Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

[edit]

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]


Why is the US investigation findings not in the article?

[edit]

Way back in 2023 and 2024 the various official US investigations concluded the lab leak was the most likely cause. Is there a reason this isn't in the article? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html Liger404 (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liger404 it is covered in the article. See COVID-19 lab leak theory#Government and intelligence agencies. TarnishedPathtalk 04:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to say (at the top of this talk page) "please read the article before asking your question"? Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think it wouldn't be necessary, but here we are. TarnishedPathtalk 09:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regulaly. Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, but this seems like a substantially diminished position, its a niche part of the article. Other agencies are mentioned throughout in far greater detail. Bias via mass not omission. Liger404 (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, but this seems like a substantially diminished position, its a niche part of the article.
Sweet, now go the previous RFC about including some US intelligence agencies in the lead. TarnishedPathtalk 06:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That RFC was held before the CIA joined the FBI and DOE, over a full year later, based on a position from the Biden admin. There was also the German intel agency that came out mid-2025, and this perhaps why we need a new RFC instead of ridiculing editors who call foul over citing an old RFC as canon. PricklyPorcupine (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the FBI, the CIA, the DOE and British and German intelligence agencies all concluded that the virus probably escaped from a lab, but we don't feel like this should be mentioned in the lede? ~2025-34695-69 (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read wp:lede. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Steven's statement we had an RFC on the subject. It is linked at the top of this page. Please read it. TarnishedPathtalk 22:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That RFC only mentions the FBI and the DOE. How many intelligence agencies need to say it before Wikipedia considers it worthy of mentioning in the lede? ~2025-35214-62 (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None, as they are not Meders. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't MEDRs per consensus 2 FYI. Just10A (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then most as we do not give undue weight to minority opinions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per that consensus you referred to:
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. TarnishedPathtalk 02:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. WP:MEDRS is required for WP:BMI, here as everywhere. Bon courage (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing BMI about intelligence agencies saying it likely came from a lab. The RFC isn't written in stone and consensus and more intel agencies have come out on LL since 2023. PricklyPorcupine (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone talking about MEDRS is either deliberately trying to derail a conversation or ignorant of the history of this article, since it has been agreed since May 2021. Bon courage is not ignorant of the Current Concensus High Tinker (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no consensus from this discussion, we can simply hold a new RFC. PricklyPorcupine (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the article is well written and referenced, much of it does read like a partisan polemic pushing the argument that a lab leak is effectively an impossible explanation. While lots of crazy conspiracists do support the lab leak theory as being part of some deranged evil Chinese plot, that doesn't mean that a leak didn't happen, it just means that conspiracists are nuts. The fact is that nobody knows the origin of this virus with any certainty, and a lab biocontainment failure can't be dismissed. A rational, neutral treatment of this subject is made more difficult by the highly polarised positions often adopted, especially in the US. --Ef80 (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's like saying Russell's teapot can't be dismissed. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not editors' fallacies. Bon courage (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both you and the article are dismissing suggestions of a possible biocontainment failure as WP:FRINGE, at least by implication. That is simply untrue.--Ef80 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia follows sources, by which there cannot be (good grief) a "biocontainment failure" for something which evidently existed in no laboratory. Such ideas are WP:PROFRINGE slop. Bon courage (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "evidently existed in no laboratory" is incorrect. More accurate would be to say "no evidence has been found to show it existed in a laboratory." The distinction is important, because everyone attempting to get that evidence has been stonewalled by the CCP (including the WHO); they refuse to let anyone look at the WIV files. In this case, the old adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is particularly poignant, since the evidence, if it exists, is among the files that are being purposely withheld.
I understand that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator here, though we probably *should* mention the intelligence agencies in the lead. I get that people want to follow the general consensus of virologists, but those virologists have every reason to favour the zoonotic origin in the absence of a smoking gun (or at least to make vague statements about "most likely a zoonotic origin").
Personally, I think it WAS a zoonotic origin, but that the bat in question was at the WIV at the time. Most of the scientists who state that they think it resembles zoonosis don't actually state categorically that this zoonotic event occurred independent from WIV virologists. If the smoking gun appears, they'll all just say, "well you know we did say it looked like a zoonotic event, we never had any idea where that zoonosis happened, I guess it happened in the lab."
A lot of the discussions here at Wikipedia, we are taking every scientist who says that they favour zoonosis to mean "zoonosis independent from a laboratory setting or researcher samples". A lot of these scientists are even saying "it doesn't look like it was modified in the lab". As if the only two choices are a pure escape from the wild or laboratory tinkering? The most likely explanation is that it came from a zoonotic transfer from an animal that was sampled and held at the WIV, then spread from there to the food market and other places nearby. Oddly enough, the statements by most scentists do not technically contradict this origin scenario, even if they imply differently. This distinction is important, and I think is one reason why this article seems so out of touch. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 21:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
everyone attempting to get that evidence has been stonewalled by the CCP
Because China should give up their soveriegnty in situations where the US would never?
The argument that China is stonewalling, by refusing to give up their soveriegnty, is an intepreatation. We don't edit articles on that basis as it would be original research. TarnishedPathtalk 02:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which RS says China should be let off the hook just because the US would allegedly never subject its own laboratories to investigation in event of a leak? That seems to be your own original research. PricklyPorcupine (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is important If you convince reliable scientific sources of that and they publish it, we may be able to include it. Until then, we follow the reliable scientific sources we have now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the idea that there are secret 'smoking gun' files or that all virologists are party to a secret conspiracy is pure LL fantasy, and the idea that SCV2 itself existed in a lab is a nonsensical conspiracy theory. Bon courage (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The progenitor of SCV2 could have existed in a lab, a wet market and the jungle, and none of these scenarios are mutually exclusive. Its a theory, based on the fact, supported by RS, included in our article, that WIV and CCDC staff sampled bat covs from the wild, brought them back to their labs, and studied them. PricklyPorcupine (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The most likely explanation is that it came from a zoonotic transfer from an animal that was sampled and held at the WIV, then spread from there to the food market and other places nearby ← that seems like a fringe stance. What good sources are saying this? Bon courage (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2025, the CIA stated the virus was "more likely" from a lab leak but with "low confidence".[246] 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.[247] Virologist Angela Rasmussen called the page "pure propaganda, intended to justify the systematic devastation of... programs devoted to public health and biomedical research".[248]" and "and the FBI supporting a lab leak with moderate confidence". So we do mention it already. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Descent into WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOXing

[edit]

This talk page section asked why US government investigations aren't mentioned in this article. As other editors have mentioned, those investigations are mentioned, and treated in accordance with WP:DUEWEIGHT given their marginal consideration in the scientific community. The rest of the talk page section has devolved into arguments about what the Chinese government may or may not be hiding, about what Chinese researchers may or may not have done, etc., all of which serves little purpose here and is not appropriate. -Darouet (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, needs closing as answered. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet: This isn't soapboxing. Editors are debating whether multiple intelligence agencies' conclusions and Chinese government secrecy (mentioned in WP:RS) warrant different treatment in the article. It's a legitimate discussion about WP:DUEWEIGHT and I support appropriate changes to the content. - PricklyPorcupine (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2025

[edit]

just think someone should add the followup including the CIA (I swear i'm not coming off as a conspiracy theorist) 2025 new report cia thinks lab leak is "more likely" (low confidence) https://time.com/7210348/covid-19-cia-lab-leak-conclusion/ Cia also paid off internal team to suggest covid wasn't a lab leak according to whistleblower https://oversight.house.gov/release/testimony-from-cia-whistleblower-alleges-new-information-on-covid-19-origins/ ~2025-33442-38 (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Anything different from what's already in the article? Cannolis (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-33442-38, please read the Government and intelligence agencies section of the article. TarnishedPathtalk 06:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead change suggestions to improve WP:NPOV

[edit]

Without trying to give too much weight to this theory, given it is not the dominant one nor supported by evidence beyond circumstantial, I think the lead goes further discrediting it than what contemporary sources reflect. It's ultimately a minority theory (including among scientists) for an issue which has no definitive answer right now, and it has not been definitively disproven. I will suggest the following main changes. For my entire diff which was reverted see here [4]

  • Changing second/third sentence to The theory is considered by the scientific community to be a possible scenario for the origin of COVID-19,[1][2] however while the origins of COVID-19 are still being debated,[3][4] most scientists believe the virus spread to human populations through natural zoonotic transmission from bats, similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks and consistent with other pandemics throughout human history. Since we don't 100% know the COVID-19 origin and sources support that it has not been ruled out as a possibility (even the WHO hasn't ruled it out), albeit one without proof, I think this is a more accurate assessment of where things stand.
  • Moving There is scientific consensus that the virus is not the result of genetic engineering. to the third paragraph. Having it as the third sentence is confusing as most proponents of the lab leak theory believe it is an accident, not genetic engineering.[5] So the lead should address the theory in general before addressing a fringe sub-theory.
  • Starting the second paragraph with Proponents of the lab leak theory hypothesize COVID-19 could have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), due to its proximity to the initial outbreak and coronaviruses being studied there.[5] The idea of a leak at the WIV gained public interest in part due to secrecy during the Chinese government's response to the outbreak,[6][7] which was characterized by a reluctance to share data and cooperate with international investigations.[1][4] This does a better job of explaining what the theory is, and why it became popular; Chinese government secrecy contributing to the theory I think should get more weight here, as sources note the reluctance to cooperate as a factor that increased suspicion/uncertainty.
  • Changing 'conspiracy theories' sentence to Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak have been characteristic of conspiracy theories. and moving within the 2nd paragraph. The conspiracy theories are notable but there's a distinction between scientists considering it a possibility, and the unfounded theories spreading among the public or fringe, so it makes sense to address the latter separately.
  • Adding A minority of scientists have favored the lab leak theory,[8][9][10] as have some United States intelligence agencies such as the CIA (with low confidence) and the FBI.[11][12] The fact some scientists do favor is notable and should at least be briefly reflected in the lead. Intelligence agencies I'd also favor adding as long as it's clear the assessments where applicable are low confidence, since they are notable proponents and reliable sources have reported on them.

JSwift49 04:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:FALSEBALANCE. TarnishedPathtalk 05:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, there has been a previous RFC on aspects of your proposal and if you wish to overturn that RFC you will need a fresh RFC. TarnishedPathtalk 05:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to this one in 2021 Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 9#RFC to fix this once and for all or is there a more recent one?
Recent reliable sources I’ve linked clearly support it hasn’t been ruled out but scientists view it is a less likely possibility and there’s no hard evidence available. So I fail to see the WP:FALSEBALANCE in conveying this. The current lead gives the impression that it’s debunked/scientists don’t consider it. JSwift49 12:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_30#Include_FBI_and_Department_of_Energy_findings_in_the_lead?. The RFC may have been about the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy specifically, however the arguments which obtained consensus apply just as well to any intelligence agency. So yeah you're going to need an RFC if you want to go against that consensus. Nothing discussed here will override an RFC consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 12:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, I'm gonna be frank, I think you're hiding behind rule interpretations to keep this page looking a certain way. We absolutely do not need an entire new RFC for this and suggesting getting another one going comes off more like weaponized bureaucracy. You have been one of the only editors for this page for over a year now. I would suggest taking a step back and letting more neutral people take a look at it. Wikipedia does not have and does not need a main character for any of its pages. SinisterOcean (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going to provide a second opinion here. TarnishedPath has included a large range of sources here, and a surprising amount from medical journals.
Breaking down the claims that JSwift has made:
  • Scientific community thinks it is possible source 1 places a large amount of uncertainty onto that claim and source 2 honestly doesn't have much weight. Just because an educated person believes something does not mean it is backed by enough evidence to say it is likely. Furthermore the article addresses the possibility of the theory in the background section.
  • ongoing debates sure this is technically true but both the sources you included seem to emphasize that the debate largly comes from the way the outbreak was handled and not some definitive evidence pointing to a lab leak. This is also addressed in the final paragraph of the lead.
  • the lead should address the theory in general before addressing a fringe sub-theory there may be some merit to this one but I'm honestly not well versed enough in the topic to say anything definitive. However I would expect better than a BBC source for this.
  • I'm not sure I understand your proposed changes to paragraph 2 as it seems to be mostly just stripping the theory of any context which doesn't seem appropriate
  • but there's a distinction between scientists considering it a possibility, and the unfounded theories spreading among the public I think this overestimates how many scientists consider it a possibility and what evidence they are using to do so. Scientists are not automatically viral disease experts, I wouldn't trust a physicist to tell me if I had the flu, but I would trust a medical professional acting in accordance with published evidence.
  • The fact some scientists do favor is notable is it though? doctors and other scientists have also believed that peptic ulcers were purely psychological in origin or that Autism is caused by vaccines, that doesn't mean we should give their opinions more weight when not supported by evidence.
I don't think someone actively monitoring a page for misinformation should ever be discouraged as long as they are doing so in a respectful manner. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 20:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I absolutely agree. However, I would argue that the above attempt at discussion stoppage is not a respectful way to go about "monitoring a page for misinformation." Nothing could happen to this page and I would be happy about it, but we can at least talk about it without an entrenched editor immediately stepping in and trying to shove it into an RFC.
Your measured reply is what TarnishedPage should have said if they want to continue being 'in charge' of this page, without being questioned on the way the information is presented (which admittedly I feel is still questionable regardless of your points above.) SinisterOcean (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I can see both sides, but i also think it’s worth considering that some people just tend to be more blunt and straight to the point. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know Source 2 is the only systematic survey on the balance of beliefs among experts, and the secondary coverage is in the Science news mag. You might want to take a closer look, as my memory is that the respondents were e.g. doctors, virologists, and epidemiologists.
If there's another comparable study its findings should be included too. - Palpable (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is not so much with the source itself (although again, i’m not a huge fan of surveys as they don’t tell us what evidence is being used to reach the opinions reported), but how it was framed. The study (which i couldn’t access so this is based on the magazine article) reported that 77% believe the zoonosis possibility. to take “some believe that a lab leak is possible” from that just doesn’t make sense as this source supports that most experts opinions align with the zoonosis hypothesis. The article does specify that it is epidemiologists and virologists but the proposed wording did not. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the broader review here of my points! I would say my main sticking point is with the second paragraph changes (my third bullet point). I think the lead for an article about the theory should explain what the theory is and where it originated from, including that the Chinese government's secrecy contributed to the theory gaining traction (which sources support). Using the term "misplaced suspicion" and primarily emphasizing "conspiracy theories" when we don't actually know for sure the cause and even the WHO hasn't ruled out a lab leak, would seem to me to violate WP:NPOV.
I think if we make clear there's no hard evidence and that scientists believe it's unlikely, that is the most important context, and then the conspiracy theory aspect can be mentioned as well. (Don't have to mention the survey in the lead, but it is notable in helping to determine scientific consensus [6]). I am fine with keeping the lines about most cities having labs as long as evidence bears this out, but it should be put in the context of it's what critics of the lab leak theory argue, because it currently reads as if it disproves the lab leak theory and it is not disproven.
Reliable WP:RECENT sources support that the theory is unlikely and hard evidence does not exist for it, but stop short of limiting it to conspiracies or 'misplaced' suspicions.
  • BMJ (2025) explicitly states The consensus among scientists is that, although a lab leak origin is possible, the scientific evidence points to a natural, zoonotic origin from wild animals. [7]
  • Science.org (2025) states the WHO concluded, however, there still is not enough hard evidence to say whether the origin was a natural spillover from animals infected with the coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, or a leak of the pathogen from a laboratory in the city. But like a previous assessment by a WHO panel, it leaned toward a natural origin. [8]
  • France24 (2025) states the lab-leak theory, once dismissed as a conspiracy theory, has gained mainstream traction and cites scientists who are proponents, while also describing studies that support the zoonotic theory. [9]
  • Journal of Korean Medical Science (2025) states support for the lab leak theory, even if available evidence does not support it, cannot be dismissed solely as conspiracy thinking. Given the Chinese government's early actions—such as suppressing information, delaying disclosure of critical data, and silencing Chinese medical professionals—skepticism toward its transparency and credibility is not entirely unfounded. This lack of transparency severely hindered an objective investigation into the origin of the virus and fueled the spread of the lab-leak or intentional manipulation hypotheses. While the first theory has greater scientific support, if critical facts were indeed concealed by the Chinese authorities, even the best-supported theory might eventually collapse. However, such skepticism must be carefully distinguished from unsubstantiated claims in order to preserve the integrity of scientific reasoning. [10]
  • WSJ (2024) states the lab theory has gained credibility and describes multiple examples of scientists who favor it. [11]
  • NYT (2023) calls it a competing hypothesis and describes groups of scientists who support it, though it like other sources notes evidence which has bolstered the market theory. It notes so much remained unknown — and China seemed so determined to stand in the way of answers — that more scientists began urging a closer look. The secrecy factor as well supports that suspicions were not at the very least not dismissable as 'misplaced'. [12]
  • Financial Times (2025) states Several US agencies and some scientists have proposed the lab leak theory over the past few years. But other experts insist there are good reasons to think the devastating pathogen emerged from a market where animals are traded. Beijing has never fully co-operated with international investigators, impeding the search for a definitive answer ... Proponents of the lab leak hypothesis acknowledge the lack of supporting proof but argue this is impossible to gather without Chinese co-operation. [13]
  • I acknowledge the result of the RfC re. US intelligence agencies, but I do think it as well as German intelligence indicating the theory is plausible [14] should count in support of not primarily emphasizing the conspiracy theories.
To be absolutely clear, I am *not* suggesting we treat it as a theory with hard evidence or even a likely theory. However, the language in the lead should be tweaked to be more in line with recent reliable secondary sources. JSwift49 03:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With just a brief skim over your reply (i may give it another read through tomorrow when i am on my laptop) the sources you have given do seem to present that perhaps chalking it up to conspiracy alone may not be appropriate, i would have to look into it more to say for sure. An RFC may be your best bet here as this is a controversial topic. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't "chalk it up to conspiracy alone", but the "lab leak theory" is a load of things in RS, a reasonable bare proposition, but then a metric craptonne of conspiracist cruft built on that (like the idea the virus as "bio-engineered"). There is also the "theory" that the USA was responsible for making the virus, accepted in China and proposed by some Americans. I would resist attempts to downplay the conspiracist/racist/political/anti-science aspects of LL; we cover those aspects in the article and they need to be summarised in the lead, and per WP:NPOV need to prominently contextualised as WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Newspaper sourcing, especially junk like the WSJ is particularly inappropriate when we have on-point WP:SCHOLARSHIP to hand. Bon courage (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Junk like the WSJ” it is a WP:RS (see WP:WSJ).
I also have never suggested removing mention of conspiracies, but reliable news sources are appropriate here for summarizing the position of the overall debate, and primarily emphasizing the conspiracy aspect when reliable sources don’t is an issue. Especially the term “misplaced”, reliable sources don’t describe the suspicion that way and note it was caused at least in part by Chinese secrecy and refusal to cooperate - “misplaced” sounds like phrasing the Chinese government would use. JSwift49 12:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WSJ is not reliable for anything serious, given their antiscience agenda. News maybe. Reliable sources do very much describe why the proximity suspicion is a fallacy ... so yeah, we need to relay that rather than having Wikipedia suck up the fallacy. Bon courage (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this addition context, I appreciate it as I’ll be the first to admit my knowledge on this topic is minimal. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is very carefully balanced. I don't think I could improve the wording, but offer this context as possibly useful.
  • I don't think the BBC's Most argue it would have been an unaltered virus collected from the wild, rather than engineered is accurate at this time. I'm not sure how to establish what the most popular lab leak theory is, but one high profile example, the Alina Chan / NYT opinion piece [15] makes the engineering proposed in DEFUSE a major point.
  • The FBI's moderate confidence assessment is more DUE than the low confidence assessments from the rest of the intelligence community. People do seem fixated on the CIA in particular but while the CIA and DOE favored lab involvement, five other intelligence agencies had a low confidence assessment going the other way [16]. This was a problem in the previous RFC wording. - Palpable (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is possibly accurate in it assessment of what LL supporters mostly believe, but the idea there's even the possibility that SCV2 sat in a lab as "an unaltered virus collected from the wild" is so scientifically illiterate that it's not even wrong. News reporting is not suitable for biomedical content. This kind of nonsense is why we need to rely on the WP:BESTSOURCES and ensure all the WP:FRINGE stuff in the mix here is contextualised. As to "engineered", we explain there is a scientific consensus that against that, and why it is misinformation / a conspiracy theory. Bon courage (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bon courage here. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't know what "sat in a lab" means, but in 2018 WIV described its China Center for Virus Culture Collection as the largest virus bank in Asia. [17].
2. Per consensus #2 at the top of this page, origins are not biomedical content. It's a mystery why this needs to be pointed out here every few months. - Palpable (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "A minority viewpoint or theory should not be presented as an absolute truth, swamp scientific consensus or drown out leading scientific theories." that is why it keeos getitgngv said every few months, because every few months someone was us to change a claim to say it's a FACT. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for others, but the four or five times I've had to bring it up here have been because a senior editor has invoked MEDRS in spite of the frequent reminders that, by long standing consensus, origins are not MEDRS. - Palpable (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "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).", So (no) #2 is not a blanket acceptance that all information about origins is not MEDRS only that information solely about where it might have origanted is not. So we can (and do) say "according to the...." we canot say "it did". Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the specific statement I was objecting to was News reporting is not suitable for biomedical content in the context of a BBC statement about people's beliefs. - Palpable (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And mine was a response to "the four or five times I've had to bring it up here have been because a senior editor has invoked MEDRS in spite of the frequent reminders that, by long standing consensus, origins are not MEDRS". But, no news reporting is not acceptable for biomedical content, as #2 makes clear. Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have concerns about editors misapplying the MEDRS exemption, why don't you bring that up in those conversations? In this discussion, we're talking about whether the lead accurately reflects what recent reliable sources say about the current state of the lab leak theory debate. Palpable makes a good point about the BBC source and what is being used for, offering better sources to support a change in content. PricklyPorcupine (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what change are they asking for, a suggested text? Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its impossible to make changes to content when editors shut down any discussion, saying MEDRS is required. You did it yourself in a discussion about including intel agencies in the lead [18], something that is absolutely not BMI. Its a simple matter of DUE, based on the relevance of those agencies and the coverage their positions received. There are a huge number of content change suggestions in this discussion too. PricklyPorcupine (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)— PricklyPorcupine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The implication that SCV2 was itself somehow in storage in a lab is a stupid/fringe and scientifically illiterate idea which carries a WP:BMI payload. News reporting is unreliable for that. if we were to include this nonsensical idea we'd need a bunch of context for neutrality per WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Let's not drag Wikipedia down to the level of the antiscience proponents. Bon courage (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked what was going to be changed and to what. I cannot and will not sign a blank cheque. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In context I assume PP was referring to the first message of this section, which proposes five changes for discussion including wording. - Palpable (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Help: it's really hard to evaluate these suggestions when there's no clear demonstration of "current" and "proposed" text. JSwift49, would you please make it a bit easier to understand what you're proposing by using this format for each of your five proposals?
Proposal 1:

Current: (...text...)

Proposed: (...text...)

Proposal 2... etc.
For my part I'd really appreciate it, otherwise, piecing together what you're asking for is a very time consuming puzzle. -Darouet (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Looi, Mun-Keat (2024-09-09). "Will we ever know where covid-19 came from?". The BMJ. BMJ: q1578. doi:10.1136/bmj.q1578. ISSN 1756-1833. The consensus among scientists is that, although a lab leak origin is possible, the scientific evidence points to a natural, zoonotic origin from wild animals ... The decisions that Chinese officials made during the early stages of the Wuhan outbreak in the winter of 2019 meant that very little information was communicated—possibly not even collected—when the virus emerged in the first patients. Also, the Chinese government has been reluctant to share data and cooperate with international investigations.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  2. ^ "Virologists and epidemiologists back natural origin for COVID-19, survey suggests". Science.org. Retrieved 2025-12-10. Of the 1138 experts invited to participate ... among them were epidemiologists (44%), virologists (46%), and a couple of biosafety experts and evolutionary geneticists, from 47 countries ... On average, respondents assigned a 77% probability to a zoonosis, 21% to the lab-leak scenario, and 2% to the "other" category.
  3. ^ "WHO panel favors natural origin of COVID-19 virus but decries missing evidence". www.science.org. Retrieved 2025-12-10.
  4. ^ a b Yoo, Jin-Hong (2025). "On the Controversies Surrounding the Lab-Leak Theory of COVID-19". Journal of Korean Medical Science. 40 (16). XMLink. doi:10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e153. ISSN 1011-8934. That said, the emergence of the second and third theories cannot be dismissed solely as conspiracy thinking. Given the Chinese government's early actions—such as suppressing information, delaying disclosure of critical data, and silencing Chinese medical professionals—skepticism toward its transparency and credibility is not entirely unfounded. This lack of transparency severely hindered an objective investigation into the origin of the virus and fueled the spread of the lab-leak or intentional manipulation hypotheses.
  5. ^ "Covid origin: Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is so disputed". BBC Home. 2021-05-27. Retrieved 2025-12-10.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Holmes-2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Dyer, Owen (July 27, 2021). "Covid-19: China stymies investigation into pandemic's origins". BMJ. 374 n1890. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1890. PMID 34315713. n1890.
  8. ^ Gordon, Michael R.; Strobel, Warren P. (2024-12-26). "Behind Closed Doors: The Spy-World Scientists Who Argued Covid Was a Lab Leak". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-03-13. Retrieved 2025-12-10.
  9. ^ Stolberg, Sheryl Gay; Mueller, Benjamin (2023-03-19). "Lab Leak or Not? How Politics Shaped the Battle Over Covid's Origin". The New York Times. Retrieved 2025-12-10.
  10. ^ Boie, Johannes (2025-03-14). "German inquiry suggests COVID-19 virus may have leaked from Wuhan lab". Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Retrieved 2025-12-10.
  11. ^ Honderich, Holly (2025-01-26). "Covid-19: CIA says lab leak most likely source of outbreak". BBC Home. Retrieved 2025-12-10.
  12. ^ Yong, Max Matza & Nicholas (2023-03-01). "FBI chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak most likely". BBC Home. Retrieved 2025-12-10.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1327851201"