Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 17

similar institutes studying coronaviruses
The article states, with a rather dubious reference, "most large Chinese cities have similar institutes" [11], implying "similar to WIV". The relevant article Wuhan Institute of Virology makes it abundantly clear that it is unique. The reference is unclear about the "similarity" so the passage has to be reworded as to avoid a false suggestion. Ael 2 (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems fine as is. Source is good for this. Bon courage (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It is factually inaccurate. And willfully misleading. A more realistic description is in [5]. There does not seem to be other "similar" level-4 labs in China or for that matter "institutes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ael 2 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, source supports the statement. And most large chinese cities do have similar institutes. The BSL4 is relatively new, but there are several coronavirus labs in the major cities around china which are on the same level of "major" as Wuhan. ( Edit 17:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC): make clear antecedent) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think more specifically, the discussion is about whether the the suspicion was based on WIV and Wuhan in particular, or if an outbreak centered on Beijing (which houses the labs that SARS samples escaped from in the past) or any other city would have had the same suspicion that the outbreak was a result of the most local lab. I'm fine with clarifying from "similar institutes" to something like "laboratories studying coronaviruses", and will make that update. The relevant wording from the source is: Most lab leak proponents don’t mention that most major Chinese cities have one or more active coronavirus laboratories. The Chinese government established these laboratories after multiple spillovers of the first SARS-CoV in 2002 through 2004, which caused approximately 8,000 cases of severe respiratory disease worldwide and at least 744 deaths. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with clarifying from "similar institutes" to something like "laboratories studying coronaviruses", and will make that update Yes I think that's fine. Doesn't lose any meaning for sure — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Would that still apply to "BSL-4 laboratories which study bat coronaviruses"? Do "most large Chinese cities" have them? Rolf-Peter Wille (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Source doesn't say it applies to BSL-4, and neither do the sources supporting a lab origin say that such an origin depends on BSL-4. The WHO only recommends BSL-3 for handling SARS and MERS, and it's that kind of coronavirus handling and research we indicate happens in multiple Chinese laboratories. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the old language was not well supported by the source, and think that the change made was appropriate. I would also add that the source is labeled as an opinion piece and that piece of information is uncited. As an opinion piece, shouldn't the assertion be credited to Dr. Garry, not presented as fact? Poppa shark (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, unless you can show (from RS) it's somehow contested; just WP:ASSERT. Bon courage (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What source does the WIV wiki page use to make its claim as cited in the OP's first statement? 2600:8804:6600:45:B510:9995:E387:8878 (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In my reading of that policy, anything subjective should be attributed to the author. In this case, the word major seems subjective to me. Does he mean any city with a population over a million? Does he mean each of the 10 largest cities? Poppa shark (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are multiple sources which discuss this argument and agree with it, not just Garry:
 * Per WP:SKYBLUE we also don't need a zillion RSes supporting this. It's a known and acknowledged fact in the literature among scholars and scientists. Coronaviruses are a huge problem emerging out of animals in the wild and the wildlife trade in and around China. As a result, China has multiple coronavirus labs in various cities, the largest of which happens to be in Wuhan which is one of three major cities in China, and the largest by population in Central China. It's not a "coincidence" that it happened there, because if there was going to be a coronavirus outbreak in China, it was bound to be near a lab studying coronaviruses since such labs are there on purpose to study real threats to the Chinese people. Similar to how Lyme disease was a major topic of study at Plum Island Animal Disease Center in New York, just across the long island sound from Lyme, Connecticut. Similarly, conspiracy theories assert that Lyme disease was created there in a lab. But of course these theories are also complete B.S., as we have evidence of Lyme disease occurring in humans for centuries before the U.S. was even a country. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is Gorski's opinion (the other pieces cited are editorials/opinion pieces as well) stated in Wikivoice? Opinions should always be attributed to the author.  This is WP policy. 2600:1012:B0B2:6DF8:D1B:7C3E:D7E3:7FDF (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wrong. WP:YESPOV is policy. Gorski states a fact; Wikipedia relays it. There's no doubt in RS that lableak is mixed up with racism. Bon courage (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "There is no doubt in RS that lableak is mixed up with racism" - then you need to cite those RS, and if they are OPINION pieces or editorials they need to cited as such. 2600:1012:B0B2:6DF8:D1B:7C3E:D7E3:7FDF (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We cite RS. You're making policy up. Bon courage (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are so many RSes which back this up:
 * Nplusone, Andrew Liu. Spring 2022. Theory and the “Asiatic” Form":
 * The lab-leak theory came to legitimacy by a circuitous path. It was first auditioned by Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo shortly after lockdown started, but journalists were quick to distance themselves from its overtones of crude Trumpian racism...the New York Times reported triumphantly that..."Asians have trusted their governments to do the right thing, and they were willing to put the needs of the community over their individual freedoms.” Such examples attempt to repudiate racist stereotypes of Asian disloyalty and backwardness by foregrounding Asian modernity and collectivity backwardness by foregrounding Asian modernity and collectivity.
 * Columbia Journalism Review. Jon Allsop. June 2021. "The lab-leak mess":
 * But virologists are generally more credible than Trump, who does lie systematically, and did seek to blame China for the pandemic to distract from his own dismal performance; various actors, meanwhile, have weaponized the lab-leak theory as part of a racist agenda that has had very real consequences. A given theory can be a conspiracy and racist and, at root, true, just as a given theory can be scientifically grounded and not racist and, at root, false; who is propounding it, and why, and based on what, matters. The mistake many in the media made was to cast the lab-leak theory as inherently conspiratorial and racist, and misunderstand the relation between those properties and the immutable underlying facts. It would also be wrong, now, to assume that the lab-leak theory is inherently clean of those taints.
 * People question if scientists and/or political leaders created the virus in a lab and/or intentionally leaked it into the general public. Blame in conspiracies of COVID-19 is distributed differently across beliefs. Some question actions of the Chinese government and/or mention relationships with, for instance, people from Wuhan, China, reflecting xenophobic ideologies.
 * Beijing Review. Josef Gregory Mahoney. August 2021. "The unscientific surmise that COVID-19 was spread by Wuhan lab is racist"
 * The "lab leak lie" is racist. To be clear, the unscientific surmise that COVID-19 was spread intentionally or unintentionally by a Chinese government laboratory in Wuhan is racist. From the beginning, this lie was an expression of dog-whistle politics, one that has exploited longstanding racial stereotypes, and that has in turn deepened anti-Asian racism in many countries around the world.
 * Scientific American. Stephan Lewandowsky, Peter Jacobs, Stuart Neil. March 2022. "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth"
 * Motivated reasoning based on blaming an “other” is a powerful force against scientific evidence. Some politicians—most notably former President Donald Trump and his entourage—still push the lab-leak hypothesis and blame China in broad daylight...Ironically the xenophobic instrumentalization of the lab-leak hypothesis may have made it harder for reasonable scientific voices to suggest and explore theories because so much time and effort has gone into containing the fallout from conspiratorial rhetoric.
 * Why would we attribute any statement when so many experts agree on this? It's established scholarly consensus that racism and xenophobia have contributed to the lab leak idea. We don't need to attribute it per WP:YESPOV. What would you want the article to say? "As described by Andrew Liu in Nplusone, Jon Allsop in Columbia Journalism Review, Lisa Hardy in Medical Anthropology, Josef Mahoney in Beijing Review, Sephan Lewandowsky, Peter Jacobs, and Stuart Neil in Scientific American, and David Gorski in Science Based Medicine, racist and xenophobic underpin aspects of the lab leak theory." Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should be using those high quality sources instead. They don't seem to be currently used in the article. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a note that Beijing Review is not a WP:RS and thats an opinion piece to boot. Not included in "those high quality sources" being referenced above. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Facts in editorials are treated the same way as everything else in the editorial. It does need to be attributed if used. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not if it's established scholarly consensus. Not if it's an undisputed fact. Not if experts are seemingly all in agreement and few experts disagree. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If its established scholarly consensus we have zero use for an editorial. We can cite the established scholarly consensus. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Scholarly consensus is built upon the confluence of expert opinion. It is precisely publications like Gorski's which build that consensus. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Scholarly consensus is built through peer reviewed work published in reputable academic journals. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have placed all the refs in a single refn showing various experts and publications describing the phenomenon of racism and xenophobia contributing to the lab leak idea. I'm also finding the other refs which backup this statement and adding these to the refn. That should be sufficient. If it isn't, feel free to bring it up at WP:NPOVN and ask if they think it should be an attributed statement. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats unnecessary, we just just use the strongest one or two of them. That is unless of course there is not scholarly consensus. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We provide a buttload of sources because it makes it less defensible to dispute the claim. It makes trolls, popcorn gallery, etc. less able to remove the thing, ask for its removal here, etc. And it takes up minimal article space since it's a refn. THis is the approach taken with lots of controversial claims, see for example: Project Veritas and James O'Keefe re: "activist" "far-right", "misleading or manipulated video" etc. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:OVERCITE is a problem which isn't limited to this page. None of that is an excuse to use an editorial when we have actual RS. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The WIV was the very first BSL-4 virology facility in China, with plans to build between five and seven BSL-4 labs by 2025 . The only obvious other is the Harbin Veterinary Research Institute, completed in 2018. So even if not unique, the WIV is one of very select number facilities in China (seemingly just two) with BSL-4 labs. Biosafety level 4 laboratories are low in abundance worldwide—because handling ebola is not a whimsical thing—so it is not generally-speaking correct to say that there are similar institutions in other Chinese cities. However, in the context, in terms of the prevalence of Chinese laboratories simply studying coronaviruses, the statement is correct. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think some formulation of "similar labs studying coronaviruses" would be ideal. Because the important point is the coronaviruses, not the biosafety level. Per the BMBL, even the CDC agrees that SARS-like coronaviruses in animals can be handled at BSL-2+/ABSL-3 (as they often are in both the US, China, and elsewhere around the world) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead has already been updated in this way, is there remaining concern over the actual article text? Central to the Chinese leak idea is the proximity of the outbreak to a virology institute that studies coronaviruses. This is a misconception, however, as most large Chinese cities have laboratories which study coronaviruses and Wuhan is one of the largest cities in China. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's good text imo. Gets at all the right points, e.g. that large cities often have these labs, and the followup sentences that large cities are often where outbreaks appear. Its not a coincidence, but its not nefarious. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think some formulation of "similar labs studying coronaviruses" would be ideal. Because the important point is the coronaviruses, not the biosafety level. Per the BMBL, even the CDC agrees that SARS-like coronaviruses in animals can be handled at BSL-2+/ABSL-3 (as they often are in both the US, China, and elsewhere around the world) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead has already been updated in this way, is there remaining concern over the actual article text? Central to the Chinese leak idea is the proximity of the outbreak to a virology institute that studies coronaviruses. This is a misconception, however, as most large Chinese cities have laboratories which study coronaviruses and Wuhan is one of the largest cities in China. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's good text imo. Gets at all the right points, e.g. that large cities often have these labs, and the followup sentences that large cities are often where outbreaks appear. Its not a coincidence, but its not nefarious. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It has been made clear that it is not "a virology institute" but a rather particular one: biosafety level is connected to risk and potential danger - the "more dangerous" viruses are to be studied where the safety is higher. The WIV is rather exceptional and stating that Wuhan is one of the largest cities is irrelevant.Ael 2 (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that make it less likely for WIV to be the source of the outbreak, if they were safer than the other labs handling coronaviruses (including SARS and MERS)? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely it's neither, since if coronaviruses were not being experimented on in the BSL-4 laboratory, it's actually simply irrelevant one way or another. More critical, if one wants to get into the nitty gritty of it, is whether gain-of-function is performed under BSL-2 or BSL-3 conditions, since one of those is obviously more secure than the other. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Racist undercurrents
In the 2nd paragraph, it reads:The idea of a leak there also gained support due to suspicions about the secrecy of the Chinese government's response and has been informed by racist undercurrents. Only citation #1 makes brief mention of racism and none of them talk about the government's secrecy? Why are they being linked there and should the racist undercurrents remain? Can we get/use better citations for the Chinese government's response/secrecy that is probably already in the article? Malerooster (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * From 36355862: "Lab leak theories are often bolstered by racist tropes ..." And there is further discussion about this racism aspect in the body, so it's due a brief mention in the lede. Bon courage (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we really shouldn't have to cite this in the lead, but it is so commonly argued about as a hot button issue, so we do. We have a bajillion sources to back it up, as described in these talk page discussions: 1 2 in the archives. Particularly in [2] I point out quotes from 5 or 6 sources which directly verify the content. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 04:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Now we have many reliable sources now saying why this should not have been the case.
 * "Farrar also co-wrote a February statement published in The Lancet, suggesting that those pushing alternative theories were engaging with conspiracy theories that would only heighten prejudices against Chinese scientists. (Put aside, for a moment, that the predominant “zoonotic” narrative also relied on some racist tropes, in focusing on the unsanitary conditions of Wuhan’s “wet market,” and that any gain-of-function work going on in Wuhan was tied up in American funding and research partnerships.)" [1 ]
 * "But let’s not replace one nutty take (The lab-leak theory is racist) with another (We know for sure that COVID came from a lab)." [2 ]
 * "In 2021, a reporter – not an opinion writer like myself – at The New York Times who covers the pandemic and global health wrote on Twitter that maybe “someday” we’ll stop talking about the “lab leak theory” and its “racist roots.” She later deleted that tweet after ensuing backlash.
 * It turns out that there was cause for skepticism about the virus’ roots." [3 ]
 * "Obviously, it becomes more difficult to prove a hypothesis if the national media has run a series of articles claiming anybody who even entertains it is a racist crank. In any case, I prefer the media to honestly portray the state of scientific knowledge, rather than inventing a nonexistent consensus and hoping it all works out." [4 ]
 * What is the point of mentioning racist undercurrents when many others question this view? 2601:602:8200:4A10:B47C:AFAC:A6E5:95CE (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Every single one of those is an opinion source. e.g. The first and second are opinion pieces from newsletters, the third and fourth are from political columns. See: WP:RSOPINION. These authors are not scientists or experts on sociology, racism, misinformation, etc. We don't hold them to the same reliability as we do experts. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is Gorski an expert on racism? 2601:602:8200:4A10:B47C:AFAC:A6E5:95CE (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * He's an expert on misinformation, conspiracy theories, and other FRINGE and FRINGE-adjacent ideas. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to better understand how someone like Gorski gets treated as "expert" by the Wikipedia editorial team. 2601:602:8200:4A10:B47C:AFAC:A6E5:95CE (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this Wikipedia's official Editorial policy? Could you please link to the source? 2601:602:8200:4A10:B47C:AFAC:A6E5:95CE (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP. It's wikipedia consensus on Science-Based Medicine. And how other outlets treat Gorski, e.g. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But is it a consensus that lab leak is a conspiracy theory? If not, then Gorski's opinions on the topic has no basis. 2601:602:8200:4A10:B47C:AFAC:A6E5:95CE (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Notice I said "FRINGE-adjacent". Gorski is an expert on ideas that are not accepted by mainstream science. The lab leak is not accepted by mainstream science i.e. respected peer-reviewed scholarship has said repeatedly it "has no basis" or that "no evidence exists" in its favor. It really doesn't matter whether it's a conspiracy theory. And certainly, some versions of the lab leak theory such as intentional bioweapons, or clandestine genetic engineering, are indeed conspiracy theories. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless lab leak as a whole is not a fringe/conspiracy theory, I don't think we should rely on Gorski except only for portions within lab leak that are definitely fringe.
 * Both WHO and Lancet commissions have not rejected an accidental lab leak so it is definitely not a fringe idea. 2601:602:8200:4A10:B47C:AFAC:A6E5:95CE (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * the phrase "informed by" seems like it could use a rewording. Someone can be suspicious without being influenced by racist ideas. 2600:8804:6600:45:78FF:CBD5:85A4:C357 (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I also find it strange to automatically associate being suspicious towards an extremely totalitarian and imperialistic government that uses Orwellian mass-surveillance and a vast number of Nazi-level gulags against its own population, with somehow being racist towards the people that the government in question has enslaved. David A (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You sound like a deranged redneck conspiracy theorist, and I don't think you have the education or cognitive ability to understand basic virology or epidemiology, so maybe stick to what you know and leave the thinking and research to people who don't get their news from Fox and Infowars. 2601:198:4100:17E0:985D:85:939A:3426 (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Fine as is: the subject of the sentence is "the idea" and this has been informed by (or fulled by, or - as the source has it - bolstered by) racism. Well-sourced. If individual people want to be racist or not that's up to them and not something within Wikipedia's control. Bon courage (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should consider using the same language as the source to avoid the potential of introducing an impression different from what our sources say. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem then is WP:CLOP; we should be using our own words. Could somebody say what the actual issue is (other than "I don't agree with the source") ? I note in the article we include a quotation for "the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak" – perhaps what we're saying in the lede understates the issues as set out in the sources? Bon courage (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think avoiding CLOP is a reasonable argument. My interpretation of the above concerns is people interpret the sentence as unintentionally conflating 'secrecy of the government response' with 'racist undercurrents'. Our sources seem to treat these as two distinct elements, with some overlap (ie. Li-Meng Yan probably wasn't motivated by racism, though her politically-motivated backers have been accused of it). I don't think we should lean as hard into the topic as that quotation in the lede, but there may be room to clarify this sentence to indicate 'secrecy' and 'racism' are two independent contributing factors. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Very good. I have inserted the word "also" to break the concepts up. Does this assuage your concern? Bon courage (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good edit, hopefully the editors above concur. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The "racial undertones" nonsense is a standard trope of the zoonosis-pushers to dismiss the lab leak theory. I was very surprised to read this in the Wiki page. 181.124.203.77 (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Forgive my discussion of the merits, but it’s almost cliche at this point to point out what so many commentators like Maher, Rogan and Weinstein have, that the claim that it’s somehow more racist to hypothesize a lab origin than to insist it was zoonosis from Chinese eating bats, pangolins, raccoon dogs, etc. from unsanitary live markets (especially with thin evidence) is farcical. JustinReilly (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Any allegations about racial undercurrents or racism should preferably be removed. But if left in, the counter argument above, which has been aired plenty by commentators should be mentioned. JustinReilly (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wat counter argument? Is somebody seriously arguing this isn't racism-fuelled? Bon courage (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. -Dervorguilla (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything related to COVID is tinged by racism... For example the zoonosis theory is often summed up in racist tropes about bat soup. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the main reasons that so many people are drawn to the lab leak theory is that the Chinese government has been extremely opaque about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 for the past three years. That's not racism; it's just a recognition that the CCP is by no stretch of the imagination a reliable source of truth. Oooooooseven (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The bat soup thing is not a "trope". It's an actual part off Chinese cuisine, and if you weren't a culturally illiterate right wing westerner, then you would know that, but of course racists and conspiracy theorists like to make a lot of assumptions about all sorts of stuff. The wet market hypothesis is not racist because it is rooted in actual regional practices and asian cuisine. The lab leak hypothesis, on the other hand, was clearly motivated by racial and political concerns, which is why it has primarily been promoted by the far-right and people like Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson. 2601:198:4100:17E0:985D:85:939A:3426 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a pretty double-edged sword with the wet market versus lab choice. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Location of the renewed debate and "racist" in the US or elsewhere?
We currentyly say that the recent DOE and FBI news "renewed the political debate in the US". I believe the debate is going around in more countries. A cursory google search just on India, gives me tons of references of people debating about this. Australia is also coming up a lot in my feed. Should we broaden the phrase to "in many contries, including the US"? Forich (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The sources focus on the US. It doesn't seem discussed elsewhere much (obsessives excepted natch). Bon courage (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article is incredibly US centric and clearly riven with American "culture war" nonsense that is of no interest to the 95% of the world outside of America. It's embarrassing. The idea that the lab-leak theory is "racist and xenophobic" is completely deranged to non-Americans. Fig (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a sideshow. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Distance from Wuhan Lab to the Market is 18 kilometres or over 11 miles
Excerpt from the page

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 has been used to argue in support of the lab leak theory.

Located within miles? 11 miles ? That's by car as advised by google. Duncansby (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous! Everybody knows that SCV2 viruses travel by air! Bon courage (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we should put the actual number in miles. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Um... The Wuhan Center for Disease Control is 250m from the wet-market. Fig (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the secondary Wuhan CDC facility that was opened a few months after the first infections in humans happened? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

No. I mean the WHCDC site that was obviously already there otherwise it couldn't have been referred to in the Xiao paper that was published in Feb 2020 as follows: "Within ~280 meters from the market, there was the Wuhan Center for Disease Control & Prevention (WHCDC)" But I must say, I am started to understand why this page is so badly POV... Fig (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The first infections in humans happened in mid-to-late October or early November 2019: . The WHCDC opened that facility in December 2019. That preprint was posted online in February 2020. Regardless, none of this matters without some reliable sources to backup your claims.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Molting
Around two years ago I found this page in a state where it had been just acreting claims and organized it into the sections that it mostly still has. I think by this point it has outgrown the framework I tried to impose on it, and it's time to do it again. Particular issues are:
 * 1) I left a few claims in a section called "Developments in 2021" because it wasn't clear what their overall significance would be at the time. Now there's similar sections for 2022 and 2023. The things that we know actually mattered should get folded into the main analysis or narrative. Some things have and some haven't, making a disjointed presentation.
 * 2) Current state of knowledge should be prioritized more over who said what, when.
 * 3) The background section on zoonosis has expanded significantly. Originally this was supposed to be literally background, explaining the concept of zoonosis itself or important examples of it before covid. Since then there have been several publications about the evidence for covid zoonosis and how that impacts the viability of lab leak theories, since the two are in competition. There needs to be a section built more for that dialog to play out, because it's not background.
 * 4) It may make less sense now to even have a background section divorced from actual covid claims at hand. There's a lot of WP:HOWEVER and pre-/re- litigating.
 * 5) The section on lab leak theories gets interrupted by the WHO report. This section was supposed to break down the types of theory: intentional/unintentional, natural/engineered. The WHO report is not itself a type of leak theory, so doesn't belong here. I think I may have put it in the politics section, which I'd stand by still, but in light of points above there does need to be a top-level section on origin investigations that this could go in. Even still, it needs trimming. The report has its own article.
 * 6) The subsections by type of theory are themselves no longer justified. It gives equal weight between fringe and maintream theories.
 * 7) The lede is over-long, largely because of a lack of hooks in the body to hang things on, including those mentioned above.

I expect another covid news cycle to drop this week because of congressional hearings, but here's a tentative suggestion of an updated outline. Sennalen (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A slightly unorthodox approach, instead of relegating fringe views like bioweapons to a bare mention at the end of the article, raise them immediately after the lede in order to dismiss them quickly and WP:MNA the rest of the time.
 * Next a whole treatment of the laboratory at the heart of the question, WIV. What it is, what was done there, why some scientists are concerned, and why some aren't. This would take material that is currently scattered among background, lab leak, and politics sections, and give it an integrated treatment without internal PoV forks.
 * Then the current leading science on zoonosis, the market, and what that means for the leak theory. Again, the full timeline and range of reliably published views.
 * After the evidence is all on the table, the sociological aspects about pro-leak people being resistant to evidence and anti-leak people rushing to judgement. (Lewandowsky and Thacker, basically)
 * Finally all the blow-by-blow politics, government investigations, and media.
 * I honestly don't think it's worth the effort to do a rewrite (because my prediction is that it will be argued and litigated to death on all sides), but I think your concerns are overall valid. I think it will be much more effective to massage what we currently have into a better version of itself. Such as merging the year-by-year subsections and removing duplicated content.I disagree with some of your concerns in detail, though, such as The subsections by type of theory are themselves longer justified. It gives equal weight between fringe and maintream theories. Many of these ideas are FRINGE, but this is an article about those ideas. E.g. the "genetic manipulation" idea is overall FRINGE given the scientific consensus that the virus shows no signs of manipulation. But its a major major DUE point in this article. I think your updated outline is well written and formulated, except for these points:
 * After the evidence is all on the table, the sociological aspects about pro-leak people being resistant to evidence and anti-leak people rushing to judgement. (Lewandowsky and Thacker, basically) That's just "media coverage". How we portray that section is extremely important, and your summary is not very NPOV.
 * I think any new structure should maintain subsections describing the differences between various versions of the theory e.g. intentional manipulation, accidental release of a natural virus, etc. Many of the parts of this article relate to genetic manipulation, and rightly so, as this is extremely DUE. And so is the scientific consensus describing this as complete bullshit. Other parts relate heavily to the natural release idea, e.g. proximity of the lab, those supposed early infections at the lab, etc. and also all the scientific consensus that that also is bullshit. We cannot simply assume one version of the theory or the other in this article.
 * — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think differences between types of theory should be described, but that can be done as one section that dismisses most types. Only accidental release is worth further attention, and at most limited gain-of-function research. Sennalen (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that an editor's job is to make no assumptions about the truth or falsity of a particular position, but only to report the position or positions that are described in sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia.
 * And while I am here, another question is when it is acceptable to use editorial writing as a reliable source. For example, I notice that one of the main sources for saying that the lab leak theory has racist motivations is from the CJR, which is a reliable source, but the article itself appears to be purely opinion and appears to cite no evidence in support of its claims. The author of the CJR article is a journalist, but this appears to be an article of pure opinion and not news.
 * I can see including the opinion of a scientist or some other expert in regards to matters involving that person's area of expertise.
 * For assertions that the lab leak theory is motivated by racism (an ad hominem argument), I would expect to see evidence from the social sciences such as polls based on proven statistical methodologies.
 * However, considering the title of the article, I also feel that motivations for the various epistemic claims are irrelevant, and that a focus on evidence sourced from publications Wikipedia deems reliable that supports or disproves the hypothesis would serve Wikipedia's audience the best.
 * I am responding to you, Shibbolethink, but I want to make sure you understand that I think you are doing good work here, and I appreciate your efforts. I am mentally disabled, so I could easily be misunderstanding a host of concepts.
 * 49.145.164.91 (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the spirit and, most of the ideas, in Sennalen's proposal. Shibboleth also makes goods responses to specifics. I believe that important details of what is currently known should follow an outlay as foñlows. For zoonosis: causative agent; place and events of initial cases; index patient; reservoir; intermediate host; proximal molecular ancestor and ancestral molecular ancestor.  For lab leak: a description of the circumstance of the Wuhan location; a description of WIV (history, activities with similar viruses, biosafety, and the laboratory personnel's official statements responding to the lab leak accusations), a description of the Furin Cleavage Site covering why it raises concerns. After the two competing hypothesis, I would add a section on Media coverage, and that's it.  The political aspects should get reduced space, since we are three years into the pandemic and we are not newspaper but an enciclopedic effort, in my opinion. Forich (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the spirit and, most of the ideas, in Sennalen's proposal. Shibboleth also makes goods responses to specifics. I believe that important details of what is currently known should follow an outlay as foñlows. For zoonosis: causative agent; place and events of initial cases; index patient; reservoir; intermediate host; proximal molecular ancestor and ancestral molecular ancestor.  For lab leak: a description of the circumstance of the Wuhan location; a description of WIV (history, activities with similar viruses, biosafety, and the laboratory personnel's official statements responding to the lab leak accusations), a description of the Furin Cleavage Site covering why it raises concerns. After the two competing hypothesis, I would add a section on Media coverage, and that's it.  The political aspects should get reduced space, since we are three years into the pandemic and we are not newspaper but an enciclopedic effort, in my opinion. Forich (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"Scientists dismissed lab leak theory due to conflict of interest"
From Professor Anton van der Merwe, Sir William Dunn School of Pathology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, writes the following: "What is under-appreciated is the potential conflict of interest among the scientists who dismissed the lab leak hypothesis at the outset in prestigious scientific journals such as The Lancet and Nature Medicine."

The whole article can be found here: https://www.ft.com/content/1eafa0dc-1ce3-4a86-a35e-7132b505e7a4

- 2A02:8071:B86:8060:1AB:5411:4F9D:7DEA (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any new information in this source, or is this just one random Pathologist's (non-expert) opinion? This guy's expertise is in T-cells. We already cover the controversy surrounding these two letters he refers to in the article. Unless this man's opinion is picked up by many multiple other sources, I have a hard time seeing it as WP:DUE inclusion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

C-SPAN Video from March 8, 2023
Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield: "Based on my initial analysis of the data, I came to believe and I still believe today that it indicates that COVID-19 more likely was the result of an accidental lab leak than a result of a natural spillover event."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EvvQ03BCZc

I think this should be added to the article.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is probably overall WP:UNDUE given that we already have this person's opinion in the article. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable to indicate he reiterated it this year, or replace this year's comment with the old one. Though it should probably cite the C-SPAN site itself, rather than a YouTube link. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think replacing the comments would be fine. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that link. I had thought that the C-SPAN official YouTube channel was considered reliable, but your link to the actual C-SPAN website (which is given in the description of the YouTube video) is definitely preferable. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * COVID-19 origin debate escalates with reignited lab leak suspicions Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 23:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The quote does not appear in the wikipedia article. I'd like to remind everyone that this wikipedia article is called, "COVID-19 lab leak theory." That makes the quote extremely notable and relevant to the article. And C-SPAN is an extremely reliable source. The quote is from a former CDC Director. I do not understand why the quote is not included in the wikipedia article. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So let's replace some or part of where we currently say: Former CDC director Robert R. Redfield said in March 2021 that in his opinion the most likely cause of the virus was a laboratory escape, which "doesn't imply any intentionality", and that as a virologist, he did not believe it made "biological sense" for the virus to be so "efficient in human to human transmission" from the early outbreak. in . What would your preferred text be? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

CBS News article March 13, 2023
"Robert Redfield, the former director of the CDC, testified that money from the NIH, the State Department, USAID and the Defense Department provided funding for high-risk virus research in Wuhan."

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-government-agencies-may-have-been-double-billed-projects-wuhan-china-records-indicate-probe/

I think this should be added to the article.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No indication this relates to a lab leak Sennalen (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Inferring that this is somehow connected to a lab leak constitutes original research. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 23:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"Lab-leak" hyphenation
Shouldn't lab-leak be hyphenated wherever it's used adjectivally, i.e. when prefacing theory/hypothesis. The sources are about 50:50 on this, but it's generally better practice to hyphenate compound modifiers ... is there a reason not to here? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a part of the manual of style that says what we should do about this? If the sources are split 50/50, typically our default is not to add punctuation/modifiers in stuff like this. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you hyphenate "laboratory leak theory"? Bon courage (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)