Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

German intelligence services

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)

? 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)

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)

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)

@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)

Many things 'got support'. That doesn't equate to there being one rigid mandated text. Bon courage (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

No one has disputed it. Reverting is not 'disputing'. Bon courage (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree, this is POV-pushing. Bon courage (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

In particular, the title changes. Bon courage (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate. Ratgomery (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Newspaper reports of rumoured documents should not be billed as "intelligence agency assessments". Bon courage (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

That attribution was needed also 'got support'. You have reverted it a few times now. Bon courage (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [1] 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,[2] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

In 2020, German newspapers cited an alleged Federal Intelligence Service report estimating an 80–90% probability of a lab leak. 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. In late 2024, the German government requested an external review of the unpublished report.

An August 2021 U.S. report, commissioned by President Biden, found no evidence of Chinese foreknowledge of the COVID-19 outbreak. 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. British intelligence deemed a lab leak "feasible".

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

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. Lab leak proponents accused intelligence agencies of bias or incompetence. Science reporter Liam Mannix called it the end of the lab leak theory.

In 2025, the CIA stated the virus was "more likely" from a lab leak but with "low confidence". 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. Virologist Angela Rasmussen called the page "pure propaganda, intended to justify the systematic devastation of... programs devoted to public health and biomedical research"

TarnishedPath^talk 10:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems OK. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Just10A, @MasterBlasterofBarterTown, @Newimpartial, @ScienceFlyer, @WhatamIdoing, @Aaron Liu, @Bon courage and @Ratgomery from the discussion above. TarnishedPath^talk 10:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

"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)

I have no objection to that. TarnishedPath^talk 11:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

"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)

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)

@Aaron Liu, see Bon's suggestion. I believe that resolves that question. TarnishedPath^talk 12:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Age doesn't matter here, unless you want to imply some new stories trumps others. Bon courage (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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 [3], so still same problems. Just10A (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Agence France-Presse is the article we're already talking about. Just10A (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

Yeah, just put them in separate sentences without any connecting logic. Bon courage (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

Agree with @Bon courage above, that there is no WP:SYNTH as they are completely separate sentences. TarnishedPath^talk 02:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

So we will have something dated 2025 before something dated 2020, does that make any sense? Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

Do you support what I suggest? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

NO, the claims surfaced in 2025, not 2020 so it goes in after 2020. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Comment - TarnishedPath and Aaron Liu, I would support this text proposal, based on my original commentary in the section now closed by Aaron, and based on comments by TarnishedPath, Slatersteven, and others. -Darouet (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  What do you think of #c-Aaron_Liu-20250613135700-Bon_courage-20250613105400 and #c-Slatersteven-20250613155200-Just10A-20250613154500? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I think both are fine, Aaron Liu. -Darouet (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu, I have no issue with yours and @Bon courage suggestions taken together. TarnishedPath^talk 02:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Darouet, @Slatersteven, @Aaron Liu and @Bon courage. Please see below update proposal based on Bon's and Aaron's suggestions. TarnishedPath^talk 02:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

In 2025, German newspapers alleged that an unpublished 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report estimated a 80–90% probability of a lab leak. 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. In late 2024, the German government requested an external review of the unpublished report.

An August 2021 U.S. report, commissioned by President Biden, found no evidence of Chinese foreknowledge of the COVID-19 outbreak. 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. British intelligence deemed a lab leak "feasible".

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

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. Lab leak proponents accused intelligence agencies of bias or incompetence. Science reporter Liam Mannix called it the end of the lab leak theory.

In 2025, the CIA stated the virus was "more likely" from a lab leak but with "low confidence". 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. Virologist Angela Rasmussen called the page "pure propaganda, intended to justify the systematic devastation of... programs devoted to public health and biomedical research"

TarnishedPath^talk 02:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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. In 2025, German newspapers said that an unpublished 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report estimated a 80–90% probability of a lab leak. In late 2024, the German government requested an external review of the unpublished report.

Aaron Liu (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@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. TarnishedPath^talk 06:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

Ok, we can do that then until we have any better detail. TarnishedPath^talk 01:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see why we need to reduce the size of the entire section, or that such a view was expressed by others in the RFC, and the closure. I support just including information on the BND's report, regardless of the exact wording, leaving the rest of the article unchanged. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:B5BF:1D0F:3142:70CC (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

  My proposal doesn't reduce the size of the whole section. My proposal keeps the size of the section roughly the same, summarising some parts in order to accommodate the reporting on BND, to ensure that the entire section isn't forever growing whenever there is some blip in the news cycle. TarnishedPath^talk 06:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  The BND report was not a 'blip'. This article is dedicated entirely to the lab leak theory and the proposed text covering the BND's report is well within proportion to its relevance and weight, not requiring any reduction to the article or relevant section. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:1E:7E8F:A2F3:EB9F (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  All of the reporting was in March and nothing since. That's a blip. TarnishedPath^talk 09:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  @2A00:23C8:5304:F501:1E:7E8F:A2F3:EB9F Have you read the BND report? If you have, could you share a link? Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know why you as an experienced editor are asking for a WP:PRIMARY source. We use only secondary and tertiary sources on Wikipedia. We're not in the fact checking business. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:31E9:9F89:994E:D04F (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  @2A00:23C8:5304:F501:31E9:9F89:994E:D04F to the best of my understanding, the policy text to which you linked says nothing against editors reading primary sources or asking for links to them. I agree that statements in article text should be based on independent sources, but I wasn't asking about sourcing for article text. (The IP was making statements that might make more sense if they had access to the leaked source, itself, hence my question.) Newimpartial (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  FYI this thing has already been included. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

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. In 2025, German newspapers said that an unpublished 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report estimated a 80–90% probability of a lab leak. In late 2024, the German government requested an external review of the unpublished report.

An August 2021 U.S. report, commissioned by President Biden, found no evidence of Chinese foreknowledge of the COVID-19 outbreak. 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. British intelligence deemed a lab leak "feasible".

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

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. Lab leak proponents accused intelligence agencies of bias or incompetence. Science reporter Liam Mannix called it the end of the lab leak theory.

In 2025, the CIA stated the virus was "more likely" from a lab leak but with "low confidence". 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. Virologist Angela Rasmussen called the page "pure propaganda, intended to justify the systematic devastation of... programs devoted to public health and biomedical research"

TarnishedPath^talk 01:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 01:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath I'm fine with it. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems good! Aaron Liu (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy with this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It reads weird to have an incident in 2025 placed before one in 2020. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Isn't the 2025 thing placed after the 2020 thing here? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

will do TarnishedPath^talk 13:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)]

No issue with the New, New new (or is there another new) suggestion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I hope we can finish it with this. I'll wait a day and see what other comments there are. TarnishedPath^talk 14:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you, this looks fine. -Darouet (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

References

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.

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 [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].

This Guardian Oped author has been cited on the subject by reliable sources such as The New York Times [10] and The Atlantic [11], and has written extensively on it in MIT Tech Review [12] and Scientific American [13], including a piece already cited in our article [14], 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)

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)

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)

Predictably, actual scientists are giving the piece short shrift[15][16]. 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)

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)

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)

"the science" being a concept couldn't publish papers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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?

• Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO). "Independent assessment of the origins of SARS-CoV-2" (pdf). World Health Organisation. Retrieved 30 June 2025.
• "WHO panel favors natural origin of COVID-19 virus but decries missing evidence". www.science.org. Retrieved 30 June 2025.

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 04:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 05:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

...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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 07:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

Which defense attorney do we use as a source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources not the POV of editors. Bon courage (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

What change do you propose? Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

Textbook WP:PROFRINGE. So no. Bon courage (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WP:NOTFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Placement of NPOV cleanup template

RFC template removed per consensus it is malformed. Sorry, haven't made one before. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Thread retitled from Request for Comment on placement of NPOV cleanup template. Avoid confusion O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Malformed RfC - Non-neutral. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  It must be noted that this user is a participant in the ongoing dispute and is responsible for at least 1 revert in question. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  I suggest you strike this really odd post. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

Okay, well, how do you suggest we proceed? Right now we're essentially being threatened with edit warring just for trying to add a template that doesn't need consensus. I'm trying to find a solution that doesn't involve escalation. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You need to provide sources accompanied by the content you wish to add. Or sources that contradict the content that is here so that it can be removed, amended or criticized. Thus far those showing up to the article are simply seeing your personal point of view that the whole article needs tag without presenting any sources. Generalizations won't get far because we have long time revered editors working on these types of articles. Moxy🍁 01:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I did provide a detailed breakdown of an example above - that particular example can simply be removed on the grounds of failing cite check, but that would obviously be highly inflammatory at this stage. There is also extensive discussion of the other lead statement I pointed to, from several months ago.

I did review policies and from what I gather, cleanup templates do fall under Content. I do hope this can be reviewed, as otherwise it will go to arbitration. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree that I'm not sure this is appropriate/helps the page. I think this may have basically just been baited. There seems to pretty clearly be some confusion with tag norms here (WP:TAGWAR/WP:DETAG). The burden for adding tags is exceptionally low, literally just 1 editor can do it so long as they explain themselves and have a good-faith discussion. Becoming touchy over a tag being added, which solely exists just to bring other good-faith editors to participate on a page, is somewhere between a bad and a really bad look. Don't see much need for an RFC though. Just10A (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The burden for adding this type of tag for an entire article is not at all low. Statements like I think this may have basically just been baited and Becoming touchy are inappropriate. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It is clearly low, especially comparatively speaking. WP:TAGWAR explicitly states that POV tags "often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern", a decidedly different, lower standard than the normal consensus standard for inclusion (despite it being cited for some reason). That's normal tagging procedure. Just10A (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RFC/no tag. Scientific consensus is zoonotic spillover, anything else is practically speaking, political soapboxery and conspiracy-mongering. Editor writes, 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 This gives away the game. Actually, the theory is discredited primarily because the majority of scientific authorities believe it is bunk. But yes, outbreaks did happen in other cities, there are virology labs in other cities, and there is no reliable conclusion that the lab leak is more likely than zoonotic. Andre🚐 01:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  This was discredited by myself because upon doing literature review I found that it was not factually correct - the proximity is not <1km.

  There is also no conclusion that the lab leak is zoonotic, and there is some legitimate evidence and argument for artificial creation, although it is not commensurate to the evidence backing the theory of zoonotic origin. This all is discussed in the page. The fundamental issue here is that multiple users perceive editorialization beyond the scope of objectivity and cited sources, and thus the need for POV cleanup. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• This is a badly formed RFC. Nothing productive will come from this. Please start again. TarnishedPath^talk 01:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  Removed. Frankly at this point I just want to place the POV template and go to bed, which as pointed out by @Just10A shouldn't be controversial Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  Placing a CN template after a sentence in not controversial. Placing a POV template on an entire CTOP article is article-shaming and highly controversial. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  It does not matter if it is controversial. The template page itself, as well as Wikipedia policy pages, specifically identify the criteria to add and remove that template. You have previously argued for the POV which is currently being identified as dominant on the page - it is expected for any appropriate usage of the template that you would find it controversial. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  I strongly suggest you self-rvt the article edit you just made. WP:EW I also suggest you strike the comment above. WP:CIV WP:AGF. Sleep on it and then come back to the talk page for discussion, not the article page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  No. You have been given multiple explanations about the simple fact that you may not remove that template without consensus. It is unacceptable to use WP:EW to support actions which you cannot even attempt to justify. Please address the actual reasons for template placement before attempting to debase others, and stop repeatedly insisting that others remove their own comments from discussion, with an implied threat of moderation should they refuse to do so. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  One single edit is not edit warring. OTOH, you just edit warred in your template again. stop repeatedly insisting that others remove their own comments from discussion, with an implied threat of moderation should they refuse to do so. Repeatedly. I haven't done that once. I made suggestions for your own good. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  Update: I did add it again, as there was no further argument against placement of the template after Just10A responded to @O3000, except for this user restating the same argument which had been negated. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory..Moxy🍁 04:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I was summoned by bot. Can someone please provide a succinct explanation of the dispute here? Coretheapple (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  It's gone to DRN. Bon courage (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Tags can be added by any editor, tags can be removed by any editor. With something like the POV tag there isn't meant to be a discussion of what the issue is, but instead there only appears to be a discussion about whether the POV tag should be added. If there is no current discussion about POV issues removing the tag is perfectly valid. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

User behavior should be discussed at user talk pages and noticeboards, not article talk pages, because it triggers long, off-topic sections like this, which distract from discussing content. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

? Just10A (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

"I think this page has been largely WP:OWNED/WP:TAGTEAMED for awhile now.", if you believe editors are engaging in bad faith then you should report them on ANI or keep it to yourself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Not what I said at all -- such behavior can 100% be mistaken and in belief they are doing the right thing. Furthermore, I was broadly talking about the page, not accusing an editor. Take the WP:PEARL somewhere else. Just10A (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

As WP:TAGTEAM says, "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil. Care should be taken to frame assertions appropriately, citing evidence in the appropriate venues, following our dispute resolution process". So editors with a particular concern about civility will jump on this. In any case this is not an appropriate venue to air vague WP:ASPERSIONS about coordinated editing. Take it elsewhere or be silent about it. Bon courage (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Good thing I was explicitly stating my opinion, it's not unsubstantiated, nor is it an WP:ASPERSION, then. Again, take the WP:PEARL somewhere else and focus on the article. Just10A (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You provided no substantiation whatsoever. Hence, this was an WP:ASPERSION. Being aggressively in denial about this doesn't absolve your error. Bon courage (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The substantiation is plainly on this talk page and article history. Among other things, Users literally descended en-masse onto an experienced closer to basically try to bully him (beyond the usual "discuss with closer first" procedure for closing issues) into overturning a close they didn't like. And again, that's just the start of a list that's not worth getting into because it won't help the page. I'm allowed to state my opinion on the issue regarding the page when talking to another editor. If you have a legitimate issue, take it to a user talk or appropriate forum. Otherwise quit the WP:PEARLing here. Just10A (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Blatantly false. There is no evidence. If you continue to 'state your opinion' which is both wrong and off-topic for this Talk page, you can expect your block log to lengthen. WP:FOC, shut up, or raise matters in an appropriate forum. This Talk page is for working on the article text, which most editors manage okay. Bon courage (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah... good luck with that. I'm glad we can finally agree to focus on the content of the page. Just10A (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

We all know what tag teaming is and zero evidence has been shown that it exists here. This is clear aspersion. Further, your repeated links to PEARL are WP:PAs. I don't know why you think these attacks serve a useful purpose, but the BATTLEGROUND behavior here must stop. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I literally quoted your post, so yes it's what you said and yes it's an aspersion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Obviously not referring to the quote. Just10A (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Then your reply is obviously confusing, either way stop making baseless accusations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd imagine that anyone reading that could pretty clearly tell by my response that I'm referring to the immediately succeeding part beginning with "if you believe...", but go ahead. Just10A (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You clearly say what I quoted and it's very clearly an accussations. Your reply starts with "Not what I said at all", which is clearly not true. I think that's where the confusion comes from. Making broad baseless accusations against a group of editors doesn't make it any less an aspersion, I think that's where you misunderstanding comes from. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, it’s clearly understandable imo. If you’re still confused, I apologize, but I’m afraid I can live with that at this point. Just10A (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm very clearly not confused, but I'd happy to go back to only discussing content it's what you should have done to begin with. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Then stop the EW accusations, as you accused me of that for a single edit. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The sentence doesn't say zoonosis is conclusive, that there isn't any possibility of a lab leak, or that all scientist agree that zoonosis is the most likely origin. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously. Please refer to talk. There is long standing consensus for inclusion of that material. Removing TAG. TarnishedPath^talk 23:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 23:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

argumentation and points which were left unaddressed does not equate to consensus. I quoted you policy above which states exadtly how consensus is determined. TarnishedPath^talk 23:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 00:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy

Not as viewed though the lens of the majority, or who is the most argumentative. TarnishedPath^talk 01:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Aye. For many WP:FRINGE topics from astrology to JFK to 9/11 there are nonsenses and conspiracy theories that are 'popular' with the uneducated masses. This particular one has been weaponised politically and as part of the antiscience push in the USA and become a kind of MAGA 'fealty' test.[17] We might do more to cover this aspect (The Atlantic is an okay souce for politics if not science). As to the 'science', although I'm not proposing to use it as a source in the article, epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz has just written a good disinterested overview[18] which could be useful for any editor who wanted to clue themselves into the topic area quickly, from a rational science-based perspective. Needless to say, such a perspective is the one Wikipedia adopts, for NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support This article should definitely have the POV tag on it. There are enough NPOV disagreements on style and tone to require it, and fits the purpose of the tag; to draw in more editors. 59.153.130.206 (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  @59.153.130.206 can you, using examples of prose in the article, quotes from reliable sources and quotes from policy, describe exactly what the NPOV issues are? TarnishedPath^talk 06:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Nice secondary source

Here is a recent secondary source on the topic, of the kind Wikipedia is usually keen on: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/25/covid-lab-leak-theory-right-conspiracy-science . It just direcly contradicts the main thrust of the article. 93.37.62.58 (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Academic sources say the opposite to that opinion peice. We should always prefer the WP:BESTSOURCES. TarnishedPath^talk 10:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Also I am unsure it does, what do you think it says that contradicts what we say? Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Already discusssed.[19] Bon courage (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

If you want to say that prominent scientist keep publishing evidence for a zoonotic origin, but that people keep believing the opposite, then it could be useful. But it seems everyone skips over that bit, and also the conclusion that the issue is that scientists need to communicate that better. Of course the article is written to generate views, so it focuses more on the conspiratorial parts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Reverted edit regarding Nicholas Wade

@TarnishedPath You reverted my edit [20] here, stating that the source says debunked. It seems that you are referring to the HealthFeedback fact check. However, that fact check addresses the claim

“the CGG CGG coding [...] does not appear in nature”, this and the furin cleavage site from the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein gene suggests the virus wasn't transmitted from animals to humans

And that claim is correctly debunked. But this is not the claim that Wade makes. According to our article

Proponents of an engineered virus, including journalist Nicholas Wade, say that two such uncommon codons in a row are evidence for a laboratory experiment; because of the low chance of a CGG codon pair occurring in nature, and in contrast, the common usage of CGG codons for arginine in genetic engineering work.

The HealthFeedback fact check uses much softer language to address Wade's claim, saying

The arginine-coding CGG codon is indeed the least common of all arginine-coding codons in the SARS-CoV-2 genome[9]. Andersen wrote on Twitter that the CGG codon is only used for 3% of the arginine-coding codons in SARS-CoV-2. This is why some considered the odds of having two CGG codons side by side, right in the FCS, to be so low that it could be a sign of genetic manipulation. However, the existence of the aforementioned genetic recombination mechanisms makes it totally possible to naturally transfer a preexisting CGG CGG sequence from another virus to SARS-CoV-2

and

It is thus plausible that SARS-CoV-2 or one of its ancestors acquired that sequence through spontaneous genetic recombination[2].

Considering this, I feel that the word debunked is far too strong, and it is more appropriate to use a word like dispute or disagree. Poppa shark (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeed the revert should be explained. I don't think it was warranted given Poppa's explanation here. 110.49.33.183 (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The title of the whole article is "The CGG CGG genetic sequence and furin cleavage sites also exist in naturally-occurring viruses; these features aren’t evidence of genetic manipulation" to give us an idea of what is being talked about. It is clearly stated that the idea that the double codon sequence is sign of genetic engeineering has been debunked. You softening it to say 'disputed' instead of 'debunked' was WP:UNDUE. A review of the WP:BESTSOURCES (for example, review articles from MEDLINE-indexed scientific journals) indicates that there are zero papers which state that a lab leak was more likely than zoonotic origin and zero which state that there is any direct evidence for lab leak. Trying to soften language to make it seem like genetic engineering is a matter of genuine scientific disupte is way out of line. TarnishedPath^talk 01:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll respond to your points shortly. However, I'm reading the Health Feedback article more closely, and I'm beginning to question whether we should use it as an RS. I'm not familiar with the organization at all, and, in reading the article, they mischaracterize at least one section. They say

Some, including the Nobel Prize winner David Baltimore, initially claimed that the CGG codon is rare and implied that its rarity makes its presence at the FCS suspect. However, this is misleading, and Baltimore later backpedaled from his earlier claim.

However, that isn't what Baltimore stated. His initial statement, per Wade's article was

When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus....These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2.

And his backpedaling, per the LA Times

Baltimore told me by email that he made the statement to Wade, also by email, and granted him permission to use it in print. But he added that he “should have softened the phrase ‘smoking gun’ because I don’t believe that it proves the origin of the furin cleavage site but it does sound that way.

The Health Feedback article implies that Baltimore found the no longer finds the presence of those codons to be suspicious and has changed his mind, when the reality is that Baltimore regrets using the term 'smoking gun'. Given that Health Feedback is not listed at WP:RSP and there is at least one questionable statement in the only article I've read, I think we should either discuss if it is appropriate to use this source. Poppa shark (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

He regretted using "smoking gun" because it wasn't "softened" enough. It is reasonable to describe that as backpedaling. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Baltimore backpedaled on the "smoking gun" phrasing and there are better sources documenting that. What Poppa shark is pointing out is that the Health Feedback source instead says he backpedaled on the CGG codon is rare and implied that its rarity makes its presence at the FCS suspect, a claim which does not verify in the Hiltzik article they reference (or by anything else I've seen). - Palpable (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the reliablity of Health Feedback, take it to WP:RS/N. Doing a search I found two discussions about other sources, in which Health Feedback is referenced by editors as if it is a reliable source.

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_384#Sky_News_Australia and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_360#OffGuardian. However not discussions about Health Feedback itself, that indicates at least some trust that it has a reputation for factchecking. TarnishedPath^talk 00:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

It’s clearly not a reliable source for the proposed context, as it misrepresents Baltimore. If you wish to claim it as an RS despite that, the burden is on you to take it to RSN. Ultimately, what matters is the specific context in which it’s being used. 171.97.216.126 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to change the article then the burden is on you to obtain consensus per WP:ONUS. I've already posted from discussions which would indicate that the source is reliable. TarnishedPath^talk 22:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS means any challenged content must have clear consensus to remain; that applies here too. Calling something an RS also isn’t enough as it must be reliable for the CONTEXT it is to be used in. Poppa Shark showed HF misstates Baltimore and addresses a different claim; you need a policy-based reason it supports “debunked” here. 171.97.216.126 (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS specifically states that Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Nothing of the sort has occurred here. WP:STATUSQUO argues that the content should remain while discussions are occurring. Poppa Shark has not demonstrated that HF made any mistake. Per WP:V and WP:RS we may continue using “debunked”. TarnishedPath^talk 08:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Ps, not being listed at WP:RSP is not a sign of anything at all. Lots of obviously relialbe sources are not listed at WP:RSP, because they have never been discussed. WP:RSP is only a record of some, not all, discussions at WP:RS/N. TarnishedPath^talk 00:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

First, I'd state that the headline isn't relevant. The content is. Secondly, there is a legitimate scientific dispute on whether the presence of those codons in the FCS is suspicious. From the two sources we cite (HealthFeedback and The Conversation) there are four figures that believe the presence of the CGG-CGG codon at the FCS is a genetic fingerprint of a lab-origin virus: Nicholas Wade, Richard Muller, Steven Quay, and David Baltimore (Baltimore initially said that these features were the smoking gun for the lab origin of the virus; he later stated he regretted using the term smoking gun). Some figures have noted that it is plausible for CGG-CGG to exist there naturally: Keith Grahan and Natalie Kingston (authors of the Conversation article). Then some figures have stated that the sequence is not indicative of genetic engineering: David Robertson, Robert Garry, Stanley Perlman, Susan Weiss, and Kristian Andersen. Both the first group and the last group would argue that the other is wrong, and one group saying that the other is wrong falls short of what I would describe as debunking. I'd describe it as disputing. Poppa shark (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Update status of debate

Shouldn't this article be updated to reflect that the lab leak theory remains a viable hypothesis. Once dismissed as disinformation, the theory has increasingly gained credibility. Certainly, the tone of the piece should reflect that the theory is viable, versus a dangerous conspiracy theory. Recent BBC reports on intelligence agency assessments is just one example of how the lab leak theory is not dangerous conspiracy.[21] At a minimum, the current article ends with a seemingly definitive assertion that the debate is settled, which is far from reflecting reality. As Jane Qiu, a Guardian journalist specializing in emerging diseases, asserted in the Guardian (June 2025), "many outspoken left-leaning researchers... have been key drivers of lab-leak theories. While researching my book, I encountered numerous credible and well-respected experts on emerging diseases who also believe the question of Covid-19 origins is far from settled. Their views are grounded in decades of professional expertise.[22] As Qiu states, "Few people would claim with absolute certainty to know how the pandemic began. Both sides are gathering evidence to support their case, yet neither can fully rule out the possibility put forward by the other. This lack of clarity is not unlike what we see with most emerging diseases." This Wikipedia article fails to reflect the current status of this debate and updates to the discussion should be allowed.. McGillicuddy E. Phillips (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The article already says it is "extremely unlikely", which implies that it is viable. If it were not viable, the word to use would be "impossible".

If you want more, you need reliable sources - scientific ones, not journalistic ones - that support it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Calling it extremely unlikely hardly implies viability in any capacity other than theoretically.

As for the article itself, it makes definitive statements and invokes a scientific consensus based almost entirely data and articles from 2020 and 2021, as clearly observable in the references. The article is simply outdated and a lab leak hypothesis has too many high-profile proponents to simply be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory". Especially since in December 2024, a house of representatives committee released a 500+ page report which concluded that the virus came from a lab leak. Yet this report is completely absent from this page, as far as I could see. An article like this shouldn't be based around data from the early stages of the pandemic. Nexxogen (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Examinations of review articles from MEDLINE-indexed scientific journals find zero papers that state that a laboratory leak is more likely than zoonotic origin, and find zero that state that there is direct evidence of a laboratory leak of SARS-CoV-2. TarnishedPath^talk 01:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The same examination finds zero articles that call it extremely unlikely. Probably a better phrasing is significantly less likely than zoonotic origin. Czarking0 (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Calling it extremely unlikely hardly implies viability in any capacity other than theoretically. Well, it's called "lab leak theory", so that's par for the course.

An article like this shouldn't be based around data from the early stages of the pandemic Only if there are later data that contradict those. You don't have that. You just have a journalistic piece by some random professor dishonestly calling the words "conjecture, correlation and anecdote" an "attack" instead of "valid criticism", acknowledging that the data favor a zoonotic origin, then inventing a lame excuse why those data should not count and we should rather have used data we unfortunately do not have, then speculating on what those data may have told us if we had them. That's exactly the same flimsy reasons the lableakers had from the start, and it changes nothing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree "extremely unlikely" is hardly encyclopaedic or neutral. The term comes from the joint China-WHO Mission and should be attributed to it, and that it does not reflect the WHO's official position. 180.254.227.15 (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

It's the scientific consensus. There is no actual evidence in favor of lab leak, but there is heaps of evidence for zoonosis. It is theoretically possible that in spite of all that existing evidence on one side and missing evidence on the other, lab leak is true, but that is extremely unlikely. It does not matter that you disagree with those facts because you only listened to the lab-leak echo chamber. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

If the exact phrasing comes from a source then it should be quoted and attributed. Czarking0 (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

It is quoted and attributed. "Extremely unlikely" appears only twice in the article, both times as a quote attributed to WHO. (I disagree with the IP's hair-splitting about "official position", which isn't even a thing; it's the results of a WHO task force, published by the WHO, and should be attributed to WHO unless we have a reason to do otherwise.) That said, it reflects and summarizes the broad position taken by the best available sources, so it's natural that the rest of the article, cited to those sources, is going to say similar things. --Aquillion (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. If there is a problem with the article, it'd be with the actual content in/not-in the body, not whether the lead properly reflects the body or attributes. It does. Just10A (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling please keep the discussion civil and avoid personalising disputes. Dismissing good-faith contributions and suggesting that other editors “only listened to the lab-leak echo chamber” assumes bad faith and contravenes WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. This was addressed previously at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1033#Hob_Gadling, where Awilley requested you to “tone it down” and your acknowledgement to “focus on the reasoning”). Given that history, how about we stick to discussing the actual sources and content instead of making assumptions about other editors' motivations? 180.249.185.246 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

assumes bad faith False. It's not the other IP's fault that the media misinform them so much that they actually believe that the scientific consensus ("extremely unlikely") is hardly encyclopaedic or neutral. Stop trying to wikilawyer away other contributors and follow the reliable sources instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Beyond the fact that this comment manages to be even more asinine hostile than the first one, doubling down on hostility in response to legitimate requests to just tone it down a bit is probably not prudent. If you think there's competency issues, you're aware of the appropriate procedure. Just10A (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

If you want to disparage "hostility" of a post, probably better to not use characterizations like "asinine" in reference to their post. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

It's impossible to disparage hostility without acknowledging it's hostile, but ok. Just10A (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

All I did was point out that what the media say and what the first IP says is different from what the science says, and now the second IP and you (which may be one person, maybe including even the first IP, I don't know) are trying to turn it into a personal attack. Pointing out that what you are saying is wrong because of the omnipresent misinformation on the subject is not a personal attack. Stop it. It only shows that you have no cards. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I personally think that "this editor agreed with the IP that I need to tone it down a little" is pretty weak evidence (if not straight up ABF) for you to jump to sockpuppetry, but if you want to hang yourself with that rope, be my guest. WP:SPI is that way, otherwise WP:FOC please. Just10A (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:FOC please That's what I said! See above: Stop trying to wikilawyer away other contributors and follow the reliable sources instead. Good to see that you finally kind of see the light and almost abandon the ad personam. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Saying that after everything else you said and insinuating sockpuppetry is obviously not WP:FOC. Nice try, but we're not stupid. Regardless of whether you're going to admit culpability or not, I don't really care. You got the message, just stick to it. Have a nice day. Just10A (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You and the IPs are the ones who have been trying to gaslight people into believing that I did something wrong. That is the "message" I got. Just stop playing pigeon chess. EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from framing other editors’ good-faith input as “gaslighting”. If you believe the scientific consensus favours natural origin, that can be addressed through sources, not disparaging remarks about "echo chambers". 180.249.187.97 (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

No gaslighting was required in this case. 2407:7000:B102:8F00:CCF9:C8C8:4DE5:155D (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

This is not a forum. If you (or anybody else without a clue about Wikipedia rules) have a problem with anything unrelated to improving the article, go to the appropriate place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you refamiliarize yourself with one of Wikipedia's foremost rules and principles, that being to always treat other editors with consideration and respect. In other words, attempt to meet the request to 'tone it down'. 2407:7000:B102:8F00:74C4:3803:5F98:7D57 (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

How is this contributing to improving the article, the purpose of this page? You still have no clue and do not want to achieve one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

What does the scientific literature say? Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Here is a recent article from renown scientists on the topic: Why we still don’t know where COVID-19 came from. And why we need to find out. The article reviews the recent SAGO report, saying that "without China providing fundamental data, definitive conclusions remain impossible." These scientific sources affirm OP's point that the wording of our article does not reflect reality. 180.249.185.246 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Journalistic source, opinion piece. Scientists can have opinions, but those opinions are not science. To the contrary, scientific methodology explicitly sees opinions as a problem and filters them out by techniques such as double-blinding. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The scientific "opinion" that more information and data is required for a more definitive position on this topic is very pertinent to this topic. 180.249.187.97 (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Ya agree I think Hob's point here, to the little extent that there is any truth to it, should not guide where the article goes. Czarking0 (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

"More research is needed" is scientist-ese for "there is no evidence for what I believe, therefore everybody should search for that evidence until it is found".

The only fact-related statement in that source is SAGO’s statement that “there is no corroborating evidence” for a lab-leak hypothesis. The rest is excuses for believing it in spite of that. --Hob Gadling (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Reply - Hi [User:McGillicuddy E. Phillips|McGillicuddy]], you should be able to access the scientific papers cited in this encyclopedia article: most of them are either free or have free online versions. -Darouet (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

This article doesn't say the original is a settled matter, only that the mainstream view is that zoonosis is the most likely cause. The Guardian article also says "...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." and concludes that the issue is poor communication by the scientific community. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The change in status of the debate was "the same bad reasoning from five years ago was repeated by yet another person". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

No FCS “insert” in DEFUSE

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.

---

A brief comment regarding this text: “One proposed alteration was to modify bat coronaviruses to insert a cleavage site for the Furin protease at the S1/S2 junction of the spike (S) viral protein.”

The word “insert” appears in DEFUSE only with respect to inserting novel genes (eg spike) into characterized backbones.

The discussion of S1/S2 and S2’ says: “Where clear mismatches occur, we will introduce appropriate, human-specific cleavage sites…” The word “introduce” in DEFUSE most often refers to site-directed mutagenesis.

In the context of the proposal and especially upon reviewing drafts of the proposal that have been released, this plainly describes site-directed mutagenesis for specific mismatches previously observed to be significant for cleavage in coronaviruses. There’s certainly zero precedent in the literature for doing anything like this. If the insert were exactly the one that’s in MERS rather than merely being similar to it, that would certainly be concerning. Instead, no one has suggested a plausible synthetic origin and it screams convergent evolution.

Separately, DEFUSE proposes to look for rare cleavage sites and “introduce these changes” into otherwise nearly identical genomes.

It’s fair imo to construe this as being consistent with an “insert” (in a timeline where the research happened and a rare insert was observed), but it would be an “insert” from a very closely related bat coronavirus, begging the question of what reason there is to think it’s engineered in the first place.

Basically, on an alternative timeline where someone looked at the pangolin coronavirus genome MP789, found that it could be cultured, and noticed that it was roughly similar to MERS at a few residues at S1/S2, an experiment to to “insert” the rest of the MERS FCS here would be plausible (no comment on whether or not it would be wise, but it would be interesting). But given the differences between SARS2 and everything else, there’s not plausible explanation for anything like this happening. 87.103.48.77 (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe a stupid question :Is it possible to create (by accident) a FCS in a closely related bat coronavirus by chimeric passage in transgenetic mice? EilertBorchert (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, if a coronavirus replicates in a host (an animal or a petri dish) it's possible to acquire a 12-nucleotide insert and it's possible that this could change a genome to encode a functional furin cleavage site. Whether it would propagate to subsequent generations is a function of whether or not it increases fitness and chance. In a lab, typical experiments do not involve many rounds of passage and keep a constant population size each generation. The number of chances for this to happen in animals in nature, humans include, certainly dwarf those in the history of relevant lab experiments.

The specific experiment you're asking about was done at least once; six passages of BANAL-236 in hAce2 mice -- https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202256055 -- not surprising that this wasn't sufficient to capture a rare event, assuming it would confer a similar fitness increase in a similar but different virus.

Well over half of the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequenced published the last 6 months from people have a 12-nucleotide insert in the spike N-terminal domain that's discussed in this paper -- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-55871-5 -- and there are plenty of other examples. 89.114.78.161 (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Do any RS comment on this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

No; it's a matter of interpreting the primary sources:

1. Submitted DEFUSE proposal, which does not say "insert" in this context: https://assets.ctfassets.net/syq3snmxclc9/4NFC6M83ewzKLf6DvAygb4/0cf477f75646e718afb332b7ac6c3cd1/defuse-proposal_watermark_Redacted.pdf
2. DEFUSE drafts (warning: 1,417 pages), ditto and also specify that the FCS they'll look for in nature fits the motif "(R-X-[K/R]-R↓)" which the SARS-CoV-2 FCS (R-R-A-R) does not match : https://www.scribd.com/document/702229870/USGS-DEFUSE-2021-006245-Combined-Records-Redacted

Folks routinely say "insert" and it's been Mandela-Effected into being something people think is true but it's simply not use in the primary sources in that way. 89.114.78.161 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I checked the DEFUSE proposal (not the drafts...) and can confirm that the only uses of "insert" are in the context of entire S genes.

I don't fully understand why the distinction between site-directed mutagenesis and insertion matters here, but changing "insert" to "introduce" in the article to accurately reflect the text seems like a straightforward improvement. - Palpable (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The difference is that you wouldn't "insert" a site-directed mutation. But you might "introduce" a site-directed mutation, insertion, or deletion.

So, when DEFUSE went public (actually probably just before it was public), folks decided to say that it proposed to "insert" an FCS because SARS-CoV-2 had an insertion relative to RaTG13 and a few other sequences at the time. A good comparison here is to compare the text in the DEFUSE proposal to how it was quoted in Viral:

• DEFUSE: We will analyze all SARSr-CoV S gene sequences for appropriately conserved proteolytic cleavage sites in S2 and for the presence of potential furin cleavage sites. SARSr-COV S with mismatches in proteolytic cleavage sites can be activated by exogenous trypsin or cathepsin L. Where clear mismatches occur, we will introduce appropriate human-specific cleavage sites and evaluate growth potential in Vero cells and HAE cultures.
• Viral: Most importantly, the proposal contained the first written statements by the EcoHealth Alliance that it and its collaborators had plans to insert cleavage sites into engineered sarbecoviruses: 'We will analyze all SARSr-CoV S gene sequences for appropriately conserved proteolytic cleavage sites in S2 and for the presence of potential furin cleavage sites ... we will introduce appropriate human-specific cleavage sites and evaluate growth potential in Vero [monkey kidney] cells and HAE [human airway epithelial] cultures.'

An ellipse was, well, introduced to delete the underlined section, accomplishing two things:

1. Elide that DEFUSE proposed to recover viruses by adding exogenous protease as well; not only by modifying sequences to promote S1/S2 or S2' cleavage.
2. Remove "Where clear mismatches occur" which makes it clear that this is talking about site-directed mutagenesis.

Consistently opting for "insert cleavage sites" is just one part of pretending that DEFUSE is eerily similar to describing a SARS-CoV-2 blueprint, when it's just not.

Oh, and for the second edition of Viral, "into engineered sarbecoviruses" was changed to "into SARS-like viruses" because BANAL-52 publication made the larger part of DEFUSE, inserting novel spikes into other backbones, irrelevant. This is why I said "probably just before it was public above", because for the rest of the public, BANAL-52 was published before DEFUSE, but BANAL-52 isn't discussed in Viral. 89.114.75.221 (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

It might be elided because it's not the controversial part; as I understand it the exogenous proteases were just to identify good candidates for the gain of function work on the spike. No point in introducing a human-specific FCS if manual cleavage didn't work. Unfortunately this is WP:NOTFORUM territory, but the insert->introduce change seems like a practical improvement. - Palpable (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure —- only demonstrating how misrepresenting DEFUSE as saying “insert” goes back to when it was first misrepresented to the public by DRASTIC, Chan, and Ridley. The fact that it was not an accidental bit of imprecise rhetoric is relevant and more clear in context. 87.103.48.77 (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Weakening of language concerning consensus on origins

Until recently this article correctly stated that there is a scientific consensus that SARS-CoV-2 spilled into human populations via natural zoonosis. I can't find exactly when it happened, but the text was changed: "consensus" regarding zoonosis was changed to "belief" by most scientists.

I've made an edit here [23] that returns the language of consensus regarding zoonosis. My edit also takes the text regarding no evidence for genetic engineering and moves that lower in the lead, where we discuss other similar ideas.

I think this edit is important for several reasons. Most importantly, we correctly describe the consensus about origins. But the edit also helps stylistically. The sentence about genetic engineering and spillover was overly long, because it attempted to address too many topics simultaneously. My edit attempts to improve the flow of the lead by separating the discussion of consensus at the top from discussion of unlikely ideas at the bottom.

I could not find any recent discussion in the talk page archives supporting a weakening of our language concerning the consensus for zoonosis. -Darouet (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. 222.253.82.115 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed there is no such consensus EilertBorchert (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

there is in fact consensus on that matter. note, scientific consensus does not include people like news media talking heads and politicians. Lostsandwich (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

There is consensus that the 27 scientific workers (signers) dit not mention the truth in the scientific Lancet Paper: Statement in support of the scientists ,public health professionals medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19 (19-02-2020) (see Lancet Letter COVID 19 on Wikipedia). They overwhelming concluded in this paper without existing scientific evidence that this coronavirus originated in wildlife. EilertBorchert (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Nice whack-a-mole there. Nothing you said in any way, shape, or form addresses what was said, and most certainly does not change the existing scientific consensus in regards to COVID-19's origins. Lostsandwich (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

There was a decent survey of scientific opinion on the topic, that is not included in the article. While it showed solid majority support for zoonotic spillover, "consensus" is probably too strong a term. Previous discussion. - Palpable (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

interesting that the very discussion you linked doesn't reflect what you claim it says. Lostsandwich (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I was describing the source based on my reading of it, and separately linking to the previous discussion. Didn't mean to be confusing. - Palpable (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I continue to advocate that pro-leak editors put their impressive energies into reading the scientific literature. If anyone feels they have time beyond that, perhaps they could locate the edit in the history of this article that made the change I referenced in my original post, above. As I mentioned, I could not find a discussion where it was agreed, here, that we make that change. -Darouet (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see it, but I'm not going to dig to deep. I agree with you that caution is needed here. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I have read the folloowing scientific papers . The proximal origin of Sars-Cov-2 , The species Severe acute respiratory syndrone-related coronavirus: classifying 2019-nCov and naming it SARS-CoV-2 ,The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. and The molecular epidemiology of multiply zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2.

All these 4 articles suggested a zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2 but did not deliver scientific evidence of the zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2. The last 2 scientific papers are in refraction request because of these scientific papers are scientifically unsound and have invaled premises and concusions.

Conclusion:there doesn,t exist scientific evidence in these scientific published papers in scientific magazines for an zoonotic origin of SARS CoV-2.

There is also no scientific consensus about the zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2 EilertBorchert (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

There are more than 4 scientific papers on this topic. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

none with reliable scientific evidence about the zoonotic origin from nature EilertBorchert (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

EilertBorchert, I am concerned that you are reading these papers without sufficient comprehension. You state the papers "did not deliver scientific evidence of the zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2," but they do just that. For instance the Andersen et al (2020) correspondence states, "Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus... we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer... Given the similarity of SARSCoV- 2 to bat SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses, it is likely that bats serve as reservoir hosts for its progenitor. Although RaTG13, sampled from a Rhinolophus affinis bat is ~96% identical overall to SARS-CoV-2, its spike diverges in the RBD, which suggests that it may not bind efficiently to human ACE2. Malayan pangolins (Manis javanica) illegally imported into Guangdong province contain coronaviruses similar to SARSCoV-2. Although the RaTG13 bat virus remains the closest to SARS-CoV-2 across the genome1, some pangolin coronaviruses exhibit strong similarity to SARS-CoV-2 in the RBD, including all six key RBD residues (Fig. 1). This clearly shows that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein optimized for binding to human-like ACE2 is the result of natural selection... since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible." I note that in a later statement here you demand "reliable scientific evidence," perhaps acknowledging that these papers do provide evidence, just, not evidence that you deem reliable.

Regarding the last two papers, they provide ample evidence of zoonosis and discuss this evidence extensively. You reject those papers stating that they "are in refraction request because of these scientific papers are scientifically unsound and have invaled premises and concusions [sic]." This is simply inadequate reasoning. And you provide no evidence of retractions because there is none. It is a waste of editor time to so blatantly mischaracterize scientific articles we cite, and to mischaracterize the reception of these papers in the scientific community. -Darouet (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

A SARS CoV-2 virus transferring animal (from nature) has never be found as the cause of the pandemic.That means no scientific evidence for a zoonotic origin and no scientific consensus EilertBorchert (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Your standard of evidence regarding this issue is higher than the one the scientific community uses. Wikipedia follows the conclusions of scientific publications and not yours. See WP:OR. You have no leg to stand on, and unless you have something better to offer than your own deductions, this discussion is over. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, your point is taken, but I would put it slightly differently. Scientists working in this field recognize that the molecular structures of SARS-CoV-2 proteins, the sequences, their affinities with other environmental coronaviruses, and environmental and epidemiological data from the outbreak, all provide tangible evidence of zoonosis. EilertBorchert has expressed that they cannot perceive the relationship between available evidence and plausible scenarios of outbreak origin. Without meaning to be rude, I suspect that the experts upon whose work we rely have higher standards of evidence because they fully understand the data in question. -Darouet (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

From the beginning in 2019 (see lancet letter covid 19) till this moment molecular and virological scientific workers in this field (with full understanding the distinctive features of SARS CoV-2) and with higher standards of evidence and fully understand the data , are nevertheless not capable to prove scientific evidence about a SARS Cov-2 transferring animal from the wild which infected human in 2019.This animal from the wild doesn,t exist and therefore there is no scientific consensus about the zoonotic origin of SARS CoV-2. EilertBorchert (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Which puts you in the same position as creationists who reject the existing evidence for evolution, demand specific evidence that does not exist, and ask biologists, "Were you there?" You can do that, but this talk page is not the right place to do it. We will not replace the experts' judgment by that of some random person on the internet. Please stop. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is a better way of putting it. The experts understand what evidence is to be expected and EB does not. That evidence exists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion (scientific consensus about zoonotic origin) is going about the existence of a Sars Cov 2 transferring animal in 2019. Till now no responsable sars cov 2 transferring animal (2019) has been found .

In the Anderson correspondence there are many times words written like : most likely ,could be ,would be ,appears ,propose ,suggest , possible ,probable ,do not believe, etc, Instead of these words researchers would expect evidenced based proven facts,These evidence based facts are not found in this paper:The paper (proximal origin of SARS Cov-2) also mention : Although the evidence shows that SARS-Cov-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus,it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of origin. Another sentence: We must therefore examine the possibility of an inadverted laboratory release of Sars CoV 2.This last possibility is now for already 6 years not sufficient in research.Also important is the fact that real top virological researchers like Ralfh Baric ,Ron Foucher and Shi Shengli never mentioned a (specific) zoonotic animal as proven cause of the start of the corona pandemic EilertBorchert (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

You had a question about the scientific consensus, I provided a link to the only systematic survey of experts on the subject that I am aware of.

Your personal attack in response seems completely unprovoked. For the record, it is also false. - Palpable (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, can we have a link to a scientific source that says there is no scientific consensus? Not users OR, an RS saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

My remark is not provoked and not false.In none of the scientific papers , read in the last 5 years exist scientific evidence of the zoonotic origin of SARS Cov-2.The term scientific consensus was immediately used ( without evidence) by outbreak of this new disease instead of making several hypotheses of origin of Covid 19 ,integer and methodological research for the origin en reliable scientific publications in scientific relianle magazines. EilertBorchert (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the claimant. There is no scientific consensus on the origins of the virus, otherwise we wouldn't have this article titled the way it is. 103.132.136.100 (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

No, the WP:ONUS is on those wanting to make a change to provide the sources to support their edit. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

We gio by what RS say, so untill an RS says there is no scientific consensus we will not change the article to say there is not. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on those wanting to include the disputed content, regardless of whether it was there before or not. Whether it’s on the party wanting to make a change depends on what the change is. If the change is to exclude, then the ONUS is on those wanting to include, regardless of the fact they’re technically preserving the quo. Not pitching in to this dispute though. Just10A (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

And we had, when it was added. So it is now down to those who want to remove it to get a new consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

So again, lets see some RS actually stating there is no scientific consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

No. This discussion was started by OP claiming there is a scientific consensus, making unsupported changes to the article. There is no scientific consensus on the origins of the virus in RS, and if there was, this article wouldn't exist. 203.116.163.124 (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The consensus in published scientific literature is well documented here through abundant scientific references. This is true here and in all our articles on COVID19. In my post, I noted that the language in the lead of this article changed recently, and I could not find a discussion supporting that change. In this entire discussion, the only references to actual scientific papers show substantial confusion concerning what they describe and how to interpret them by editors attempting to challenge that consensus. -Darouet (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

You keep saying it changed recently, what are you referring to? The “most scientists believe” language has been present for years. Just10A (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Just10A my apologies, you are right. I've made a post below. -Darouet (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

"Most scientists believe" longstanding

Just10A has pointed out that the phrase "most scientists believe" has been present in the article for years, and they are right; I've checked more carefully and I see that the change I objected to was made here [24] by Bon courage. While my edit [[25] improves the lead by moving our discussion of genetic engineering further below, my claim that the phrase "scientific consensus" is longstanding here is wrong.

I would advocate that we use the phrase "scientific consensus" to describe the natural zoonotic origin, given how the scientific community has treated this option versus highly unlikely scenarios, but from a procedural perspective here at this article, this phrase can't be considered longstanding. -Darouet (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The sources has Joel Wertheim saying "The scientific literature is emphatic on this point, with broad consensus even among scientists who disagree regarding the particulars of the location and timing of the emergence of SARS-CoV-2". His is not a controversial observation (outside fora like this anyway). The bioweapon/bio-engineered stuff is fringe nonsense according to all non-fringe sources. Bon courage (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree. If we're going to have wording otherwise we need good sources which contradict Wertheim. TarnishedPath^talk 02:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Wertheim is senior author on Pekar et al 2022. It's his job to talk up the paper but you would hope that Wikipedia could find a less conflicted source on the importance of Wertheim's work.

Fortunately there is a systematic survey of experts on the subject! It's self published and requires attribution, but it is the only quantitative study of the question and the relevant parts have RS secondary coverage. - Palpable (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, the "scientists have a conflict of interest with science" trope. All non-fringe sources coalesce on this point; it's not controversial. Bon courage (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

There’s no scientific paper concluding that a lab leak origin best explains the available data.

Ergo, either there’s a conspiracy of all other scientists to suppress such a paper, or, well, there’s scientific consensus.

What’s the lab leak origin equivalent of Holmes’ 2024 review, “The Emergence and Evolution of SARS-CoV-2”?

There are a handful of papers sniping at small parts of others’ work, usually making larger mistakes that are never corrected. And there are a handful of papers “just asking questions” about contaminated sequencing data and unpublished data, with authors never revisiting the questions once they’re answered and the answer is not “lab leak.”

But I don’t know of any paper that tries to grapple with all of the data. There are a couple manuscripts that grapple with some of the data and I don’t know if the authors are aware of the cherry picking or not. 87.103.48.77 (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I have no issue with changing "most scientists" to "scientific consensus". Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, in this edit [26], you returned the discussion of genetic engineering from the bottom of the lead where we discuss unlikely scenarios, back to the top of the article. There has been no opposition to my moving that text, added by Bon courage recently, down to the last paragraph. I articulated the reasons for moving the genetic engineering text to the end of the lead in my original post: "The sentence about genetic engineering and spillover was overly long, because it attempted to address too many topics simultaneously. My edit attempts to improve the flow of the lead by separating the discussion of consensus at the top from discussion of unlikely ideas at the bottom." Do either of you object to returning this text to the last paragraph?

What about changing "most scientists believe" to "scientific consensus"? -Darouet (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The sentence already states "... scientific consensus ...". Changing "most scientists believe" to "scientific consensus" would mean that it is repeated twice in the same sentence.

Ps, a change from May 2025 (5 months ago) is not recent and was around for long enough to be considered status quo. TarnishedPath^talk 23:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, I prefer this option:

(Option B, proposal)

This claim remains highly controversial. Scientific consensus holds that 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... There is no evidence of genetic engineering, no indication that SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic, and no record of suspicious biosecurity incidents at any laboratory.

To this option:

(Option A, status quo)

This claim is highly controversial. There is scientific consensus that the virus is not the result of genetic engineering, and most scientists believe it 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... There is no evidence of genetic engineering, no indication that SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic, and no record of suspicious biosecurity incidents at any laboratory.

Note that I have added the bolding in Option A, the status quo and current version. I think we should delete the first reference to genetic engineering. Even if, for option B, we used "most scientists believe it spread to human populations" instead of "Scientific consensus holds that the virus spread to human populations", this would still be preferable.

-Darouet (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Darouet please see Special:Diff/1317670637/1319034029. I hope that addressed your concerns. TarnishedPath^talk 12:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: that is fine. Thank you! -Darouet (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Discrepancy in China Lab Numbers

Several passages in this article claim that “most large Chinese cities have coronavirus research laboratories.” This is misleading. At the time of the COVID-19 outbreak in late 2019, only one BSL-4 laboratory in China was publicly documented as operational: the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory. Wuhan was notable for conducting coronavirus research at that level. A second BSL-4 facility in Harbin existed in a veterinary setting, but it was not known as a coronavirus research hub. China does operate dozens of BSL-3 laboratories, but these are concentrated in certain provinces and many focus on pathogens such as tuberculosis or influenza rather than coronaviruses. Equating the presence of BSL-3 labs with coronavirus research exaggerates their prevalence. The Wuhan Institute of Virology’s coronavirus program was an exception, not representative of “most large Chinese cities.” 2600:1700:FC80:5020:E4BC:6EE0:6CCA:BE72 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Coronaviruses are classified at BSL-3, so BSL-4 labs are not really relevant to this article. MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The statement is supported by source. We follow what reliable sources state. We don't do original research. If you want to dispute what the source says, take it to WP:RS/N. TarnishedPath^talk 01:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

This is one of the most frequently contested sentences in the article. Searching the talk page archives here for most large Chinese cities should turn up a lot of previous discussion. - Palpable (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

As MrOllie already mentioned, work with live coronaviruses is conducted in BSL-3, not BSL-4 facilities. This was and remains the case. Some work can even be conducted in BSL-2 settings. -Darouet (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, there are SARS2 lab leak theories that involved labs in Beijing, Guangdong province, Nanjing, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Based on coronavirus research happening or suspected to be happening in those places.

By far the most influential lab leak theory centers on work in Beijing (based on pre- and post-pandemic vaccine development by AMMS). 87.103.48.77 (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think claiming most large Chinese cities have coronavirus labs is misleading, its unsupported and false. (An issue I pointed out many moons ago.) Relatively few cities have BSL-3 labs, much less BSL-3 labs doing coronavirus research. What defines a "large" city? Hmmm. Ask yourself if anyone has a list of exactly which cities have BSL-3 labs doing coronavirus research. Conflating having a BSL-3 lab with a lab actively doing coronavirus research is especially "misleading," but it is consistently done throughout corona-virus pages to support one side. The entire article is misleading so don't expect it to change anytime soon. ~2025-31506-14 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think claiming most large Chinese cities have coronavirus labs is misleading, its unsupported and false.

You are wrong. TarnishedPath^talk 23:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:VOICE this should not be in wikivoice, yet it's in the lead of the article. The original link[27] makes it clear that it's an opinion piece. The author's neutrality is nonexistent, he's also the senior author on the Proximal Origins paper. This has been contested in the talk page again and again and nobody has come up with a source. - Palpable (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Dr Garry is subject matter expert. Attribution is not required for statements of fact. If you're contesting the statement of fact made by an expert you need to bring sufficiently authorative sourcing which contradicts them. TarnishedPath^talk 02:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Where are you getting that? WP:RSOPINION does not say there is an exception for subject matter experts. IIRC, "subject matter expert" in the PAGs refers to editors with relevant knowledge, not authors of opinion articles. - Palpable (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The statement "Most large Chinese cities have laboratories that study coronaviruses" is a statement of fact, not an opinion. You going to bring sourcing which contradicts that? Arguing that it is wrong without sourcing isn't going to cut it. TarnishedPath^talk 06:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You are asserting that it is a "statement of fact, not an opinion", but it's almost verbatim from the source, which is literally labeled as OPINION by the publisher?

You're obviously the senior editor here and you seem very sure of your interpretation, but references to the PAGs would be helpful for those of us without your depth of experience. - Palpable (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

PAGs aren't going to spell out for your the difference between opinion and statements of fact. TarnishedPath^talk 07:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Palpable, whatever your opinion of him, Robert Garry is an expert in this area. -Darouet (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Expert Robert F Garry wrote :The evidence remains clear: SARS-CoV-2 emerged via the wildlife trade. Within this paper exist no clear evidence about a Sars Cov 2 transferring zoonotic animal emerged via the wildlife trade. EilertBorchert (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Darouet can you show me where in the PAGs it says that you can just put an expert's opinion in WP:VOICE?

There are multiple senior editors here saying very firmly that this is a rule, but I can't find it.

I'm curious about the wording that puts Garry's claim in wikivoice but excludes the opinion of Ralph Baric, who is ten times the expert Garry is. - Palpable (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I already addressed this above. TarnishedPath^talk 23:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Palpable, what is your Baric reference? You're talking about his testimony before congress? -Darouet (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That's right, page 102 here:

Baric, Ralph (January 22, 2024). "Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Interview of: Ralph S. Baric, Ph.D." (PDF). U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved December 28, 2024.

Baric says the market was the site of amplification in late December, January. That's still two months from the origin date, based on a molecular clock, which means it was circulating somewhere before it got there. Statement of fact, by the top expert in the US, based on genomic evidence.

My reading of WP:VOICE is that both Baric's and Garry's statements are opinions that require attribution (again, Garry's was labeled as OPINION by the publisher). But as I understand the argument here, Baric's statement really should be in wikivoice. For that matter, by DUE Baric's statements should be more prominent than Garry's. - Palpable (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

But Palpable, surely you will acknowledge that there is a vast difference between a statement drafted and published with editorial oversight in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which is one of the most prestigious journals in the world, and a verbal statement in testimony before a committee in congress. Yes I agree that Baric is an expert and his views should be considered seriously, but if we want to explore the origin date before amplification at the market, there are multiple published papers on the topic. Right? -Darouet (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Baric is a top tier scientist, the US expert on coronaviruses, collaborator with WIV, and inventor of some of the assembly techniques under discussion. His statement is a direct interpretation of the genomic evidence, made under penalty of perjury, with about five different legal teams in the room to make sure there were no slips of the tongue.

Meanwhile Garry isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia page, his claim is vague, controversial, and unsourced, and the journal labeled it OPINION.

Currently Garry's statement is in WP:VOICE in the lead, Baric's statement isn't even in the article, and there don't seem to be any PAGs that explain why. - Palpable (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You know that Garry can easily have a page if anyone takes the time to write one. You or I could both do it right now. And I'm amazed that you think fragments of oral testimony that amounts to hundreds of pages of text, before a committee of congress, needs to be cited here, but you're arguing that a letter published by PNAS should not be. I apologize Palpable, I think the case is clear. -Darouet (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Many comments in the PNAS article of Robert Garry (The evidence remains clear: SARS-CoV-2 emerged via the wildlife trade) are clear in their reject comments e.g the comment of a well known virologist (see the Robert Garry clear evidence paper on the last page) .

The article sets up and knocks down straw men - the conspiracy theorists. But the lab leak hypothesis is held\by many who impute no conspiracies - except perhaps in Chinese government coverups, which did happen - deletion of data, refusal of access and other activities typical of an autocratic regime in panic. But coverups like that do not prove a lab leak theory, they only show that the regime is not a reliable source of information on the topic.

The article also ignores the lab leaks in China of the closely related SARS-CoV-1 which resulted in small outbreaks - demonstrating that lab leaks of similar viruses have happened. Likewise, the Wuhan CDC's close proximity to the animal market is ignored - a leak from there could have created the same geographical pattern as an animal market source. The failure of highly motivated efforts by the Chinese government to find any animal precursors is also suggestive of a leak. Experiments infecting animals with a precursor could have resulted in the same conversion to SARS-CoV-2 as hypothesized as occurring in nature.

None of this provse a lab leak. But the article and subsequent research do not prove an origin outside a lab, either.

Overall, the article comes across as a weak attempt to dispel serious leak hypotheses, using rhetorical tricks and even a bizarre accusation of racism. It is.a polemic, which demonstrates the extreme politicization and polarization in even the scientific personnel. It seems an over-reaction to a few loud conspiracy theorists, rather than a serious analysis of the origin of SARS-CoV-2. EilertBorchert (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

refusal of access and other activities typical of an autocratic regime in panic

Activities of any nation state enforcing their sovereignty. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The origins of SCV2 is at Origin of SARS-CoV-2. This article is about the LL phenonenon which - yes - is largely bound up with conspiracy theories, politics and racism, per the excellent sources cited. Bon courage (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

knocks down straw men - the conspiracy theorists The conspiracy theorists are not straw men. They are a real live breathing part of the lab leak subculture. It is legitimate to address and refute them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

the Wuhan CDC's close proximity to the animal market is ignored What article are you talking about here? The Garry article says Once again, the guilt-by-proximity argument came to the fore and our article says The Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control are located within miles of the original focal point of the pandemic, Wuhan's Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, and this very proximity has made it easy for conspiracy theories to take root suggesting the laboratory must be the virus' origin.

Sources are allowed to not meet your demands on what they are allowed to talk about and what not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The inspector ( M.Koopmans) of the WHO told me personally that the Wuhan C.D.C.was closed on the moment of the WHO inspection EilertBorchert (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You are not making sense. I do not see any connection between what I wrote and your conversation with someone who has not been mentioned before in this thread: none of the words "Koopmans" or "inspect" appear above, and "WHO" only in another context. Also, unpublished conversations of Wikipedia users are not reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you read the opinion piece Garry wrote this in? It sure sounds like opinion and was labeled as such. Wasn't Garry one of the many "expert virologists" who were doing GoF research and who said one thing in public, but said the opposite in emails? Garry may be a 'subject matter expert' on gain-of-function research, but that doesn't mean he has visited any, much less, all of these so called "coronavirus research labs". One unsupported claim in a political opinion piece, even when done by a so called 'expert' doesn't belong prominently featured multiple times in a so called encyclopedia. ~2025-31506-14 (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I repeat a sentence from above: If you're contesting the statement of fact made by an expert you need to bring sufficiently authorative sourcing which contradicts them

E-mails are not reliable sources. How can you read other people's emails anyway? Did somebody steal them? Stolen e-mails published by the fences who bought them are even less reliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Assuming users are bioeg serious (the bane of wp:agf), read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Genetic engineering

The longstanding claim by some editors on Wikipedia that any possibility of genetic engineering is "conspiracy theory" or "fringe" is roundly rejected by Ralph S. Baric's testimony to Congress that he told the ODNI it was a distinct possibility, as early a Jan 25 2020. See page 120/121 of his testimony [28].180.249.185.129 (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

By definition a fringe theory is one held by one person. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

180.249.185.129, did you even read the testimony you sent? Baric said he agreed with the Andersen paper when it was written and still agrees with it today. -Darouet (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Did you read this (preprint)article: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2 =

View ORCID ProfileValentin Bruttel,  View ORCID ProfileAlex Washburne,  View ORCID ProfileAntonius VanDongen EilertBorchert (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:PREPRINT TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Wu (2023) also specifically addresses the Bruttel et al. preprint, and of course if we accepted an unreviewed article (or rejected, IDK if they submitted it) arguing for a viewpoint that most certainly departs from the mainstream, by PARITY we would be required to include also the many, many EXPERTSPS sources discussing it, and from a quick look, most of those also point out the methodological shortcomings. I suppose if we needed an example of how unsound the articles pushing the theory are... Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The Bruttel et al preprint is fraudulent. Disproven a month before it was published. Authors knowingly omitted contradictory data that they were aware of well ahead of publication (eg RpYN06). Upon publication it was immediately and definitively falsified. One of the two scientists who initially publicly endorsed it (Francois Balloux) changed his mind and decided that the sites were not engineered. The other one (Justin Kinney) never spoke about it again. 87.103.48.77 (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The main point I make about Baric's testimony is that he considered genetic engineering a very real possibility within days of the virus emerging. Genetic engineering is not a fringe theory, given Baric's status in the virology community. The problems with the controversial Proximal Origin are covered by RS and don't invalidate my point. 180.254.224.18 (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Baric is clear that the evidence is overwhelmingly against genetic engineering in his testimony. At one point in the testimony he even goes into the mathematical unlikelihood of engineering something like SARS-CoV-2: he says it's effectively zero. -Darouet (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

“Yes, it’s technically possible to construct a virus like SARS-CoV-2 using reverse genetics systems. These tools have been around for years and are used to study viral replication, pathogenesis, and to develop vaccines.” - Ralph Baric 180.249.185.129 (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide a page number and citation for that? I have no idea where that comes from. It doesn't seem to be from Baric's congressional testimony and a Google search doesn't return anything. -Darouet (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

He said it on an Italian television interview. These attempts to make genetic engineering an outlandish possibility, when Baric is not even the only one saying its possible, are not in line with Wikipedia writing policy. 2404:C0:3826:584D:DDC1:C3E3:2DDA:D3DD (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The statement the evidence is overwhelmingly against genetic engineering is not that different from "outlandish possibility", and it does not contradict the "Yes, it’s technically possible" comment. This is a transparent attempt at quote mining. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The statement “the evidence is overwhelmingly against genetic engineering” violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS. It lacks the type of sourcing required for such a strong statement, and if even Dr Ralph Baric — one of the foremost coronavirologists — included genetic engineering as one of three possible origins in his briefings to the ODNI during the early days of the pandemic, then the claim is demonstrably false. 180.249.186.58 (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Shi Shingli told/wrote in 2021: “According to the findings of our team and our international peers, SARS-CoV-2 is very likely to have originated from bats. It may have evolved in one or more intermediate hosts, become adapted to humans, and eventually spread among humans. However, it remains unclear which animals were the intermediate hosts and how it spilled over to humans.” The intermediate host still remains to be determined. EilertBorchert (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Why can you people never perceive nuance beyond true and false? Something can be a "possible origin" but still have overwhelming evidence against it. There is no contradiction. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The nuance noticed in this article and talk is the lack of integrety in bioscience research. EilertBorchert (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

That is the lab-leak narrative, not the reality. And it is a red herring. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see where Baric says anything about "overwhelming evidence against engineering"? When most people say that they are referring to the market origin papers, which, in the same testimony, Baric flatly rejects based on the genomes: "the market was the site of amplification in late December, January. That's still two months from the origin date, based on a molecular clock, which means it was circulating somewhere before it got there."

What he says in a few places is that there is no evidence for genetic engineering. At line 1774 he says that natural zoonosis is the null hypothesis and if you can't reject it you must accept it ("If we can't disprove it, then it's likely" - not a Bayesian apparently).

The only evidence against engineering that I saw in there (it's a long document) is that Baric thinks the WIV folks didn't have the lab skills to do it. It's obviously doable because multiple labs including Baric's built live virus from the genome very quickly after it was published, using techniques that are maybe a decade old.

Logically, no hard evidence to support engineering (Baric line 1756) is a far cry from "overwhelming evidence against engineering". Failure to reject the null based on lack of evidence is not the same as finding evidence going the other direction. - Palpable (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

No amount of arguing from you beats what the reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

So,your reliable sources about the zoonotic origin of Sars Cov 2 (name of the responsible animal) are of better quality than the sources of well known virologists like Ralph Baric ,Ron Foucher and Shengli? EilertBorchert (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The "name" of the intermediate animal isn't known, but all good sources agree SCV2 is of zoonotic origin, and that the belief in genetic engineering is the domain of lay discourse/social media/cranks. Bon courage (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The following presentation has been made by Ralph Baric on 29-01-2020 for the Biological Sciences Experts Group :On page 30 of 56 of this presentatation -pinpoints early october as the likely start -mentioned accidental release of institute of Virology(Wuhan)Studies Sars group 2 B bat Coronaviruses -sequenced 1000 of Sars-like group 2 B bat coronaviruses-do this work under BSL 2 conditions despite virus use of h ACE 2 receptor growth in primary human airway epithelial cells -reported a bat virus simular to 2019-nHCOV -They had not specially reported on any virus like 2019-HCOV EilertBorchert (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable, reputably-published sources, not something scraped-up from an incidental presentation from over 5 years ago. If you want to present novel argument for what you believe, Wikipedia is not the place. Bon courage (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hereby reliable not scientific published information ;* Thursday, October 30, 2025

= Chairman Rand Paul Seeks Intelligence Community Records Related to COVID Origins =

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Chairman Rand Paul sent a letter to the Office of the Director for National Intelligence (ODNI) requesting records related to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs’ ongoing investigation into the origins of COVID-19 and the oversight of risky research.

The letter includes new documents obtained by the Committee revealing that members of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) were in contact with Dr. Ralph Baric, a coronavirus expert and collaborator of Dr. Zhengli Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), well before the outbreak of the global pandemic. These documents reveal that Dr. Baric’s relationship with the Intelligence Community dates back to at least 2015.

In an email dated September 10, 2015, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and ODNI initiated contact with Dr. Baric to set up a meeting to discuss a “possible project” related to “[c]oronavirus evolution and possible natural human adaptation. Just under two months later, Dr. Baric and Dr. Shi would publish on their joint coronavirus experiments in a paper titled, “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.” This research, which was funded with taxpayer dollars under the USAID PREDICT program and NIH grants, is largely acknowledged by the scientific community to have included gain-of-function research.

In 2018, Dr. Baric and Dr. Shi would again appear as collaborators in a research proposal which was submitted by EcoHealth Alliance to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) PREventing Emerging Pathogenic Threats (PREEMPT) program. This proposal, known as DEFUSE, sought funding for a project that included plans to insert a furin cleavage site into a coronavirus, strikingly similar to what would later emerge as SARS-CoV-2 that caused COVID-19. Although DARPA declined to fund the project, the research concept did not disappear. Two years later, in early 2020, COVID-19 spread from Wuhan, the same location named in the DEFUSE proposal. As the virus began to circulate globally, the same circle of scientists who had proposed risky gain-of-function experiments were suddenly advising the U.S. government on how to respond.

The new records released by the Committee show that on January 23, 2020, Dr. Baric was summoned by “the Sponsor” to present at a meeting of ODNI’s Biological Sciences Experts Group (BSEG), which operates under the National Counterproliferation Center (NCPC). Dr. Baric agreed to participate, replying that he would “put together a few slides that capture the essence of the problem.” The response was enthusiastic: “[t]he Sponsor will be excited to hear that you are willing to lead this timely and important discussion.”

Six days later, on January 29, 2020, Dr. Baric emails a copy of his PowerPoint presentation which included a slide titled “Origins” that discussed the possibility of an accidental laboratory release at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. A hypothesis that was later publicly dismissed, labeled a conspiracy theory, and vilified by Dr. Fauci and his inner circle. EilertBorchert (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this trolling? in no universe is a political press release a reliable source for this. Wikipedia is meant to reflect accepted knowledge, not amplify nonsense from politicians. Bon courage (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Re: "just under two months later"

The paper was submitted for peer review two months prior to that! I suspect Baric (or someone in his group or part of the collaboration) either shared the results with colleagues privately or presented them at a conference and the invitation to discuss a possible project came in response to that. This would be quite logical. In no universe would it have anything to do with the origins of COVID-19. 89.114.74.205 (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)