived from the original on 29 August 2021. Retrieved 29 August 2021.
  7. ^ a b c Cohen, Jon (27 August 2021). "COVID-19's origins still uncertain, U.S. intelligence agencies conclude". Science. doi:10.1126/science.abm1388. S2CID 240981726. Archived from the original on 31 August 2021. Retrieved 29 August 2021. The first, and most important, takeaway is that the IC is 'divided on the most likely origin' of the pandemic coronavirus and that both hypotheses are 'plausible.'
  8. ^ a b c Barnes, Julian E. (29 October 2021). "Origin of Virus May Remain Murky, U.S. Intelligence Agencies Say". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 17 December 2021. Retrieved 17 December 2021.
  9. ^ a b c Brown, Larisa (30 May 2021). "Covid: Wuhan lab leak is 'feasible', say British spies". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 19 February 2022. Retrieved 19 February 2022.
  10. ^ a b c Gordon, Michael R.; Strobel, Warren P. (February 26, 2023). "Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 27 February 2023. Retrieved February 26, 2023.
  11. ^ a b c d e f Mueller, Julia (26 February 2023). "National security adviser: No 'definitive answer' on COVID lab leak". The Hill. Archived from the original on 26 February 2023. Retrieved 26 February 2023.
  12. ^ a b c Barnes, Julian E. (26 February 2023). "Lab Leak Most Likely Caused Pandemic, Energy Dept. Says". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 27 February 2023. Retrieved 27 February 2023.
  13. ^ a b c "How to make sense of intelligence leaks". The Economist (The Economist explains). 9 March 2023. Archived from the original on 27 September 2023. Retrieved 27 September 2023.
  14. ^ a b c Kaur, Anumita; Diamond, Dan (28 February 2023). "FBI director says covid-19 'most likely' originated from lab incident". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 1 March 2023. Retrieved 1 March 2023.
  15. ^ a b c "FBI chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak most likely". BBC News. 1 March 2023. Archived from the original on 6 April 2023. Retrieved 5 June 2023.
  16. ^ a b c LeBlanc, Paul (27 February 2023). "New assessment on the origins of Covid-19 adds to the confusion". CNN. Archived from the original on 27 February 2023. Retrieved 27 February 2023.
  17. ^ a b c Whitcomb, Dan (24 June 2023). "No direct evidence COVID started in Wuhan lab, US intelligence report says". Reuters. Archived from the original on 24 June 2023. Retrieved 25 June 2023.
  18. ^ a b c "Intelligence report says US split on Covid-19 origins". BBC News. 24 June 2023. Archived from the original on 25 June 2023. Retrieved 25 June 2023.
  19. ^ a b c d e f Merchant, Nomaan (2023-06-23). "US intelligence report on COVID-19 origins rejects some points raised by lab leak theory proponents". ABC News. Archived from the original on 25 June 2023. Retrieved 2023-06-24.
  20. ^ a b c d e f "COVID-19 lab leak theory ends with a whimper, not a bang". The Sydney Morning Herald. 27 June 2023. Archived from the original on 7 August 2023. Retrieved 24 September 2023.
  21. ^ a b c Honderich, Holly (26 January 2025). "Covid-19: CIA says lab leak most likely source of outbreak". BBC News.
  22. ^ a b c
  23. ^ a b c Stein, Rob (18 April 2025). "'Lab Leak,' a flashy page on the virus' origins, replaces government COVID sites". NPR. Retrieved 19 April 2025.
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.

Edit warring and sanctions

Given the recent mini-edit war, do editors here think that imposing universal editing restrictions such as:

would be helpful? We could request it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The results of the three month RfC were very clear: 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. A revision war dedicated to undermining this needs to met with sanctions for those involved in removing the information. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Edit warring policy is even clearer: Edit warring is a blockable offense, even if you "only" edit war once or twice instead of four or fourteen times.
Do you think that we could prevent future edit wars by adding bright-line rules? If so, which of the usual options do you think would be most likely to result in preventing future edit wars? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rules seem plenty clear .. people are just ignoring them. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an RFC and a flod of new editors, who have next to no editing outside of the contentious topic are does not make a consensus. Please read WP:DCON. TarnishedPathtalk 05:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting sanctions against @ScienceFlyer and @Bon courage over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I expect that will be a waste of time, but nobody's going to stop you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC lasted three months, dozens of contributors, and overwhelming consensus for inclusion .... all wiped away because one use decides WP:IDONTLIKEIT? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC lasted three months, etc., but did not result in consensus about how to include that information. It's perfectly legitimate to agree with the RfC that the unpublished German report should be mentioned in the article, and to disagree that the first attempt at doing so was not the best way to go about it.
Also: Wikipedia:There is no deadline for getting the RfC's result implemented. It doesn't have to be done less than four hours after the closing summary was posted. It's okay to talk about how to get it right first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MasterBlasterofBarterTown Why? @Aaron Liu stated (emphasis added):

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.

and

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

The highly misleading edits I reverted failed to immediately say say the report was not published. It also failed to say that the report was not endorsed by anyone. And it was prior to any discussion of a reasonable edit that could be supported by consensus.
I notified the talk page about the misleading edits and removed them over an hour later. There was no edit war. ScienceFlyer (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC) ; edited 23:28, 11 June 2025[reply]
I think there's some confusion. The text added was not "the text proposed at the start of this discussion", it was the text made by Suriname that the closing explicitly said was supported: 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.
I'm assuming this is just a confusion, the stuff you reverted is not the original proposed wording, it was Suriname's version. Saying it didn't get support for inclusion plainly contradicts the closing. Whether Suriname's version will have stuff further added to it is up for debate, whether Suriname's version got consensus for inclusion however, is not. You merely saying you believe it's misleading isn't enough to overturn an RFC/Discussion closing, that's classic WP:LOCALCON. Again, I'm assuming this was just a confusion, because otherwise the edit doesn't make sense, that's why editors are so fired up about it. Just10A (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't necessarily mean that the RFC found a consensus for Suriname0's wording.
That could mean:
  • There was some text proposed.
  • Some people supported that original proposed text.
  • Some people preferred Suriname0's text to the original proposed text.
  • There is an agreement to reject the original proposed text.
  • But rejecting the original + agreeing to include something doesn't prove that there is an agreement to use Suriname0's text.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"But rejecting the original + agreeing to include something doesn't prove that there is an agreement to use Suriname0's text." But it doesn't say "something"? It says "Suriname's wording instead"? Are you arguing that Suriname's text does not have agreement to include from the closing? Just10A (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Just10A I'm not WAID, but I'm definitely saying that consensus to include Suriname's text is not a plausible conclusion to reach from the discussion. Attempts to wikilawyer the language of the close simply don't change that. Newimpartial (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then challenge the close per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. I can't go off of NewImpartial's random opinion on the discussion. (As well as blatantly trying to revert the close, contrary to procedure [7]). We go off of the close/consensus, not individual editors who are upset the community didn't see eye-to-eye with them. Just10A (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Just10A Why do you believe making closes within archives is an activity supported by community consensus? You have claimed that "admins have supported it", but (1) I've seen no evidence of that, and (2) even if an admin or two has said that, where's the support in policies, guidelines, or community decisions? Newimpartial (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it explicitly says so at the top the closure request noticeboard. [8] Just10A (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: You shouldn't normally post closing summaries in the archives. You should normally un-archive the discussion and post the summary on the talk page.
(The one generally accepted exception is if unarchiving the discussion would result in an overwhelmingly large talk page. In that case, the closer needs to make a near-heroic effort to make sure the closing statement is seen.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just10A, some supporters of inclusion preferred Suriname0's wording and opposed the original wording. That might or might not mean that there is an overall consensus to use Suriname0's wording.
Maybe an example using a simple vote would be easier to understand.
  • The US Senate currently has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 independents (100 total).
  • Imagine that there is a budget vote that falls strictly along party lines: 53 Republicans in favor, and everyone else against.
  • But now in my made-up example, imagine there are actually two questions to vote on:
    • The first vote is "Shall we pass a budget?", and that gets 53 votes in favor, so it passes.
    • The second vote is "Shall we adopt budget A or budget B?", and that one gets 13 votes for budget A and 40 votes for budget B.
      • This means that only 40 out of 100 Senators voted for budget B, which (in the US Senate) is a losing vote count – even though they won the vote for "Shall we have a budget at all" plus budget B had far more votes than the alternative.
I don't know whether that's what happened here. I'm only telling you that it seems like a grammatically sound reading of the sentence as written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, the issue is I don't think that's what the sentence says. Regardless, I guess he can just clarify (again lol). But we don't need to be being this pedantic (either side) about a closure in the first place, so it'll probably sort itself out. Just10A (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand interpreting the sentence your way, too. I have no idea which is more likely, because I refuse to read the RFC discussion myself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Just10A for your comment- Yes, I think there was some confusion. I clarified my comment. I hope everyone can take a deep breath and try to focus on improving the page rather than specious allegations of edit warring.
Still, I do not agree with your characterization of Aaron Liu's closure message. And I do not agree that there is consensus to include Suriname0's wording.
The presence of all this confusion suggests that we need to achieve consensus on wording. For example, I think it needs to be made abundantly and immediately clear that this report was never published, it's not an official finding, there is no evidence provided for the conclusions, and claims about the report are attributed to unnamed sources. And feel free to let me know if any of my assessments are incorrect because I'm basing this from memory since I can't seem to get passed some paywalls right now. ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Please do not edit comments after they've been replied to. That's bad practice per WP:REDACT. 2.) It still doesn't make sense, you cited 1 quote from the closing about a totally different text (the one proposed at the start) and then cited another quote emphasizing that the entry needed to say the report was not published... but it already did that. Neither one of your cites or reasonings are applicable to the entry. Just10A (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. I would also note a lack of civility in their replies. 2600:1010:A016:C76D:9C7D:807C:F66B:17D9 (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There may have been a consensus for inclusion, but not how. Untill that is decided, no version has consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that how RFCs work? You have the RFC then you have another long debate about how to include the material until anything can be added? I am not as experienced at Wiki as some of you all but this doesn't seem right to me. Ymerazu (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that this discussion was shortsighted and did not discuss the wording much. That's not a problem for discussions where all the participants only discuss the same wording but here there was a substantial amount of different wordings proposed, enough so that you can't say there was consensus behind any wording, not to mention the bad wording at the start generated excess opposition.
Usually what you're supposed to do is hash out the wording before starting an RfC and have the RfC only discuss whether to adopt the wording or not. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this explanation, thanks. It seems like this isn't the optimal path so I hope it can reach a good resolution regardless. Ymerazu (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hemiauchenia, this is the second time you've replied to me with personal attacks and nothing of substance related to the discussion. I understand you don't like me and question the value of my contributions. Now that it's noted, please lay off and take it elsewhere. Ymerazu (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is your 3rd time doing this, and you were warned last time. If you continue doing this you are going to be brought to AN. WP:FOC, if you think an editor is an WP:SPA, there's procedures for that. Just10A (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to both the consensus required and 1RR restrictions. I've seen those two together get rid most disruption elsewhere. TarnishedPathtalk 10:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of these seem like a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Enforced BRD isn't needed if consensus required restriction is in place as the later is a stronger restriction. TarnishedPathtalk 10:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though I agree that just consensus-required is probably the best, are we sure that the edit war wasn't a one-off and restrictions are still necessary? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to keep an eye on this and see if the situation changes but given that we're around three days after the post-RFC close edit war and that it hasn't continued page editing restrictions probably aren't needed at this point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Callanecc, thanks for the offer. I don't keep a close eye on this article, and I'd be happy to leave it to you. I don't want bigger restrictions than we need, so if this turns out to be a one-time blip, then that's great. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian: The Covid ‘lab leak’ theory isn’t just a rightwing conspiracy

The author of this WP:OPINION piece in the WP:GUARDIAN highlights just how biased our article is, particularly in its MOS:WEASELly framing of the topic as a rightwing issue, largely relying on outdated sources. Her strongest point is that such framing is actually harmful to science, a concern that has repeatedly been raised on this talk page without resolution [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14].

This Guardian Oped author has been cited on the subject by reliable sources such as The New York Times [15] and The Atlantic [16], and has written extensively on it in MIT Tech Review [17] and Scientific American [18], including a piece already cited in our article [19], demonstrating her relevance as a subject-matter expert on both the origins and the racial framing of the debate.

Her writing has consistently leaned toward natural origin and critiqued many pro-lab-leak reports. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:31E9:9F89:994E:D04F (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More newspaper silliness. Anyway this article doesn't say LL is "just a rightwing conspiracy", though of course the LL world contains quite a few conspiracy theories of all kinds. As ever, lean on the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point. We don't call it a right-wing conspiracy theory, none of your sources say this article is biased or weaselly, the Guardian article doesn't mention Wikipedia, where's the beef? O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Predictably, actual scientists are giving the piece short shrift[20][21]. As ever, the discourse surges as the media scrabbles for clicks, but the WP:SCHOLARSHIP and science is more circumspect, and needs to the basis of our content. This is meant to be a serious enyclopedia. Bon courage (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article actually acknowledges that the science is behind a zoonotic origin and that it's a public perception issue more than anything, "A perplexing aspect of the controversy is that prominent scientists continue to publish studies in leading scientific journals that they say provide compelling evidence for the natural-origins hypotheses. Yet rather than resolving the issue, each new piece of evidence seems to widen the divide further." When I read the article I knew that point would be missed. The conclusion is also rather buried by poor reporting that constantly begs the question, that the issue is public mistrust and bad communication of the science rather than any of this making the lab leak more likely. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Qiu is likely talking about a particular series of five papers with largely overlapping authorship here, that's why the quote refers to "prominent scientists" not "the science". - Palpable (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the science" being a concept couldn't publish papers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was flippant I apologise. You reading doesn't work as it would require that the aithor used 'certain scientists' instead of 'prominent scientists' and that the paragraph be in relation to a statement about "five papers with largely overlapping authorship", which it isn't. Neither of those are true, and so the it can't mean what you say. The use of prominent here can only mean well known and important, its other potential meanings wouldn't be used in this context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article contains the defense attorney's fallacy

There is an unsound argument being made here: "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. Most large Chinese cities have laboratories that study coronaviruses, and virus outbreaks typically begin in rural areas, but are first noticed in large cities." It's irrelevant that other large Chinese cities have laboratories that study coronaviruses. The question is one of conditional probability: given a novel coronavirus epidemic begins in a city with a laboratory that studies coronaviruses, what is the probability the virus escaped from that laboratory? That other cities have coronavirus laboratories has no effect on that probability. What you have here is "the defense attorney's fallacy," arguing that the prevalence of coronavirus laboratories somehow makes escape from the Wuhan lab less likely. 2600:8800:5E81:1C00:4426:CE36:9B42:491F (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fallacy, but of a different type, as our excellent reliable source explains (and we relay). Extract:

The discovery of a novel virus in the same city as a research institute specializing in the study of similar viruses is, in the absence of evidence of causality, literally a coincidence. Although a causal link might exist, it is logically flawed to assume that link and insist, in a reversal of the normal burden of evidence, on proof of its absence. This insistence is consonant with the observation that susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy is a characteristic of belief in conspiracy theories ... . The persistent reliance on physical co-location as “evidence” for the lab leak hypothesis is particularly ironic because the physical co-location of the Huanan markets is ignored by proponents of the lab leak hypothesis, despite the fact that the markets were identified to be potential sources of zoonotic outbreaks years before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic ...

Bon courage (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing my point completely. I observed that the existence of labs elsewhere is totally irrelevant to the question of whether a lab leak occurred in Wuhan, while the Wikipedia article here suggests otherwise, and that is the defense attorney's fallacy. Your "excellent reliable source" is not refuting my observation, at all. We know that lab leaks occur; there is a Wikipedia article about them. The effects are observed in places where laboratories exist, not elsewhere. The existence of other possible sources of zoonotic outbreaks does nothing to reduce the probability of a lab leak. When an epidemic starts in a city with a lab that studies the type of virus that causes the epidemic, the probability of lab leak as a cause is nonzero, while in a city without a lab the probability of lab leak is zero. Does anyone deny that? The question now becomes one of conditional probability: given the epidemic began in Wuhan, what is the probability, based on our prior knowledge of lab leaks, that the source of the virus was the lab, as opposed to other sources? Nothing irrational or conspiratorial about asking that question. It would be foolish not to ask it. And asking it does not imply that a lab leak was the cause, or even the most likely cause, just that dismissing it with an argumentum ad ignorantiam (as your "excellent reliable source" does) is irrational. Indeed, arguing that the Wuhan market is a more likely source is just a statistical syllogism: "Most epidemics are zoonotic outbreaks, therefore this one is a zoonotic outbreak." This is pseudo-science beset with the problem of induction. The truly comical thing here is that your "excellent reliable source" is apparently unaware of the hypothetico-deductive method and the importance of falsification. But I see he is a psychologist, a discipline not exactly noted for its scientific rigor. 2600:8800:5E81:1C00:4426:CE36:9B42:491F (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which defense attorney do we use as a source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIGMISTAKE. The (uh) point is, your supposed "point" is irrelevant. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not the thoughts of editors. Get your stuff reputably published like the experts do and then come with it. Bon courage (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really the defense attorney's fallacy. If it were true that all major cities had relevant labs, the Bayes factor for the observation that the pandemic started in a city with a lab would be lower.
The real problem with Lewandowsky's claim is that the premise is false: the evidence pointing to WIV goes well beyond spatial colocation. There was exactly one lab in China with known plans to look for potential pandemic viruses by starting with a SARS-related genome and swapping in spike proteins from other coronaviruses. Previous discussion. - Palpable (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia follows reliable sources not the POV of editors. Bon courage (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zoonosis-favoring experts like Ralph S. Baric, Anthony Fauci, Kristian G. Andersen, and many others have testified to congress that lab leak is not a conspiracy theory.
The Lewandowsky chapter in Covid Conspiracy Theories in Global Perspective may meet RS but it is obviously WP:BIASED, contains basic errors of fact and logic, and contradicts the recent testimony of experts. Is that really the best source out there? - Palpable (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What change do you propose? Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove most of the references to conspiracy theories from the lead. Some discussion of whether it's a conspiracy theory or not is important, but the fact that even the experts who favor zoonosis have explicitly said that the lab leak is not a conspiracy theory seems to me to be the most DUE. - Palpable (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:PROFRINGE. So no. Bon courage (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't see how it's PROFRINGE to cite acknowledged experts who disagree with the lab leak theory but don't consider it to be a conspiracy theory. - Palpable (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You constant push against the WP:BESTSOURCES is WP:PROFRINGE. Your editing record is there for all to see. We need to base the article on the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Err, you would remove references, why do they fail RS? Or do you mean remove the 2 times we mention conspiracy theories? Are you saying there were none> Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they fail RS, they fail DUE. Would you agree that the testimony of Baric, Fauci, and Andersen is more DUE than a chapter by a psychologist in a collection focused on conspiracy theories? It should be attributed to the experts as published by congress, no wikivoice. - Palpable (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are based on WP:SECONDARY sources. This is by far the most directly on-point and in-depth expert survey on this topic published yet. Obviously it upsets LL proponents, but dishonest attempts to remove from Wikipedia a pre-eminent RS is a tell of the WP:SPA-led WP:CPUSHing this page is plagued by. Bon courage (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Palpable, I think the problem arises because people confound "lab leak" with "engineered virus." Obviously a naturally occurring virus under study in the lab could leak, and it would then be practically impossible to determine whether the virus came from the lab or the wet market. Absent more information from the lab, which of course we'll never get. This is why true experts don't dismiss the lab leak theory. 2600:8800:5E81:1C00:4426:CE36:9B42:491F (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and many others have testified to congress Statements in a circus, even from people other than the clowns asking the (possibly leading) questions, are not relevant. If B, F and A mean those statements, they can publish it in reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That depends. In a section about the circus, those statements might be relevant, leaving the question of whether the Congressional Record or a news story is a RS for what was said. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Call the US Congress a circus is your opinion and doesn't belong on this talk page. If RS cover it, we include it as a significant viewpoint, and we have a relevant section for it too. 183.88.230.4 (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those people are scientists and should be able to publish what they really think in better reliable sources than those that cover hearings. When interrogated in Congress by dishonest, corrupt people who are not interested in truth but only in power and profit, their statements are restricted and likely do not represent their actual positions. Presenting them as such here would make Wikipedia part of the Trump propaganda machine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't trying to estimate the probability of the epidemic starting in a city with a lab. We KNOW it started in a city with a lab! That's the problem with this article. The relevant question is, GIVEN the epidemic started in a city with a lab, what are the chances the virus came from the lab? The existence of other labs is utterly irrelevant to that question, and mentioning it in an attempt to rebut a lab leak hypothesis is, yes, the defense attorney's fallacy. This is like Johnny Cochran mentioning, in the OJ trial, that only 1 in 2,500 battered women are killed by their husbands. True, but irrelevant. The question was, given a battered woman is killed, what is the chance the killer was her husband? Answer, about 1 in 10, as I recall. 2600:8800:5E81:1C00:4426:CE36:9B42:491F (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing we could work out the total instances of people catching viruses leak from a laboratory setting against all instances of people catching natural viruses, but I doubt the result would 1 in 10 more like 1 in ERROR!. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misreading the article content: Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak..., Central to many is a misplaced suspicion.... The text is describing characteristics of "many" scenarios put forth for lab leak. I think this is a common misunderstanding of some editors, it is not our job to put the best face on "theories" or to come up with the best argument possible for lab leak. That is someone else's job to do that and publish.
That said, the sentence beginning Most large Chinese cities... should be removed and replaced with something better (which i'm sure could be found). It is cited to an opinion piece from Garry and Frutos' circulation model paper which is making a totally incompatible argument and shouldn't be cited this way. Most large cities have coronavirus labs (a slightly dubious point) and most outbreaks begin in rural areas. OK, but according to our two major arguments the spillover did not happen in another city and did not happen in a rural area, so what is the article attempting to get across to the reader here? I'm pretty certain better replacement text can be found for this. fiveby(zero) 15:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the most pertinent thing to say here is from Lewandowsky and Neil, despite the article's inclusion of "theory" in the title (as i recall) their conclusion was that no published work has presented a viable "theory". fiveby(zero) 15:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WHO ?

It's not a journalist pimping their book, but a committee of the WHO tasked with assessing SARS-CoV-2's origin. Nothing earth-shattering; The conclusions are merely in line with the knowledge this article already contains. But might be a source to use right?

Some slight twists:

  • Dismissal of everything from DRASTIC.
  • "Hypotheses submitted to the SAGO or available in the public domain on intentional manipulation of the virus however, are not supported by accurate science, and not currently considered as the likely source".
  • Without cooperation from China, LL hypothesis cannot however be ruled out

Bon courage (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without cooperation from China, LL hypothesis cannot however be ruled out
And why would they? None of the other major powers would agree to it if it were their countries which a global pandemic originated from and there were conspiracy theorists claiming it came from government laboratories. TarnishedPathtalk 04:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 'pitch' from the WHO is that China, by helping out, can get this monkey off its back. The report does mention some of the specific information SAGO say would help them. Bon courage (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 'pitch' from the WHO is that China, by helping out, can get this monkey off its back.
I doubt that the Chinese government will fall for the marketing pitch, in the same manner that any other major power wouldn't either. TarnishedPathtalk 05:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...China considers the work on the origins of COVID-19 in China is finished, which is not the opinion of SAGO; and that the original source of the infection in China was via the cold chain from products originating outside China... and that's why we are unlikely to see cooperation from China (for certain values of "China".) i thought you quit editing this article so you wouldn't get tbanned? Would probably be best if you were to stop. fiveby(zero) 06:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i thought you quit editing this article so you wouldn't get tbanned? Would probably be best if you were to stop.
Would probably be best if you avoided commentary about other editors on article talk pages.
As per why we're unlikely to see cooperation from China, it is far more likely that we wouldn't see it from them for exactly the same reason we wouldn't see it from the US. They have exactly zero to gain by doing so, regardless of the origins of the pandemic. TarnishedPathtalk 07:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's lay off the OR and the PA. Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

POV and Update cleanup templates

Added these cleanup templates as the page is broadly unsatisfactory. A lot of content is written in a slant that goes to lengths to discredit the theory - while it is completely acceptable to use appropriate sources to do so, editorialization is not acceptable on Wikipedia (ie, using the phenomenon of rural outbreaks first being reported in nearby cities, plus the presence of other virology labs in other Chinese cities, to dismiss the significance of a global pandemic originating within 1km of China's #1 virology lab). I then added an Update template because most material was written and cited in 2021.

Most likely, the page needs a full rewrite. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Badge-of-shame/drive-by tagging which is wrong (there are no quality new sources that are missed; pretty much every new source of merit – and often of no merit – is discussed on this very Talk page). The article uses the WP:BESTSOURCES and your deletion of content from them is also a problem. Bon courage (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "drive-by tagging" when I have gone to the effort to make a talk page section justifying the placement of these templates. Of the 257 citations on this page, 36 are from 2020, 109 are from 2021, 42 are from 2022, 21 are from 2023, and only a grand total of 11 are from 2024 and 2025 combined. This is unacceptable and whatever conditions of merit you are applying are resultingly creating a page with non-neutral POV and out-of-date discussion.
Deletion of content is not a problem when content is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Address the specific concerns raised in the edit summary and on this talk page before reverting - otherwise, you are attempting to use Wikipedia rules as a guise for editorialization. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with your concerns, but good luck. I think this page has been largely WP:OWNED/WP:TAGTEAMED for awhile now. If you want to help improve it, I think you should being more exact and give specific examples from the page and what you think needs to be fixed. As for the tag dispute, WP:DETAG or WP:TAGWAR should apply, just sort it out on the talk. Just10A (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah looking into things I see this page has led to repeated edit wars and referrals to WP:AN3 etc. I'm going to individually cite check questionable statements and remove them one by one with edit summary justifications, and if I find as many problems as I expect, I'll open an arbitration case or something. Til then, I may re-place one or both tags per WP:DETAG, but not revert the lead content changes (aside from aforementioned cite checking, which has already failed one). Though like anyone in the field of medicine, I have a busy life, and I don't think I can do the entire page by myself.
The practice of using legitimate citations to support contrived and biased personal conclusions is a tricky thing to combat. It is obvious to any common-sense reasoning that the statement of "most large Chinese cities contain virology labs" does not prove that an outbreak is likely to occur near such a lab; the city of Wuhan has over 13,000,000 inhabitants and occupies an area of nearly 10,000 km^2. It is absolutely absurd to use the generalized urban/rural reporting phenomenon when the concern is over a wet market less than 1km from the lab - but power editors may simply retreat behind citations instead of confronting this matter in an appropriate and professional manner. Note 17:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC): this final sentence was misinformation I had falsely committed to memory as legitimate. The wet market is not located in close proximity to the laboratory. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I again encourage everybody to actually read WP:TAGWAR, particularly the 3rd paragraph, for this issue. There seems to be some confusion, including @Objective3000, who apparently is under the impression that a tag needs consensus to be added (info page explicitly says otherwise). We should be more concerned with participating in the talk page than obsessing over the tag. Regardless, I've stated my broad position on this and don't plan on diving deep, I think this is more of the same-old same-old. Just10A (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should be more concerned with participating in the talk page than obsessing over the tag -- which keeps getting inserted over and over despite the fact that the majority don't think it belongs. And you and Just-a-can-of-beans are both engaging in assumptions of bad faith and now accusations of tag teaming. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? Just10A (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the tag obviously belongs if you're trying to determine a majority. Can of beans has adequately shown how at least one source is being misrepresented in their replies on this talk page. Ratgomery (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a majority. A majority is not the standard. Literally 1 editor can place a tag. I have no idea why he's even talking about that. Just10A (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that a majority agree with you. It is that accusations of edit warring are being slung right now, suppressing dissent. This alone justifies the inclusion of the template, really. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A source is only out-of-date if it is supplanted by newer/better RS. Much of the knowledge in this area is settled. If there are source the article is missing, produce them. Bon courage (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reviewing literature and I think you're generally correct. While the language used in some instances may need updating, it doesn't warrant a cleanup template. And, while it would be preferable to have newer high-quality analyses added with expanded knowledge, there simply are not many of them in existence, and it would be unreasonable to expect those that do exist to sufficiently update the entire page. In other words, if I were to continue asking for more current citations, this would simply not be something you or anyone else could do without compromising source quality. So, I'm not going to pursue that matter further.
However, you have not addressed the NPOV concerns I raised, and I continue to find issues with the article along these lines. I will re-add the cleanup template without otherwise changing content at this time. If you would like for me to create a new Talk section/subsection that directly and clearly states the issues with just NPOV that I feel need to be addressed, let me know and I will do so. Otherwise I will let this section and the template itself provide enough context for other editors. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the papers on this topic got written closer to the time that COVID originated rather than right now. If I had to guess, I'd hypothesize that China restricting access has stagnated new research and discoveries in this area.
I did a review of top quality papers earlier this year (link), and I found this article to align with the conclusions of the papers. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have made it clear that I'm not arguing the overall conclusion that natural evolution is most likely. Rather the language of the page clearly attempting to downplay the validity of the theory and to editorialize. Take, for example, this sentence from the lead: "Most scientists are skeptical of the possibility of a laboratory origin, citing a lack of any supporting evidence for a lab leak and the abundant evidence supporting zoonosis." - the citations do not support this language. All cited sources for this statement (one academic study and several news articles of varying credibility) indicate that there is some supporting evidence for a lab leak, and there is not enough evidence to conclusively support zoonosis. The sources support the first half of the sentence, that most scientists are skeptical of a laboratory origin, but they clearly do not support the rest of the statement, which represents editorialization on the part of a Wikipedian.
This example, and numerous analogous examples across the page, is why I applied an NPOV cleanup template, and why I will be re-applying one, without otherwise changing content at this time. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed previously. Please refer to talk. There is long standing consensus for inclusion of that material. Removing TAG. TarnishedPathtalk 23:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this does not address my present concerns, which center not on the citations, but on the page contents derived from them. Legitimate sources are being used inappropriately. Please see oldid=1299695923 of this talk page for a specific example, and I can provide more examples if necessary. I do not want to edit war this, but I am taking time out of my day to type out well-elaborated objections here, and am being reverted repeatedly without any actual scrutiny or consideration.
If I were to cite check this page and remove all statements which are not directly supported by their citations, without removing a single one of those citations, a large amount of material would be removed from the page. Therefore this is not NPOV. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, see discussion at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 47#"Proponents of the lab leak theory typically omit to mention that most large Chinese cities have coronavirus research laboratories" for a discussion in April. This might have been discussed since, but I know it's been discussed previously. From that discussion it is clear that there is consensus for inclusion, which speaks that there is consensus against there being any WP:NPOV issue. TarnishedPathtalk 23:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is there consensus? There isn't even a majority support for the phrasing. I count more users opposing the phrasing than supporting it, with multiple people independently identifying editorialization. That I have come here with qualms with the same exact statement should be further evidence that there is clearly not consensus that the phrasing is acceptable. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a head count. Per WP:DCON: [c]onsensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
You yourself admit that the material is sourced and so inclusion has WP:RS and WP:V on its side. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy based argument. If you want to argue that the material should not be included you need to bring reliable sources to the discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 23:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The opposing side had high quality argumentation and points which were left unaddressed; the supposed "consensus" neither dominates in argumentation nor in head count. I do not admit that all material I find to have POV issues is supported by citations, and I have provided a specific example above of this.
It is also worth mentioning that source veracity has absolutely nothing to do with the core of the objections of the time, nor with my objections now. I have not questioned the veracity once. I am questioning the way in which they are applied, and in which they are represented. If I simply find a high-quality source referring to the lab as China's only BSL-4 virology institute, may I insert that into this prominent place in the lead, as a qualification to the existing material? Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
argumentation and points which were left unaddressed does not equate to consensus. I quoted you policy above which states exadtly how consensus is determined. TarnishedPathtalk 23:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Justify your claim that one side (the side which you were part of) had a clear and objective advantage in quality of arguments given, as per the exact quote you posted. I can just as easily claim that there was clearly a consensus per WP:DCON that the statements should be removed entirely, because of the relative quality.
That aside, do not distract from the core issue at hand, which is that there are severe neutrality issues with the writing on this page, much moreso than any issues with the citations supposedly supporting that writing. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already justified it. The argument for inclusion relied on reliable sourcing on the issue. The argument against just didn't like it. Argumentation is not policy. TarnishedPathtalk 00:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In attempting to downplay the obvious lack of majority opinion, you specifically quoted a policy snippet that states, "[c]onsensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given" - you are contradicting yourself here. Unless you present a serious reason why the objections raised above are somehow low-quality, there is clearly no consensus. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on placement of NPOV cleanup template

Attempts to place a POV cleanup template on this page are currently being met with deletion from multiple users. Talk page discussion can be found above. Multiple independent users have attempted to place this cleanup template, and none of the criteria for removal specified here have been satisfied. Accusations of edit warring are now being made. All involved editors except myself have contributed to this talk page previously. Requesting comment from uninvolved users whether there is sufficient justification to place the POV template on this page. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does this help the article? Should be having an RFC about content. We're going to waste our time debating to add a tag without solving a problem.... if there is one. I recommend you withdraw and make an RFC about content not about a tag. Moxy🍁 00:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1299718151"