Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 10

The Spectator article
The Spectator published a relevant article. Some interesting points:


 * recently, the closest relative to Sars-CoV-2 was found in Laos
 * a few years ago, EcoHealth Alliance planned to collect bat viruses samples in Laos and transport them to the Wuhan Institute of Virology
 * the natural Laos virus is missing the furin cleavage site that makes Sars-CoV-2 so infectious
 * a few years ago, EcoHealth Alliance planned to insert cleavage sites into Sars-like coronaviruses collected in the field, together with the colleagues from the Wuhan Institute of Virology
 * a rather thought-provoking quote: the outbreak happened in a city with the world’s largest research programme on bat-borne corona-viruses, whose scientists had gone to at least two places where these Sars-CoV-2-like viruses live, and brought them back to Wuhan — and to nowhere else

--Thereisnous (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SPECTATOR The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSEDITORIAL, and WP:NEWSBLOG. Not that this couldn't be a good source for the chain of circumstantial evidence being argued by proponents, but we can't wikivoice it. On a related note, did the Laos study get published, or is it still a preprint? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The paper is still in review. Its neutral on the origins question, though secondary sources take it other places. LondonIP (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to find other sources. I don't think The Spectator is appropriate for coverage of science topics. I also don't have a particularly high opinion of its trustworthiness/fact-checking, but that may just be because of the type of source it is: a discursive magazine (rather than hard news reporting), often with clear conservative leanings. Its more suitable for cultural/opinion-based topics. Also, the writer doesn't seem to have an particular expertise in this area. Jr8825  •  Talk  14:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would contend that Matt Ridley is a reputed science writer, penning what is quite a neutral piece on a contentious issue, prompting a statement from EcoHealth Alliance. So far, the Telegraph and Newsweek have picked it up, and its sure to gain more coverage. Since this page is about a theory that will be very hard to prove without China's cooperation, I don't think we'll get RS better than RSOPINION. Even the regular news sources just state WP:OPINIONS mostly. LondonIP (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "reputed" is an interesting term for a man like Ridley who is surrounded by controversy and criticism as an often-FRINGE voice on scientific topics (see his views on Climate change, free market economics, fracking, behavioral genetics). He most definitely does not have any relevant expertise in genetics, virology, or epidemiology. Don't get me wrong, I actually like many of his books. But I like them because they're thought provoking, not because they're scientifically accurate or rigorous. They aren't.We should find more neutral RS-compliant sources. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 04:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He's definitely a controversial character and I don't agree with all of his views, but that's not really relevant here. He is well known as a proponent of the hypothesis this page is about, having also written a book on the general COVID origins topic, so I do think his WP:OPINION is relevant here. ECH made a response to something he wrote, so its proven to be an influential piece, which will be reported on further. LondonIP (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See Merriam-Webster, s.v. &quot;reputed&quot; (1: having a good repute 2: being such according to reputation or general belief). What LondonIP points out here is that Ridley has a reputation for scientific accuracy. Indeed, his Academy of Medical Sciences entry lists him as FMedSci ... Specialities: interpreting genomics... This means he's recognized as a reputable SECONDARY-source authority on genomics.
 * Some bemused readers may wonder whether your statement that "He most definitely does not have any relevant expertise in genetics" says more about his "expertise" or ours! Per DUE, let's try not to make them have to trust our (earnest but unsourced) personal evaluations of generally respected authorities in this field. –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That section of his bio on the AMS is likely self-populated, so I'm not sure why we would trust it as a reliable, independent, secondary-source on Ridley's expertise. On wikipedia, we rely on the consensus of reliable independent secondary sources to determine whether someone has expertise in a field. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * is the italic quote at the end of your OP accurate, though? Ridley says elsewhere in his article that the Laos project wasn't funded, or do I misunderstand? VQuakr (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Matt Ridley has a reputation for writing though provoking books, see The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, but if a spectator quasi opinion piece is a reliable source then I am a banana. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors rely on policy, sources, and common sense—not on some (imagined) "consensus of ... sources".
 * Check WP:CON policy. It's we who arrive at a consensus—not the sources.
 * And common sense tells us we can trust the Academy of Medical Sciences as a respected authority on Ridley's title (Fellow) and his "specialty" category. Its 2019 Annual Report states: One of the five National Academies of the UK, ... the [AMS] elects Fellows on the basis of sustained and outstanding contributions to the breadth of medical research, ... through a rigorous process of peer review... –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * actually, the relevant PAG is WP:DUE, which tells us that in order for Ridley's expertise to be due for inclusion, multiple independent sources must consider him an expert in this topic or at least describe his viewpoint in detail and treat him as a worthwhile expert. It isn't "imagined". It's an agreed-upon guideline here on wikipedia. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say the relevant PAG here is WP:RSOPINION, and while you are correct that WP:DUE is an agreed-upon guideline on Wikipedia, there is no agreement that it is pertinent to how we cover Ridley's WP:OPINION on the subject of this page. A PHD in virology is neither necessary nor required of pundits to comment on a political scientific controversy. LondonIP (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether Ridley's opinion is important or relevant or of due note is where WP:DUE comes into the picture. Not every tom, dick, or harry's opinion is relevant as an expert notion, or of a notable or worthwhile opinion to be included here. Consider the logical conclusion of not caring about the DUE guideline: anyone and everyone's opinion would be worth including as long as it was published somewhere decent, and articles would quickly become COATRACKs of opinions of random people who nobody cares about. We have this guideline for a reason.You need to show the individual's opinions are DUE inclusion by demonstrating that secondary independent reliable sources care about what they have to say, and treat them as someone worth listening to about this subject. And not just in puff pieces or publicity articles (which would be considered non-editorially independent). The individual has to be seen as an expert or as a worthwhile opinion holder in multiple independent secondary reliable sources.BTW, I'm not saying that doesn't exist for Ridley, I just haven't seen it. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This thread sheds some light on that (not suggesting it as a reliable source; but it provides links to other sources). To summarize it:
 * The official EcoHealth Alliance account: "...no work was ever conducted in Laos as a part of this collaborative research project"
 * Commenters: "As a part of THIS Project, yes. But you forgot to mention that you indeed have collected viral samples from Laos bats for a previous project with Wuhan, as per your own publications" - Thereisnous (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Reference ideas
The following references may be useful for improving this article. This list is limited to high-quality sources not yet included in the article. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)




 * . Note. Opinion piece. Can be used to represent this specific author's point of view.
 * Note. Generally reliable. (See the RSPSOURCES list of frequently discussed sources.) Use in-text attribution with this.
 * Note. Opinion piece. Use this to represent these specific authors' point of view.
 * Note. Generally reliable. (See the RSPSOURCES list of frequently discussed sources.) Use in-text attribution with this.
 * Note. Opinion piece. Use this to represent these specific authors' point of view.
 * Note. Opinion piece. Use this to represent these specific authors' point of view.


 * Note: Several of these sources, and many others, are in the Lab leak theory sources box at the top of this Talk page, hidden under the color-coded tabs. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

China's refusal to be transparent is akin to refusing a breathalyzer, how do we incorporate this into the article
I think the Chinese Govt behavior amid the investigation of this theory is not covered well here. This is a fact--they've been extremely opaque. Silence is not an admission of guilt, but it's well-established in many systems of law that, upon there being probable cause that there was malfeasance (like that someone was driving under the influence), refusing a test is oftentimes a de facto admission of guilt, and will result in a conviction. By basically engaging in a massive cover-up by not releasing evidence that could prove or disprove the lab leak theory (where is the database that was taken offline? etc.), the chinese government engaged in behavior that can be seen as an admission of guilt. What sort of source would be appropriate for this feature of the lab leak theory? I know we would like to avoid quoting individuals like Alina Chan or other hardline/self-published advocates, even if they're quoted somewhere reliable and secondary, but this isn't scientific, it's a legal/psychology dimension. I'm just unsure what would be appropriate to quote. Science journals? NPR? AP? That Vanity Fair piece? This is an international incident and what type of source is considered impartial when judging the behavior of a major government?... 2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless this is reported on by reliable scientific sources (who do not seem to entertain the lack of evidence as evidence of malfeasance), it remains not relevant to the scientific aspect of this article. Of course, the political controversy caused by the lack of transparency by Chinese authorities should (and to some extant, already is, although it might need an update/expansion) be covered based on the usual sources for politics (newspapers, and when/if they are covering this, appropriate academic journals). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are going about this the wrong way. The way to write wikipedia articles is to find sources about the topic, and then summarize what they say. Not to have a conclusion, and then find sources which agree with that conclusion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I just would like to know before I make a proposal. Thanks! 2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "What type of source is considered impartial when judging the behavior of a major government?" It looks like these sources are generally regarded as trustworthy and impartial: Reuters, AP*, PBS*, BBC, and WSJ*. (* News section only; Politics, Opinion, or Fact Check sections may be more partisan.)
 * See Jurkowitz et al, Pew Research Center, &quot;Trust, Distrust, and Awareness of News Sources&quot;; and various media-bias charts. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware of two sources that draw this obvious connection. It is absolutely not enough. What we can and should do is document China's non-cooperation, but not in this article. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

More likely than not.
From today’s Telegraph “Last week, molecular biologist Alina Chan told Parliament’s Science and Technology Select Committee that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the Covid pandemic initially came from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. ‘We all agree there was a critical event at the [Wuhan] wet market that was a superspreader event caused by humans,’ she said. ‘But there is no evidence pointing to a natural animal origin of the virus at that market.’ There is also nothing to suggest that it was anything other than accidental.”

As the consensus changes the tone of our article is increasingly out of step with the new mainstream. We’ll need a major rewrite, I suggest focusing on the substance of the article rather than the (interesting as it is) history and politics which got us here.

Just my opinion. Springnuts (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * uhmmmmmmmm Alina Chan has felt this way for a very long time. But it is not the consensus opinion of the scientific community. She most certainly does not speak for the scientific consensus. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no scientific consensus that there was a natural origin or a lab leak, so the consensus can be described as "we don't know"...I don't think "the natural origin hypothesis is most likely" being a majority opinion among experts constitutes what we would traditionally deem a scientific consensus. If Alina's position is "we don't know", it seems like it's congruent with the current unrefuted scientific "consensus"...which actually remains "we don't know". 2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is simply erroneous. Many sources will explain why a natural origin is the default hypothesis and the scientific consensus.  Others will explain that no evidence of human tempering was found.  Even more will explain that yes, it may take decades to find out the exact natural path (if we ever find it).  None of that makes an engineered virus, or a leak hypothesis any more likely.  So far, known leak incidents have also never resulted in pandemics and are extremely unlikely to, because of standard lab procedures, tracing, etc.  As research goes on, more evidence that the features are completely natural surface.  And this agrees with what was expected considering that virology and epidemiology were not born yesterday.  Arguments like "we know nothing", "we'll never know", "odds are 50/50", "everything is opinion", "it's only considered unlikely because it was tainted by political disinformation" have been repeated over and over and it's not useful to run in circles.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a major rewrite. The old scientific consensus (the majority viewpoint of scientists towards this topic) was clear enough: if the US stops "fomenting" tensions by promoting this theory, the Chinese government may be more forthcoming. That consensus no longer exists. Even Pulitzer winner Michael Hiltzik is reduced to arguing that Chan is wrong because China is secretive about all things. –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That's... not an accurate summary of that article. Regardless, Alina Chan certainly isn't a good source for what is mainstream. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * says Hiltzik. Our article has been promoting a contrary viewpoint: Some virologists and public health experts ... said that a "hostile" and "divisive" focus on the WIV ... would cause Chinese scientists and authorities to share less ... data. Our article may be out of date. –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And the new book also isn't, of course. Fortunately there are decent enough reviews to evaluate it.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The scientific consensus is not about politics. it's about the origins of the virus. I have seen no policy statements or reasonable articulations of the scientific opinion that prognosticate how to handle international relations. That would be inappropriate for scientists to say, as there are no data to back it up. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Data" is plural, your welcome. 2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're (you are)... Muphry's law is in full effect, as always. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a lighthearted joke because I hate to be "that guy", so I put in the most embarrassing type of typo while pointing out that one...I see that error ("the data says...") EVERYWHERE, in extremely reputable sources, it's crazy; that said, I'm very prone to typos/grammatical mistakes and so Murphys law would most certainly apply. 2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I think my point is that the scientific consensus is no longer solid; but our article is written as if it was, so we lack appropriate balance.

The political reasons why the theory was by some propounded and by others rejected should not be as prominent as they are: the scientific arguments should displace them. Springnuts (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And what source are you using to say that the scientific consensus has changed? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Our article on the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 says investigations may take years, and the results could be inconclusive. If this is true, then we should not declare a scientific consensus on natural origins from of a single review article, and we should be mindful of the data the the authors of that review article say is required for Origin tracing (ref 1). LondonIP (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You demolish the straw man you set up effectively, but I very specifically did not say that the scientific consensus has changed. But it is no longer solid, and the shifts are all one way. So to answer the question you did not ask; we should reflect fairly the increasing weight of those who previously were firmly of the opinion that this was a nonsense theory who are changing their minds. This from the Guarniad (!) for example way back in June []. If you wish to exclude all non-scientific sources from this article then could split into two articles: one on the raw science; one on the psychology and politics - which are fascinating in their own right. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You talk about a shift in scientific consensus, but have provided exactly zero sourcing for that and instead link an opinion piece in the Guardian (!) as if that were relevant. So, what sources are you using to draw the conclusion that there has been a shift? VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would describe it as a shift in scientists' opinions. There is no scientific consensus, as that will take many years to form. The shift began with the DARPA proposal leak by DRASTIC, and the comments from Alexander Kekulé and Simon Wain-Hobson, mentioned here. Chan et al in MBE and Graner et al in Cell mark a continued shift. LondonIP (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) DRASTIC are not scientists, nor are they a credible or reliable source (for Wikipedia or otherwise), and what else you say seems to be WP:OR 2) A few people (like Chan), who have not actually significantly changed their position on this since the beginning, repeating their views once more does not indicate a shift in others 3) the link you provide to an article in Cell is actually the recent review by Holmes et al., which, oh irony!, if anything, shows there has been no shift in high quality scientific publications (the ones we should be basing our articles on). I am not at all convinced that a comment (was it subject to editorial/peer-review? doesn't seem likely at all; seems more like a WP:PRIMARY source for the opinion of its authors) on that by some other researchers is appropriate counter-balance. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The DRASTIC leak is referenced in a huge array of RS, so whether DRASTIC are or not scientists isn't relevant. 2) Chan significantly changed her position due to that leak, and a number of very prominent virologists gave commentary on it too, all of which are in RS cited on the page already. 3) You are right that its a primary source, but my point was that it marks a shift in opinion. The Holmes et al is not the last word in the origins debate, and it will go on for many years to come. LondonIP (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The DRASTIC leak is referenced in a huge array of RS, so whether DRASTIC are or not scientists isn't relevant This is about a "shift in scientific consensus". Are you saying that anybody can magically create such a shift in scientific consensus by writing something and getting newspapers write about it without any involvement by scientists?
 * You still need WP:RS for the claim that the scientific consensus has shifted. Bringing RS that say something else than that, then doing WP:OR to conclude that it has shifted, would not be enough even if the OR made a tiny bit of sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Or even a lot of sense, come to think of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Would you at least be content for the article to acknowledge and reflect the systemic bias against the theory; eg (from the Telegraph again): Angus Dalgleish, a professor of Oncology and vaccine researcher at St George’s Hospital in Tooting says that journals refused to consider a paper he wrote last year observing that the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 - the virus which causes Covid 19 - showed signs of man-made genetic sequences. What made it especially difficult, he says, was that the man-made theory had been expounded by Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump’s Secretary of State. “No scientist was willing to get into bed and agree with Trump,” Dalgleish says. In other words, what ought to be an objective process - a journal assessing the quality of science, aided by a peer-review process - was subverted by partisan politics.”?  This might indicate the desirability of splitting the article as indicated above into “pure” science and the political/psychological side which I would be grateful for views on. Springnuts (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Angus Dalgleish's opinion on why his paper was rejected isn't worth mentioning, whether or not it's uncritically parroted in the Telegraph. Maybe the paper's nonacceptance has more to do with it being outside of his discipline (oncology) that it does with its political alignment, and maybe Dalgleish's right-wing political aspirations make him susceptible to interpreting this sort of thing as persecution of the right. No, splitting the article is not a good idea. It's not long enough to merit a content fork, and even if it were, splitting along that line would be a constant POVFORK headache. VQuakr (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * E pur si muove. I’m done.  Springnuts (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * More Quadros than Galilei, and if you really think there's any parallel here between yourself and the latter then maybe you're not in the right headspace to be editing in this subject area right now. Getting rejected from a journal with a 4% acceptance rate isn't evidence of something untoward. VQuakr (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguments that standard practice like peer review is systematic bias are never useful... — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

removal of talk page discussion
Is this appropriate? I am choosing for the moment not to restore, partly because a user may have the right to remove their own contributions, and partly because I'm unclear on relevant policy. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I've restored it. Doesn't even need discussion really. Not appropriate to delete talk page threads, of experienced editors, with multiple respondents, that do not violate policy. If that happened to me I'd be pretty annoyed. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I invite VQuakr (talk to comment. Springnuts (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree that this was inappropriate, talk page discussion should not be removed even in cases like this. I would wager that the editor who removed it had a momentary lapse in judgement, something that has happened to many of us. As long as it doesn't become a pattern of behavior, it's probably not actionable. But it would be good for the user to acknowledge the lapse. Even if I agree with their sentiment, I cannot agree with their actions. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the only replies at the time were from VQuakr and that the argument was questionable I can understand the delete as TPO/NOTFORUM compliant. If there were other replies hatting would have been a better choice.  In any case, it was a bold action that was reverted, which is also fine.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC about how we should use the Frutos source
Should the article include the sentence They have dismissed the theory based in part on Shi's emailed answers. See this revision for an example. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No. It's selectively quoting the source to point out the things we don't like about it. It fails to mention all the other parts of Frutos et al's reasoning, focusing only on the one part some users on this site dislike. As such, it's WP:OR and fails NPOV. We cannot "peer review" our sources and introduce our own editorializing of what we find "trustworthy" and "not trustworthy" in their reasoning. We should, instead, report what they say, in an accurate and proportionate summary. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The proposed quote "based in part on Shi's emailed answers" is accurate. And it's a seven-word summary of two portions of the paper which take a combined 50 words. That's proportionate. That said, if you can find a shorter wording that gets the essential point across, I would not object. "Partly based on Shi's statements" is 5 words, for example. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The question is not "is the quote accurate?" (and I would argue that it is still WP:OR to choose to word it this way) The question is whether it is selectively chosen in order to push a POV. Wikipedia's guidelines are based on the result, not on the intention. If it creates a POV picture which distorts the source, then it should not be used. Several editors here agree with me that it does. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No. You dug up one source of the Frutos source, looked where that source got its info, and want to include this specific piece of sleuthing? That is not something WP:OR would condone. It is also cherry-picking: as explained above, there are other reasons, and selecting just one of those for mention because it allows you to cast doubt on the data is WP:TEND. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No. An amazing feat to perform WP:OR and then to cherry-pick from it . Alexbrn (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes The Frutos source we use to dismiss the Lab Leak theory is a multi-author article in a good journal. Therefore, it is the best kind of source. Per Frutos, Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology denied having carried out engineering and gain of function experiments on SARS-CoV-2 but only on SARS-CoV in published and openly displayed international collaborations (Cohen, 2020). Altogether, these elements indicate that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of a man-made origin of SARS-CoV-2 Also per Frutos: But staff members of the Wuhan Institute of Virology have all been tested negative indicating that no accident occurred there (Cohen, 2020) The Cohen source Frutos is using to reach his conclusions is this one, about Shi's emailed answers: . Therefore, "based in part on Shi's emailed answers" is a paraphrase of Frutos' reasoning. Per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE: The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words. The phrase based in part on Shi's emailed answers is therefore a concise summary of our source's published reasoning. This is precisely the type of paraphrasing we are expected to do to.
 * Accusations above miss the mark. I did not "dig up" the Frutos source. It is already cited 8 times in the article, including for the sentence where I inserted Frutos' reasoning. Nor is the insertion WP:OR. Quite the opposite. It is a paraphrase of one of Frutos' stated reasons why the scientific community reached the conclusion it did. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Novem Linguae's statement below both refutes the accusation of WP:CHERRY and points the way to an additional reason for inclusion. If we include one reason, why not include another? As Wikipedia editors, it is not for us to decide whether or not a reason is "small". We determine that by sourcing.  And The fact that Frutos makes similar statements in a different article, which we also cite, is straight-from-the-source evidence that Shi's emailed answer are a key part of Frutos' reasoning. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No. In my opinion, the sentence before it Scientists have said that RaTG-13 is too distantly related to be connected to the pandemic's origins, and could not be altered in a laboratory to create SARS-CoV-2 adequately summarizes the scientific argument. In my opinion, it is not beneficial in this particular instance to highlight a small piece of how they arrived at that conclusion. – Novem Linguae (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No I can find no way to square the suggested sentence with policy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, seems like classic WP:CHERRY – why highlight this particular piece of evidence? In any case I looked at the source cited in that revision of the article and can't find support for this claim. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No - Other than the previous synthesis and cherry picking objections, this would violate WP:YESPOV, attempting to editorially frame facts as particular opinions or claims. — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * NO - (randomly invited to participate by a bot) - This is WP:OR and WP:POV. Jojalozzo (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, unless cited to another reliable source making the critique. Picking this particular item to highlight from this source seems like a violation of WP:PROPORTION and all sorts of other WP:NPOV concepts. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Frutos source
This source states that the lab leak theory is wrong based on a statement by Shi Zhengli that all workers at the WIV tested negative. That's akin to stating that the theory is wrong because Shi said so. Therefore, I've removed it. ''Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology denied having carried out engineering and gain of function experiments on SARS-CoV-2but only on SARS-CoV in published and openly displayed international collaborations (Cohen, 2020). Altogether, these elements indicate that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of a man-made origin of SARS-CoV-2''Adoring nanny (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, your disliking one sentence from a NCBI source is not adequate reason to remove. Your quote is selective and not representative of the entire source, either. VQuakr (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would add that this particular "logic", if one wants to use that term, appears to be a pattern for Frutos. WIV staff members have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 and were reported negative (Cohen, 2020). The Cohen source Frutos is referring to is this one . The logic Frutos is using amounts to "Shi said that all WIV staff and students tested negative. Therefore, all WIV staff and students tested negative." Adoring nanny (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Repeating yourself doesn't make what you're saying true. Though regardless, I'm unclear on why you think that what you say makes the source unreliable/unusable. VQuakr (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * After thinking about this a bit, I have a suggestion which may be better than my original idea of removing Frutos. What about treating it per WP:WIKIVOICE? Chan argues extensively in that Shi cannot be trusted. We have one scholar trusting Shi, while another explicitly says she cannot be trusted. The question is relevant to the lab leak theory, so we should cover it. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We should not be using non-scholarly non-peer reviewed sources to shape how we view scholarly sources. per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, peer-reviewed publications in expert-edited journals are how we determine what should and should not be in wiki-voice. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, how would you suggest handling the Frutos papers? Do you believe that Shi's statements that LL is false should gain WikiVoice status because Frutos accepts them? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Frutos' paper is an acceptable source for (most) statements in Wikivoice, not only because it is a peer-reviewed, secondary source, in a reputable journal, but because it also agrees with the mainstream viewpoint (as acknowledged even by the leak proponents). Chan is in the distinct minority and is not appropriate counter-balance, especially not if it is a non-scholarly non-peer-reviewed book. Frutos' arguments obviously are not limited to the mere strawman you have chosen to attack here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Frutos' arguments obviously are not limited to the mere strawman you have chosen to attack here. Other than the "strawman" part, this is correct. Here is the conclusion of his argument: Altogether, these elements indicate that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of a man-made origin of SARS-CoV-2.(emphasis added). Here Frutos is stating something he has no way of knowing. The most that he could reasonably state is that he has not observed any evidence. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "currently", "observed" "known" are all implied. It would be meaningless and unscientific to declare that "no evidence could exist." And this is why Frutos (and others) do not do this. There's a reason we attach publication dates to journal articles...The level of critique in this thread is not productive and will not get us very far. We are not peer-reviewers. We summarize what the WP:BESTSOURCES say. And many sources say this, not just Frutos. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, based on y'all's insistence that we say exactly what the source says, I've added a more complete description of Frutos' reasoning. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * All scientists' opinions should be dated and attributed. I disagree about WP:SCHOLARSHIP being the WP:BESTSOURCES on this topic, as we all know the Chinese government has a gag order in effect on Chinese publications, and we also know that they aren't cooperating with the WHO on further studies. Since this is a political controversy, scientific opinion alone is not an adequate representation of accepted knowledge on the origins of this virus, and there is an undue WP:WEIGHT issue with presenting scientist opinions as consensus. On the limits of scholarship, it took a candid conversation between Peter Palese and Chi-Ming Chu to uncover the [man made] origins of the 1977 Russian flu. LondonIP (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That you wish to ignore the better sources as well as Wikipedia policy and instead give false equivalence to your preferred ones is your own problem and not Wikipedia's. That this is a political controversy does not mean that suddenly non-academic sources get the same weight as proper ones. See WP:MAINSTREAM. This is not a "popularity contest in low-quality publications". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Frutos and colleagues argue (in passing) that many people who still question the zoonotic-emergence paradigm are trying to cause trouble for China: The origin of SARS-Cov-2 is still passionately debated since it makes ground for geopolitical confrontations and conspiracy theories besides scientific ones. This (rather formulaic) prefatory verbiage likely made it easier for the journal's politically sophisticated editorial board to publish their article, which includes a potentially sensitive mention of the 2004 Beijing lab leak: As a warranted compromise, you could add Frutos's information to our article, along with appropriate neutralizing language (like, there is today no evidence that such an accident had happened with SARS-CoV-2). –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * there is certainly no evidence that an accident happened with SARS-CoV-2, but that's obviously because there hasn't been any serious investigation, which the paper fails to mention. I don't see any good use for this paper, but we can add it for that statement. LondonIP (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note this has been queried at WP:RS/N. Alexbrn (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Duly closed. There was no good reason to start a new discussion there which duplicates the one here. I've left a short notice that this is already under discussion here, and those interested can likely find their way back... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, it is always acceptable to escalate legitimate disputes to relevant noticeboards. But no one should be surprised when those discussions just further confirm the consensus of the talk page. And no one should be surprised when content disputes with obvious answers are looked down upon. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said at RSN (permalink). — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * copying what I said at the other page:
 * Though we do not presently have an article on him, Frutos is a notable scientist, as shown by his citation record in Google, and an expert in the general subject field, and has published other articles on the origin of Covid19 and similar viruses. The journal is Infection, Genetics and Evolution, published by a major scientific publisher, and meting the criteria for notability of scientific journals. There is no reason not to use the paper as a reference. To say on WP that the paper made an unjustified statement, we would need another similarly reliable source saying so. The several steps in the analysis above (i.e, F in his paper made use of a paper by C that reported a statement by S that may possibly not have represented S's true opinion) amounts to Original research. The paper is open access, so anyone who wishes to make judgements can read it for themselves. That's why we have the policy WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "They have dismissed the theory based in part on Shi's emailed answers" This sentence is POV, based on implication, context, placement, and wording. This concept, as far as I know, does not exist in secondary RSes. It should not be added to the article, as it creates a very obvious perception of doubting the claims of scientists. We do not describe in detail everything Frutos uses to say X, because that would be UNDUE. We don't do it for any other part of his argument, so we should not do it for this part of his argument, simply because some Wikipedia users disagree with Frutos on it. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE
Quoting directly from the Frutos source: ''Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology denied having carried out engineering and gain of function experiments on SARS-CoV-2but only on SARS-CoV in published and openly displayed international collaborations (Cohen, 2020). Altogether, these elements indicate that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of a man-made origin of SARS-CoV-2.''

Based on the above, a statement that scientists have rejected LL based in part on Shi's emailed answers is simply following the source. Given the chorus of users above who insist that we should do exactly that, I find the revert message here difficult to understand. What is "POV" about sticking to the source? Adoring nanny (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC) corrected Adoring nanny (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is 33744401 again right? Where are your words "Shi" and "email" there? Incidentally, talking of sticking to sources, I see it also says the "failure in identifying the virus and the reservoir species in the natural environment facilitated the development of conspiracy theories linking SARS-CoV-2 to genetic engineering". Our article should be including this knowledge and putting the prior lab leak fruitcakery firmly to bed. Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cherrypicking the C word from Frutos et al to describe all lab leak scenarios would violate WP:NPOV. The matter will only be put to bed when China cooperates with the WHO for further studies, instead of pressuring them to drop it. LondonIP (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's why we have the following sentence in the article: According to emailed statements by Shi Zhengli in July 2021, her lab has not conducted any unpublished gain-of-function experiments on coronaviruses, and all WIV staff and students tested negative for the virus in the early days of the pandemic. I believe this to be an encyclopedic summary of the content you have provided. The sentence on Frutos' thought processes, however, includes selective details which create an unwarranted POV. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The source clearly states the reason for the logical inference. Other part of the article discuss logical inferences. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Logical inference is another way of saying WP:Original research. The relevant core policy is WP:V. Alexbrn (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's Frutos' inference, not mine. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Except it's not in the source. Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, we condense and paraphrase. Therefore, the article should not say "Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology denied having carried out engineering and gain of function experiments on SARS-CoV-2". Instead, I wrote a shortened, paraphrased version of that, which included the most critical information, namely that Frutos bases his conclusion on Shi's emailed answers. By doing it this way, it also encompasses the fact, stated elsewhere in Frutos' paper, that he bases a part of his conclusion on the fact that Shi wrote that WIV students and staff had tested negative. It is routine and normal for us to condense lengthy portions of papers down to their paraphrased essence. To quote WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words. That is what I have done.Adoring nanny (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * stated elsewhere in Frutos' paper, that he bases a part of his conclusion on the fact that Shi wrote that WIV students and staff had tested negative Where does it say this in the source? Could you provide a quote? Additionally, where does it say the other parts of what he uses to make his inferences? Because we should include those other reasons as well. We should not selectively include certain reasons and exclude others, simply because you find certain reasons to be insufficient. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But staff members of the Wuhan Institute of Virology have all been tested negative indicating that no accident occurred there (Cohen, 2020) Adoring nanny (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * you seem to be omitting a great deal of other reasoning that goes into this statement in context. For example:
 * One must remember that SARS-CoV-2 was never found in the wild and that RaTG13 does not exist as real virus but instead only as a sequence in a computer
 * This hypothesis has been considered as “extremely unlikely” by the official WHO investigation team
 * Therefore, although a laboratory accident can never be definitively excluded, there is currently no evidence to support it.
 * It does not rest solely on the fact of negative test results. And so we should not include only that part of the picture to the exclusion of these other parts. And, frankly, I do not think it would be WP:DUE to include all of these, so we should probably not include any of them or, indeed, any philosophizing about why Frutos et al wrote what they wrote. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hence my correction above -- "based in part" Adoring nanny (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Paris Group
I'm surprised we don't mention anything about the Paris Group and the series of open letters they published. LondonIP (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is surprising. They have not had anything published in a peer reviewed journal, and the way the article works this pretty much rules them out. I believe the article needs rewriting and restructuring so that such views were included; but I don't think that's going to happen. Springnuts (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC).

This is a repackaging of DRASTIC to make it more legitimate... We already discuss these events in this article (at a surface level, as is appropriate for a more general article), and we also discuss it in more depth in the DRASTIC and Peter Daszak articles, as is appropriate for more specific article spaces. These minute details about who is in the paris group and w/e are WP:UNDUE as I have seen them in extremely few, if any, legitimate publications, and even then, mostly in opinion pieces. Maybe this is the first in a kind of legitimate publication (I would describe Undark as "on the edge") — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure the relevance of an editor's opinion that something is a "repackaging" of something else "to make it more legitimate". Adoring nanny (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because we already have versions of this content in the DRASTIC article and elsewhere, just not labelled as "the Paris group." It has very little to do with the actual lab leak theory itself, and much more to do with the Investigations of the origins, and with the people in this story, Daszak and DRASTIC. It's clearly very appropriate for those pages, and based on this source could probably be expanded on those pages. But nothing about this has anything to do with the actual theory of the lab leak. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What I'm getting at is that if you want to treat DRASTIC and the Paris Group as the same entity, this could be supported if you have WP:RS saying that they are. Similarly for the idea that the name "Paris Group" is a "repackaging" with the intent of making them "more respectable". Absent that, it could be WP:OR. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to put that text into the article. WP:OR applies only to article text. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added the fact that DRASTIC leaked the DEFUSE proposal. I'm not sure anything else would be particularly WP:DUE here. The theory itself is not changed by these letters. The letters are political about Daszak and the EHA, and the WHO. I'm not sure they have much to do with formulating the theory itself. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the Paris Group, and the four open letters they published. LondonIP (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What do the four open letters have to do with the lab leak theory itself? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Because they mention the theory and were covered in multiple secondary sources? A big part of this theory is the incredible resistance of the Chinese government to investigate it, helped along by certain scientists and journals . We should probably also mention the struggle it took to create (and unblank) this very page  . LondonIP (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe it is already mentioned at the appropriate page: Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Such content would be WP:UNDUE here, as the vast majority of articles primarily about the lab leak hypothesis do not mention wikipedia. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:WIKIVOICE
Regarding this revert. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, do not state disputed information as fact. Therefore, the revert is wrong. For example, here, which is cited in the article, it says The most plausible origin of SARS-CoV-2 is natural selection of the virus in an animal host followed by zoonotic transfer.(emphasis added) That's not an absolute statement. Nor should we make one. Similarly here : "It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. (emphasis added) Again, it's not an absolute statement. Even the Frutos source does not make an absolute statement. So the absolute statement in WikiVoice is just plain wrong. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The full sentence is "SARS-CoV-2 appears to have originated in bats and was spread to humans by zoonotic transfer.", emphasis added. We already address your concern with the word "appears"; we don't need to further dilute it because as written, it is indeed a statement of fact not an opinion per WP:WIKIVOICE ("Avoid stating facts as opinions."). VQuakr (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, "appears to have" modifies to "originated in bats". The way it is written, "was" applies to "spread to humans by zoonotic transfer." When we introduce the new verb in the indicative mood, it is no longer modified by the "appears to" That's the problem. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I take no exception to removing the word "was". VQuakr (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Doh. I have this whole thing on the wrong talk page. I'll try again later. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Feel free to cut'n paste move the entire thread over. VQuakr (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Copied to Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Further contributions should be made there. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"No evidence" vs. "Unclear"
Regarding this revert

Per The Atlantic, which is cited in the paragraph: We don’t know whether that work was ever carried out Adoring nanny (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * – Novem Linguae (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but what is the advantage of one kind of diff over the other? Adoring nanny (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a diff in the OP of this section. The first link is the article's history. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic also notes that there's no evidence. Good revert. VQuakr (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Claims and counterclaims section title
How about just titling the section "claims"? The section content would still include rebuttal per WP:EVALFRINGE, but I don't think there's a need to mention that in the section header. VQuakr (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I tend to agree that my section title is still WP:IMPERFECT. I would like to see more people weigh in here. In any case, my edit did not remove any counterclaims. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To me was potato/potahto. VQuakr (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not neutral to use "claim", which implies doubt, for one side and "rebuttal", which implies certainty, for the other. See WP:SAY. That's also why I think my "claims and counterclaims" is still imperfect. Per that policy, "claim" is not a neutral word. But here we are at least using it for both sides. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Rebuttal" means "Contradiction". But since I don't have an opinion on that diff anyways it's something of a distraction from the subject of the OP. VQuakr (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Chronological?
There is a section called chronological and a section called timeline, and then there are various dated events given in other sections. The arrangement seems haphazard. Sennalen (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it could probably do with a combination/rewrite. Do you have any thoughts? Never a bad time to start a draft. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This speaks to the need for a rewrite, that noted above. The lead is ok, but the main body of the article is a mess, and diverts from the norm that you'd see on any other article about a theory. LondonIP (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think step one is fully dividing scientific content from media commentary. Sennalen (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a draft. Basically I just tried to group related claims. Sennalen (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I like this draft. I will make a few comments there. LondonIP (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I just had a look at the revision draft lede, and I like it. Thank you. Springnuts (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the draft too. But some merging would be needed as the article has changed in the meantime. Not sure how that works. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objections, I would suggest bulk replacing ASAP before it diverges more, then people can evaluate if any of the missed changes need to be replayed. They have been fairly minor. Sennalen (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Proven lab leak
Unclassified military documents have proven it leaked from the wuhan lab of Virology and that the US funded the research for it. 2601:47:4381:A20:4954:32C8:55A7:C331 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't provide a link to this "proof". Bakkster Man (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wuhan Center for Disease Control
It states that "The Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control are located within miles of the original focal point of the pandemic" however it omits the fact that Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention is 300 yards from the wet market. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-26/lab-leak-theory-origin-covid-19 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/inside-the-the-viral-spread-of-a-coronavirus-origin-theory It seems that there is a group of people who try very hard to remove this fact from the article. Cambr5 (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Accidental release of a natural virus" section
The main portion of this section seems to be a bit eh. It's composed of two paragraphs, one small and one large, and the large paragraph is entirely dedicated to Robert R. Redfield's comments in March 2021. A lot of proponents have made comments, and a lot of responses have been made, and it's kinda arbitrary to just talk about one set of dialogue (even if it is quite representative of the arguments). There's probably a better way to frame this particular issue but it's not immediately apparent to me atm. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there is value to clearly delineating each possible type of leak. 2600:1700:8660:E180:6884:84A5:88EF:95A2 (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PS I thought the "According to Reuters" was changed in the past? 2600:1700:8660:E180:6884:84A5:88EF:95A2 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree @ProcrastinatingReader, our over emphasis on Redfield's comments is especially weird now that he is essentially a private citizen. It would be best to reduce this to one or two sentences, if anything, and actually expand on the accidental leak theory and its proponents instead. Or perhaps detail about how those who promote the accidental theory have tried to distinguish it as distinctly more possible than the intentional leak theory. Whatever is out there and DUE in RSes. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing from abstract: WIV biosafety practices
Inconspicuously missing from the abstract of this article, yet central to all versions of the lab leak theory, are the concerns expressed by several scientists and journalists about the pre-COVID-19 biosafety practices of the Wuhan Institue of Virology (WIV).

Biosafety concerns about the WIV were first noted in sensitive but unclassified memos by U.S. consul general Jamie Fouss and Rick Switzer dated January 19, 2018 and April 19, 2018. These were first reported by Josh Rogin of the Wahington Post in April 14 2020 based on a tip-off from an undisclosed source. The Hill reported that WaPo subsequently sued the US State Department to release the cables. Josh Rogin wrote about this in his book published in 2021.

In the Baric Graham 2020 citation "the operating procedures at the facility" is one of three reasons given for why "speculation about accidental laboratory escape will likely persist", citing Zeng et al 2016 which says "All experiments using live virus was conducted under biosafety level 2 (BSL2) conditions." The New York Times reported in June 2021 that "Ralph Baric ... said that although a natural origin of the virus was likely, he supported a review of what level of biosafety precautions were taken in studying bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan institute." A couple of weeks earlier, the New York Times reported on the story, quoting Ian Lipkin saying "Dr. Lipkin said he was dismayed to learn of two coronavirus studies from the Wuhan Institute of Virology that had been carried out with only a modest level of safety measures, known as BSL-2." Lipkin is quoted again in Vox article saying he changed his view due to these concerns. The Financial Times quoted Richard Ebright saying “If this work was happening, it should definitely not have been happening at BSL-2”.

Concerns were also expressed about the Wuhan CDC's risky field research.

80.107.62.75 (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are based on WP:SCHOLARSHIP. This is an unfortunate instance where what the newspapers say and what the scientists actually write is not the same. Scientists being interviewed or quoted in newspapers are only good sources for their own opinions, not for assessing scientific consensus. Peer-reviewed articles (such as those already cited in the article) are preferred (first but not least because they have gone through a review process by other qualified experts...), unless it is for a topic not covered by them or for actual matters which are within the expertise of journalists (such as politics or actual investigative journalism). Your requests are not actionable without such sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Baric Graham 2020 in Cell is peer reviewed. I haven't seen any rebuttals from scientists in peer reviewed papers. The biosafety issue is already covered in the "Wuhan Institute of Virology" section, citing 64, 65, 6, 66 and 67. I see only a statement from Danielle Anderson citing Bloomberg, which is a newspaper. My point is that this should be included in the abstract as it is central to the theory. 80.107.62.75 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead (what you call the abstract) of the article is supposed to give a broad overview of the subject at large, not attempt to justify it. AS far as I know, The COVID-19 lab leak theory proposes that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic) originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, China.[1][2] Central to the theory is the observation that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is in the same city as the pandemic's earliest known outbreak. [and the following sentences] is a succinct and accurate summary of this. We don't need to go in excessive detail about what justifications proponents of the theory have for it - we can and do give further detail of that in the body of the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did I attempt to justify it? I said it is central to the theory. 80.107.62.75 (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)