Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 22

Washington Post and DRASTIC
This revert is not appropriate. The reverted description was paraphrased from the Washington Post. Per the WaPo, I paraphrased this as  The WaPo is far from WP:FRINGE. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Your edit was what I was describing as fringe, actually. We're not going to whitewash the more unsavoury side of DRASTIC, as is well-sourced and - if you have forgotten - has been discussed at some length. Bon courage (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How can an *edit* be fringe? An edit can support a fringe viewpoint but an edit itself can't be fringe. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, yes: WP:PROFRINGE to be precise. Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats not precise, what part of that very diverse section are you feeling is at issue here? Most of it appears not to apply because we have a WP:RS to work from. Actually reading through line by line none of it appears to apply here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not about a "section". Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The full name of the section you linked with WP:PROFRINGE is "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories" now tell us what line or lines of that section you believe apply here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Bigging up DRASTIC unduly by removing any mention of their support for lab leak, again (also losing the 'amateur' description). Makes it seem more legit than it is. Bon courage (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Bigging up DRASTIC! Ok Ali G lol. Thats certainly a valid claim, it has nothing to do with PROFRINGE though... Its not PROFRINGEBYPROXY Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Watering-down wording in a way that suggests an amateurish activist group is some kind of neutral research outfit, is problematic. Bon courage (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be problematic, but it isn't covered by WP:PROFRINGE. You need to actually know what you're linking to rather than just using the words that sound right. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ooh, going for the personal attack. Better to actually and read and grok the guideline which is exactly on point. Trying to inflate the credentials of a group by watering down criticism to favour a fringe position is what it's all about. Bon courage (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What personal attack? If thats what PROFRINGE is "all about" its odd that it doesn't even mention it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PROFRINGE says : Attempts by inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories…are prohibited — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly: it's not what WP:PROFRINGE is all about, but it's what this objection is "all about". Coy wording to make a group appear (to the innocent reader) less odd than it is. Bon courage (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The lab leak theory is mainstream science. Bon courage's continued WP:IDHT to the contrary is disruptive. Sennalen (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The lab leak theory (minus any genetic engineering and minus any bio weapons claims) is, at best, a minority viewpoint.
 * The perspective most commonly promoted by DRASTIC, on the other hand (WIV kept, in secret, a virus from the mojaing mine that they then secretly engineered to be more infectious in humans and released) is a fringe conspiracy theory not supported by any scientific publications, evidence, or expert viewpoint. It's entirely supposition from fringe theorists. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the WP the only source about this group? Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We had an entire long and drawn out RfC about this, as I recall, over at Talk:DRASTIC. The result over there was consensus in favor of "internet activists". I would say AN's edit also cherry picks the most flattering descriptors to portray a positive view. It does not include any of "amateur sleuths" from WaPo or "activists" or "promote lab leak theory" from our other sources. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We are supposed to paraphrase. I used "internet researchers" as a paraphrase of "data analysts and amateur sleuths". I used "search Chinese documents" as a paraphrase for "mine open-source Chinese documents". I suppose one could argue that leaving off the word "amateur" slants things in one direction. But then again, leaving out "data analysts" slants things in a different direction. I don't object to substituting "activists" for "researchers", if that is the problem. The point below about "Chinese" being too narrow is well taken. I would not object to leaving that out. That would get us to something like Adoring nanny (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with our current status quo descriptor: DRASTIC, a collection of internet activists vociferously supporting the lab leak idea ?And/or how can we incorporate the sourcing we have for that current descriptor into your preferred one? I.e. "advocates for lab leak idea" etc. I don't think there is consensus to do this change, at least not right now. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As you are aware, sources prior to the WaPo were split on whether they are "supporting the lab leak idea" or "researching the origin". The current descriptor chooses "supporting the lab leak idea". But one problem with both of the above is that they are subjective. Different people can reasonably differ about the objective of someone's research. But the action of searching documents for information is factual and indisputable. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia likes knowledge, which is a bit more than facts. And "searching documents for information" is POV anyway, since of course they're not searching for any information that would undercut their beliefs. Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that claim? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple. It's why the RfC decided they be called 'activists'. Bon courage (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, please link the multiple sources which say that "they're not searching for any information that would undercut their beliefs." I think thats an important addition to make to our coverage of the issue on the page, but of course we need to source it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the current wording is fine, and you can understand its ramifications (or not) as you will. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would actually like to propose wording which includes that, the sources please. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Check the sources currently cited in this article, and those cited at the RfC linked above. Those are probably the ones BC means. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have, I'm not finding this assertion in any of them. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see the WaPo source as compelling any major change to the description of DRASTIC. In particular, I would oppose "researchers who search Chinese documents for information about COVID-19", as DRASTIC has been diving into more than just Chinese documents, and their leaks related to American documents have had a major impact on the theory. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The article mentions DRASTIC, in passing, as a source of their reporting. It does not discuss DRASTIC and shouldn't be used as any kind of source about DRASTIC. You might make a case for appropriate tone in description at Talk:DRASTIC but that is probably the most that could be said. fiveby(zero) 16:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe change it to "Members of DRASTIC, a collection of internet activists"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Except that washes away the advocacy aspect. Activists for what would be the unanswered question ... Bon courage (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Problem is, the section is talking about a Mine not a lab leak. So its clear they do not only advocate for that. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is why the status quo wording works. Bon courage (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No it does not, as it says they only look into the lad leak theory, they do not, I now can't support the current wording. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Current sourcing says "among the most aggressive advocates of the lab-leak theory" — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * the copper mine thing is part of the lab leak 'theory' - that a virus there was the secret progenitor to SCV2. That's why it gets some coverage in this article. Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

'Vociferously'(in a loud and forceful manner) needs to go; it's not present in the sources, it's not present on the DRASTIC article, it was never mentioned in the RfC, and it's MOS:PUFFERY. And it's a red flag to our readers that the POV of this article is questionable. SmolBrane (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * it's "aggressive" in the sources. How would you paraphrase that? Bon courage (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Aggressive' in *one* source. And I would probably omit this characterization entirely: MOS: "Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it."  Do you think our readers benefit from this puffery? SmolBrane (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The soruces does, our article is however not using it about the lab leak, so why does it need to be mentioned? Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Err, it's not "puffery"; you might argue it's the opposite. But we don't whitewash stuff away, particularly in WP:FRINGE topic areas. Bon courage (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the sources say: among the most aggressive advocates of the lab-leak theory, a group of amateurs decided to sniff the lab leak theory to the ground, (among others linked in the RfC above). I think vociferous support is a fair SYNTHNOTSUMMARY of "aggressive advocacy" and "sniff the lab leak theory to the ground", not to mention "members of Drastic have targeted virologists and epidemiologists who refuse to engage with the lab leak theory, and they've even falsely accused some of working for the Chinese Communist Party" —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * . . . but those aren't the only sources. As mentioned above, the WaPo says a loose confederation of data analysts and amateur sleuths who mine open-source Chinese documents for information about covid-19. And Vanity Fair says Their stated objective was to solve the riddle of COVID-19’s origin.. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The reliability of Eban and VF's reporting has been heavily called into question after their co-reported Intercept fiasco. I wouldn't consider that source to be very independent or balanced wrt the topic given those events. WaPo, sure, but it doesn't really address how "aggressively" they support the lab leak, does it? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But even the New Yorker source agrees that they find things in documents. On September 21st, DRASTIC published a startling new revelation. [goes on to describe DEFUSE] Adoring nanny (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It was called into question, but they generally aquitted themselves. The kerfluffle boiled down to one Chinese translation, where experts find VF's translation to be one valid possibility out of several alternatives. The rest of their report doesn't rest on that one translation, either. Sennalen (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * they generally aquitted themselves I would love to see your source on this statement. AFAICT, that is not the case, and it is not how we describe it in the article at all. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The main source is propublica itself. https://www.propublica.org/article/editors-note-a-review-of-criticisms-of-a-propublica-vanity-fair-story-on-a-covid-origins-report Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? but I don't know of any rebuttal of the rebuttal. Regardless of how one interprets "this" in "every time this has happened," the documents still show a non-routine safety review happened in November 2019. Sennalen (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "sniff...to the ground" is not self evidently aggressive, could be construed as "getting to the root of" or something similarly idiomatic(MOS:IDIOM). CNET("targeted virologists") has no consensus for reliability in 2021 as per the perennial source list, should be attributed at least.  Yes Bon Courage sometimes puffery is negative (MOS:PUFFERY "negatively loaded language should be avoided just as much.") SmolBrane (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Puffery is never negative. That is why the words 'just as much' are used. This is basic English. Bon courage (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Lanzhou brucellosis lab leak
I don't agree with this revert related to the Lanzhou brucellosis lab leak. The revert message says "undue/fringe", but the Washington Post is neither. Note in particular that we are sourcing our description of DRASTIC to a single article in the South China Morning Post, which is surely less notable than the WaPo. Furthermore, the brucellosis incident is covered by this academic paper. On a separate note, it would be good to have the full text of the paper if it is available. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant? Bon courage (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The section is entitled "Prior lab leak incidents and conspiracy theories". This fits right in. Furthermore, the WaPo itself draws the connection extensively. I can't copy the entire article per WP:COPYVIO, but here is a small sample, which only begins to show just how much the article connects the two: Adoring nanny (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * so what's it got to do with the lab leak theory? are some proponents making a connection? - because your extract (and the article) doesn't. Bon courage (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you read the source? It is throughout the article. As I said, I can't copy the whole thing. Here is another excerpt, one of very many: Adoring nanny (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it doesn't make the link but sort of leaves it in the air: since there's no evidence SCV" existed in any lab this seems like more irrelevant guesswork. Have any of the lab leak fanbois picked this up? Bon courage (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again from the source: And what is 'SCV"'? Adoring nanny (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So what? No mention of SCV2 lab leaks. That may be what you read into it. It may even be what the authors are trying to hint at. But for our purposes? nah. Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course it's related, the post just did what a good new org should, kept the investigation and opinion separate. If this article is news about the lab leak it's probably a good source, but i don't think that is what the article should be. fiveby(zero) 13:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup WP:NOTNEWS. It's the same reason we should not be piling stuff in about raccoon dogs. Bon courage (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pile in this while you are at it: 1978 smallpox outbreak in the United Kingdom. Lab leaks happen. But it is wp:synth to claim without support of an RS (or even imply) that there is a culture of sloppy lab hygiene in research labs, such that a reasonable person might suppose that C19 was more likely to be the result of a lab leak than an inter-species transfer at an unhygienic "wet market" that traded in known virus reservoirs. There is no such evidence. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't quite follow that. But it's fair to say that the WaPo article is documenting a culture of sloppy lab hygiene in China, as of late 2019. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In no way relevant to this article, if its notable start a separate article. Linking what WaPo says to this article without WaPo making that link themselves is synth. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

FOIA: Collins to Varmus
Shown in a recent FOIA, in Aug 2020 Francis Collins shared a lab leak theory story to Harold E. Varmus

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23793974-tobias-v-hhs-21-cv-02805-42823-partial-production_redactedpdf-may-1 2600:8804:6600:45:2513:9206:6B1:FC3A (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And? Slatersteven (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * this is the covid lab leak threory wikipedia page? 2600:8804:6600:45:2513:9206:6B1:FC3A (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but why is this relevant or significant? Slatersteven (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure, how do we deterimine that? 2600:8804:6600:45:2513:9206:6B1:FC3A (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * RS talking about it. Slatersteven (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

US Intelligence agencies
Determining the origin of a pandemic is not the exclusive province of scientists. It involves the state authorities, non-state authorities, journalists, etc. Exactly the same as when a crime is committed. If the virus escaped from a laboratory (which is a valid scientific hypothesis), clearly that means someone developed it, and this is no longer a matter for science or scientists, it is something that is beyond the field of study.

The only thing that scientists can say is how likely or not it is that they believe it could happen, but if a government investigation determines that this was indeed the case, this is beyond what scientists and doctors can say about it (the matter then changes to a political and legal dilemma). Armando AZ (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, science is science. If congress tomorrow found the earth was flat, ships would not suddenly fall of the edge. Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is NOT exclusively a scientific question. The starkest example is the fact that it is/would be impossible to scientifically (“scientifically” construed in a narrow sense) differentiate between an unengineered virus that leaked from a lab and the same virus emerging zoonotically, since it’s genome would be the same- the Nature Medicine authors admitted this to the article’s peer-reviewers in recently released emails from/to Kristian Anderson. Though if you take a very broad view of what science is, with science you could assign rough probabilities based on the number of discrete cross-over events- zoonotic emergence tends to have many more discreet cross-over events compare to the number in lab leaks. Since there appear to be only two very closely related cross-over events, this strongly favors the lab leak hypothesis. Regardless, investigative reporting, intelligence and related fields certainly have important perspectives and substantive contributions to make to the origin question. Excluding whole important fields and the substantive evidence (as well as analysis) they contribute would greatly distort the accuracy of the investigation. JustinReilly (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is NOT exclusively a scientific question &larr; the straw man again! This has been discussed over and over and over and over again and the consensus is (duh!) that science needs scientific sources, non-science doesn't. The idea that this virus was genetically engineered is however an out-and-out conspiracy theory. On that particular nonsense all good sources are aligned. Bon courage (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Things aren't "conspiracy theories" until proven otherwise; if there is evidence that points in one direction, it is the duty of those who oppose said theory to refute it (or in the case of an experiment, replicate it). I don't like this attitude that was left after COVID at all. It's not that it's something that difficult either: from what Justin describes, it has a falsifiability criterion. Armando AZ (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is the opposite of science, a reversed burden of evidence (a classic WP:PROFRINGE gambit). There is zero evidence for lab leak (as we say) and scientists will change their mind if that changes. So far as Wikipedia is concerned, WP:ECREE. Bon courage (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "There is zero evidence for lab leak..." That's what I mean by ruling out a priori. A study like this would have to be taken into account (in addition to all the other evidence discussed below). And the study complies with the basics of the scientific method. Armando AZ (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage If you do not allow something to be demonstrated because you rule it out a priori, it is the same as prohibiting the investigation in this regard (or its citation, in this case). And we are not even talking about the specific case of this article, which you have not read. Armando AZ (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a good argument, although the discussion on this is over. Could you pass us the source of the peer-study? Armando AZ (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not writing comprehensible English any more. I have no power to prohibit investigations. I think WP:CIR. Bon courage (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage I'm helping myself with Google translate because it's late here and I wanted to get this over with quickly, what I wanted to say is that that's not a reason to prohibit a source citation, but I hadn't read any of the links you posted. I meant that you personally shouldn't judge a source like that without first reading it. Armando AZ (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For example, the issues of "who released the virus?" "how did he get away?" "It was an accident?" All these questions cannot be answered from the field of virology, serious research is needed in this regard. Armando AZ (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven I answer you here so as not to spoil the format. As I said in the comment above, these questions cannot be answered from the specific field of virology, therefore, other types of investigations and other types of experts are required to reach a conclusion in this regard (the Pentagon seems to me a good choice). Believing that science, or in this case virology, can investigate things that are outside its field is called "scientism", and it is not something that is very popular in academia. We could argue whether or not what the Department of Defense does is science (as part of "criminology") but I don't think that is the issue. Armando AZ (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Use scientific sources sources for the science, and other reliable sources for not-science. This has been discussed at (extreme) length already. Bon courage (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for not handling English well. According to the April 18 Telegraph article which is mentioned above, American intelligence does not have a consensus on the matter. However, as I read in this article in El País, in March President Biden authorized the declassification of all the documents referring to Covid-19 and the disease that the Pentagon has at the request of Congress, so the report has documentation from the intelligence services to the best of my knowledge. Therefore, it is indirectly validated by the intelligence agency. Armando AZ (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Here I found information about the intelligence services, in general they support the lab leak theory: https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-part-2-hearing-wrap-up-intelligence-community-officials-provide-further-evidence-that-covid-19-originated-in-a-wuhan-lab/ Armando AZ (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wrong. This is covered in the "Intelligence agencies" section. And you're focusing on one country only (the US). Bon courage (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the answers I gave were for the other user (in the same way, the order of these was broken a long time ago). Armando AZ (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage I think even so the beginning could change. It could be mentioned at least something about the investigations that are being carried out. Armando AZ (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If the US department of defense published a report saying the world is flat, we would have to balance that with the scientific view that it's round. To do so would be a false balance. Nothing in the report makes a lab leak anything more than a minority view scientificly, and so any mention of it must be correctly balanced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Basically if the lab leak didn't happen than all that's being investigated is shadow and whispers, and doesn't have any real meaning. It only has meaning if the lab leak happened, and that is a science issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you see it from criminology, it is true. But there is nothing in virology that can tell us for sure where the virus came from. There is still discussion about which animal species the virus jumped from to humans. The only thing that comes to mind now in this regard is the speed or sequence of the mutations, with which it is possible to track how many times the virus mutated and therefore, together with other data, more or less trace its path to the present. But from what I have read so far, the investigations by this means are not conclusive either, (there is even a theory that the virus could not have come out of Wuhan but from the surrounding rural areas, but this is not supported by all scientists).
 * On the side of physical or circumstantial evidence, field research becomes important here, because determining, for example, whether or not a laboratory had a strain of a virus is something that you have to find out on the ground, or have some kind of documentary or archival evidence. You cannot determine it in a laboratory thousands of kilometers away. That is why the work of intelligence agencies such as the Pentagon becomes important, since the Chinese government has not facilitated the investigation in this regard. And I'm talking about the origin of the virus or the pandemic, not whether it was modified or not. That is a relevant issue but not the core of this matter. Armando AZ (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's still smoke and mirrors, even if a laboratory had a virus it's still not proof that it was leaked. Everything being "proven" is just circumstantial evidence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The investigation into the origins of COVID is exactly that: an investigation. An investigation into whether or not an industrial accident took place.
 * Obviously that involves science. But answering the question necessitates drawing on the expertise of other professionals as well, particularly those with experience of investigations such as intelligence agencies and investigative journalists. This is even more the case as the alleged industrial accident took place in a country ruled by an authoritarian regime.
 * For example, scientists are not the best people to obtain and assess intelligence around what was happening in China immediately before and after the outbreak, which is clearly relevant to the origins investigation. And they may not be aware of all the relevant facts of the investigation, because that's not their job. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The has been discussed ad nauseam (even with a huge RfC). The consensus is that biomedical stuff requires biomedical sourcing, nob-biomedical stuff doesn't. That consensus is not going to change so why editors keep picking away at this or arguing against straw men, baffles the mind. Bon courage (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, I'm aware of the RfC and in agreement with the consensus that non-biomedical sources are relevant for the non-biomedical aspects of the investigation. It
 * It's others that are arguing that non-scientists have nothing to cont.ebate. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a strawman. However in any realistic case scientific sources and science are central and necessary to any pronouncement about viral origin (for this or any virus); at most other, lay, sources would be able to touch in minor details around that. Bon courage (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Writing suggestion to the lead re: intelligence agencies
@Bon Courage You're right, the matter should be settled here. I only suggest that the main page mention the investigations and opinions of the intelligence services, since it has become clear that they have something to say about it (This is a different talk). Armando AZ (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Bon courage (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We already include that content in this article. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Only the scientific version of the matter is given (in the beginning), that is not correct since it is not only a scientific hypothesis, but also a investigation hypothesis by state autorities. Armando AZ (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead summarizes the content of the body based on what is most DUE inclusion and prominence. Per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SOURCETYPES, Wikipedia relies on scholars and scientists to determine what that is, not news reporters. News sources are considered of a lower quality and less prominent and reliable than scholarly peer-reviewed publications. It appears you want to change that consensus, and you should propose a change like that at somewhere like Village pump (policy), not this local talk page. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Edits to the lead re: High-ranking intelligence officers
I put in the following text:

"Despite the consensus of virologists that virologists were not responsible for the pandemic, diplomatic intelligence officers such as former American Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe have asserted that the virus most likely did originate in a laboratory."

This was summarily reverted with the edit summary "not really".

This is balanced, WP:DUE, and appropriate. It should be re-introduced into the lead. Red  Slash  18:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A bit dishonest not to mention you tried to edit-war this in, and the first time the WP:ES gave the reason. So yeah, don't do that. Bon courage (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's reason enough to reject it. Armando AZ (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case you need to read at least MOS:LEDE, WP:GEVAL and WP:PSTS, as well as WP:OR and WP:EW. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for featuring made-up nonsense. Bon courage (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to "edit-war" it in?
 * In Bon Courage's world, I guess "any two edits I disagree with = edit war". The history is right here. That's not an edit-war at all.
 * You are blindly asserting that the lab leak theory is fringe, with no basis at all. Woohoo, a bunch of virologists decided in 2020 that Covid didn't happen because of virologists. Now people who actually study things like this, high-ranking diplomatic intelligence officials, are saying "actually, looks likely that there was a lab leak that was quickly covered up". It's not a fringe theory. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's not original research. And you keep blindly asserting that it is fringe, and using that to edit-war and bludgeon anything that runs contrary to your agenda. Red   Slash  22:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're the editor making stuff up based on poor sources and continually adding it to the lede. You are aware this is a WP:CTOP so that is especially disruptive behaviour. Bon courage (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the position of the US intelligence community should be used in the opening paragraph. That said, there are multiple issues with the proposed wording. The "despite" portion is wrong. I forget which policy it is, but you should not create a contrast like that. Also, "asserted" is wrong per MOS:SAY. Finally, per WP:NPOV, we can't just mention the portions of the intel community that believe it was LL. It would be better to say that the intel community is split, which it is, because portions believe it was zoonosis. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a citation within the last six months where significant members of the intelligence community said they believe it wasn't from a lab? Your other concerns are well-noted. Red   Slash  22:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * so is your argument is that they need to continually say their assessment or else we discount it? That doesn't really jive with our policies and guidelines. We take the assessments made in RSes at face value, such as that the majority of intelligence agencies (and the national intelligence council) support the zoonotic theory as the most likely. If they wanted to revise their assessment, they would have done so and it likely would have been provided in the DNI's revised summary about the DoE that was recently leaked to the press.We report what our RSes say, we don't selectively pick the RSes and agencies we like and put them forth as the current consensus. Many if not most of the RSes about the DoE mention the other agencies that believe the zoonotic theory is the most likely. To report the agents who believe the lab leak is more likely without describing these would be a violation of NPOV and FRINGE. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite. And we don't add our own personal editorial based on video clips. Bon courage (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem due. At least the wording Despite the consensus of virologists that virologists were not responsible for the pandemic would need to something like Despite the scientific consensus that a leak from a laboratory was not responsible for the pandemic, and diplomatic intelligence officers such as former American Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe have asserted that the virus most likely did originate in a laboratory. would need to be something similar to some the United States intelligence officers such as John Ratcliffe have asserted that the virus most likely originated in a laboratory. Also as this is just a US issues it isn't due in the lead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In the first paragraph, we are supposed to be short and to the point. We might say something like "The US intelligence community is divided on the lab leak versus zoonosis debate." Brief, does not take sides, and gets the essential fact across. I wouldn't mind including other country assessments; I just don't know what they are. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like WP:FALSEBALANCE given that the vast majority of the assembled intelligence assets (4 plus the National Intelligence Council vs 2) believe the zoonosis to be the most likely explanation. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There were 8 orgs I believe. We have 4 with low confidence in one direction, and one with low and one with moderate in the other direction. I'll grant that 4 > 2, but we also have moderate > low. On top of that, movement is towards the LL side, and the ones of the LL side have more coverage. Obviously one doesn't want to go into all that detail, with various portions of it pointing in various directions. So it's best to just say "divided". Adoring nanny (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources say otherwise. Scientists agree on what's likely happened, evidence is emerging and the lab leak has been declared dead. That some intelligence services in one politically-riven country are dithering about is really irrelevant to Wikipedia's mission to report mainstream, accepted knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pure fantasy. Acceptance of a lab origin is growing, outside of a handful of vocal researchers with connections to EcoHealth. Sennalen (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia reflects authoritative sources, not the conspiracist musings of its editors. So, for example, David Robertson has said [my emphasis] "It’s important to appreciate that we’ve lots of evidence for a natural origin for Sars-CoV-2, ie not just a single report but multiple lines of evidence which has steadily accumulated since 2020." Meanwhile, per our sources, there is zero evidence for LL. Sorry, but this reality of sourcing is not something Wikipedia can dodge. Bon courage (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Acceptance of a lab origin is growing Do you have authoritative peer-reviewed scholarship RSes to support this statement? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't a take from the scientific community, but from the intelligence community, which are both very different and process different evidence differently. Requiring peer-reviewed scholarship from the FBI is a little silly. Red   Slash  19:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a "no" then. Bon courage (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I support including something brief like this in the lead. It is very relevant to the debate and features heavily in articles about this topic in Reliable Sources.
 * Biden would not have asked the agencies to investigate the issue if they had no expertise.
 * If intelligence agencies from other countries express a view one way or the other, I think we should include them to. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The lede is a summary of important parts of OUR article, it is not a new paper style leader. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Even so, at least mention should be made of the intelligence agencies and committees that are investigating this, since they are not only American (the British are also involved) and also those not linked to the Pentagon, such as the Committee of Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the U.S. ,specialized in the area of health and social security (the latter is a bit off the topic of the discussion, but it is important to mention it). Armando AZ (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why? Wikipedia is a summary of accepted knowledge and explicitly WP:NOTNEWS. Bon courage (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Although you don't want Wikipedia works like that, there was already controversy due to the fact that many sources used were several months old, that is, they are not updated. And as a user said above, the objective of Wikipedia is to inform readers about the truth, ergo, if relevant information is omitted, readers are being misinformed. You can't chase two hares and catch both.... Armando AZ (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * objective of Wikipedia is to inform readers about the truth This is actually not true. WP:NOTTRUTH — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And we already discussed above about the acceptability of intelligence reports Armando AZ (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Err, Wikipedia is not about The Truth&trade; (which usually means an editor's POV). It merely reflects accepted knowledge as found in reliable sources. That's it. Bon courage (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage Look, just add a text that says:
 * "Since (start date) the intelligence services of (insert countries here) have conducted their own investigations on this and have come to mixed conclusions" (and then quote the conclusions and reports.) . I assure you that all this discussion and controversy ends, and as with other "not so reliable" sources in quotation marks, the source is directly cited. Armando AZ (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Look, just add a text that saysYour demeanor here resembles "Just do what I want and I'll stop bugging you." But that isn't how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia operates on consensus, not the bludgeoning of discussions until others agree with you. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not pounding consensus, I'm just making a change suggestion. Armando AZ (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a paragraph that says everything that needs to be said about it, it is short and does not add any special point of view. Armando AZ (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wrong article. This one is not about investigations. Bon courage (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There it says "Covid-19 lab leak theory", not "Covid-19 theory of genetic engineering", it is obviously about the general case of theories on the subject. And there we had already agreed that the intelligence services have something to say about it, they are not just any person. Armando AZ (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * we had already agreed that the intelligence services have something to say about it but fundamentally not that it should be mentioned in the lead? That's the entire point of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage A scientist cannot have a private conversation between two people, an agent or a journalist can. Armando AZ (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is also no talk in the head of the article of any leak in this regard Armando AZ (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that doesn't make much sense and is hardly English. If you want to write about "investigations" go to the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article. Bon courage (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, the article is very poorly written: Personal opinions are validated as "acceptable" just because they have been said by doctors (the final paragraph and the one that talks about racism), which is in no way peer-reviewed scientific research. Lastly, if it is so, it should be clear at the beginning by giving a statement like "from a scientific perspective...", because in English theory is a hypothesis, and it doesn't even have to be substantiated to be called that.
 * That is why this article includes that other search. Armando AZ (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And I know that I did not choose the best dictionary, but with that it is understood. The title of the article is not "scientific theory", so it includes in the body of the article everything related to investigation Armando AZ (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All I'm asking is to put some of that at the head. Armando AZ (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Lastly, it can also be argued that scientists are being "taken" in this case as a fallacy of authority, because the fact that scientists deny something does not necessarily mean that they are right. That's going too fast. Armando AZ (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This entire encyclopedia is built on argument from authority - that is the thrust of WP:RS and WP:NOR. You're not going to get any traction arguing that we shouldn't follow the most authoritative sources. MrOllie (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, scientists and scholars determine what the "wiki-voice" POV is. I have described this to you several times. So the idea of putting "from a scientific perspective" or elevating the perspective of non scholars above those of scholars is directly in conflict with our policies on what counts as a reliable source and writing from a neutral pov. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if we think the intel agencies are correct. They have WP:SIGCOV, so they should be included. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Again this is a global issue, a purely US report is undue in the lead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A compilation of sources can be made, as is done with the case of racism Armando AZ (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * SIGCOV in mainstream pulp news sources? sure. SIGCOV in our BESTSOURCES? SIGCOV in international coverage? Nope, not at all. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no single criterion, some opinions are included because yes and others are not (again, the case of racism is not a scientific issue). Basically the whole beginning is made to put you against a hypothesis. Armando AZ (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And I clarify a hypothesis with evidences, which I know they are going to give me the example of climate change and things like that. Armando AZ (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue in addition is of public importance. Armando AZ (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The scholarly fields of race theory and Asian American studies would dispute your claim that in the case of racism is not a scientific issue. We also cite several scholarly sources about that claim. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But it's not a medical problem, that's the thing. Armando AZ (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * At least the committee reports have to do with that, not the "social consequences of the theory", that is WP:POV Armando AZ (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Racism isn't a medical problem? These reliable sources would disagree: These scholarly sources describe racism as a public health issue for Asian Americans experiencing COVID-19-related prejudice: On wikipedia, we rely on scholarly sources to determine what is the prevailing narrative. Not our personal opinions. That is true for all topics, not just medical ones. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We include things that are covered by our BESTSOURCES and in our international sources. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In a matter of public interest, THIS is important Armando AZ (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: I just realized that this article is also out of date; the source it uses is from 2021. Armando AZ (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like you want to make an appeal to ignore all rules in favor of what you describe as "public interest". I don't see a very convincing case. And at this point, you're just repeating the same arguments over and over. My advice is to either 1) wait for others to provide input instead of doing so repeatedly on your own, 2) go to the pages where these wikipedia-wide consensuses have been established (WT:NPOV, WT:RS), or 3) seek additional input or start an RFC here. (but mind WP:RFCBEFORE and a neutrally-worded statement with wide input. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How good are they to accuse someone of anything here, whatever, I agree. Armando AZ (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PD: By public interest I mean national interest, or something that is part of the public sphere (for example, revealing the origins of an epidemic, bank fraud, etc.). Armando AZ (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Basically what we all had been discussing from the beginning but put in other words. Armando AZ (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely significant coverage in international sources. Just do a quick search of the BBC, Guardian, Times, Le Monde, Sky News Australia etc etc and you'll find mountains of coverage.
 * If by best sources you mean peer reviewed science articles, that's a strange argument. It's not reasonable to expect peer reviewed scientific articles to report on what intelligence agencies conclude. That's not the purpose of a scientific article. There has been an RfC which has concluded that RS newspapers can be used for non-biomedical aspects of the article like this. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * More straw men, since nobody is asking for that. Sometimes it seems from comments here people haven't read Wikipedia articles. There's an enormous great section at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. This is an article about a (conspiracy) theory, not about "investigations". Bon courage (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, how is it a straw man? @Shibbolethink literally said there isn't significant coverage of the intelligence agency views in the international press or best sources. My post directly addresses those claims. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "BESTSOURCES and international sources" does not mean one "expects" peer-reviewed science. As it happens peer-reviewed science does sometimes address these issues in the wider world too. We also have non-peer-reviewed stuff among our WP:BESTSOURCES, like WP:SBM. Bon courage (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I do want to add, you say: It's not reasonable to expect peer reviewed scientific articles to report on what intelligence agencies conclude. That's not the purpose of a scientific article but that's a further straw man. The "Best sources" for wikipedia are scholarly, not necessarily just scientific. Journals like: International Security, International Affairs, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Security Dialogue, Intelligence and National Security, and International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence would probably disagree with your assessment that It's not reasonable to expect peer reviewed scientific articles to report on what intelligence agencies conclude. These are scholarship, but not necessarily science. They are still our best sources.Likewise, there are high quality RSes like Foreign Policy, The Economist, Foreign Affairs, that I don't see significant coverage in. At least not to the point of trumping the global aspects of this topic. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Shibbolethink literally did ask for that. When told "acceptance of a lab origin is growing", he said
 * "Do you have authoritative peer-reviewed scholarship RSes to support this statement?"


 * When I basically said, "uhh I don't think the FBI submits articles for peer review", you said "That's a "no" then".
 * So, yes, the two of you are (apart from showing tremendous WP:OWNership of this article and other related articles) in fact asking for scientific peer review of the conclusions of the intelligence community, which is beyond nonsensical. Red   Slash  18:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are reading stuff into what people write that is not actually there. For a medical scientist, "acceptance of a lab origin is growing" means acceptance among people who actually count: medical scientists. Not cranky uncles, not politicians, not journalists, not spooks, not people whose job it is to be paranoid. So, the request for peer-reviewed scholarship is only natural. In your response to the request, you brought up the FBI. So, it was you who actually made that connection between peer review and spies. Now you are shifting the connection to somebody else. Don't do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Shibbolethink literally did ask for that. When told "acceptance of a lab origin is growing", he said Do you have authoritative peer-reviewed scholarship RSes to support this statement?...When I basically said, "uhh I don't think the FBI submits articles for peer review", you said "That's a "no" then".Ahh I see, here's another misunderstanding upon misunderstandings. The FBI made that assessment back in 2022. The FBI (or DoE) submitting their final review that the lab leak is more likely does not actually verify the statement "acceptance of a lab origin is growing". — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This is about the lede, the argument of "this should be mentioned somewhere" has no impact on that question. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Quotes from the senate minority report
''The document says an initial leak may have occurred "sometime before September 2019" and began circulating in Wuhan. Then, once WIV and Chinese government authorities realized what had happened, officials scrambled to quickly and quietly develop a vaccine that could be deployed to contain the outbreak -- all before the world could learn the truth, according to the authors. That rush to develop a vaccine may have led to a second accidental lab leak -- one which, in turn, would lead to the global pandemic, the investigators believe.'' https://abcnews.go.com/Health/new-report-senate-republicans-doubles-covid-lab-leak/story?id=98656740 2A02:2F0B:B302:F500:D02A:1623:8448:DFEC (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See copious talk page threads about this above. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)