Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 9

EcoHealth Alliance and Furin Cleavage Site
As new info about the lab leak theory comes out, it seems a lot of the focus has been on the types of work that the EcoHealth people were performing or proposing to perform in Wuhan. Should a new "EcoHealth" wiki subsection under "Release of a genetically modified virus" be added to more explicitly explain how Ecohealth's genetic modification studies could have lead to the existence of genetic code in the lab that were similar to that of Sars-Cov2?

https://nypost.com/2021/09/22/wuhan-scientists-wanted-to-release-coronaviruses-into-bats/

--70.191.102.240 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a more reliable source than the NY Post? Bakkster Man (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph, The Times. fiveby(zero) 22:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * EcoHealth didn't do any genetic modification studies... And these sources are not reliable for the claim that they did. If this info were covered by more reputable sources (with reputation for fact checking scientific claims), all it would show is that these projects have been proposed, not that they were undertaken. The WIV did other genetic modification studies, and we already have a section about that. About how unlikely it is that this had anything to do with the pandemic.In particular, I'd also like to point out there is a flagrantly irresponsible scientific error in how the above sources (NYPost, Telegraph, Times, which themselves are known to be extremely biased news sources) interpret this document. To be fair. The Times reports it better, but not well. They insinuate that the EHA grant would involve releasing live virus into bats in the wild.  That is not what EHA proposed.  They wanted to do controlled lab experiments in high level biosafety conditions, and then use that information to create vaccines and then test those vaccines on bats, before putting the most effective vaccine into bats in the wild. How is that not exactly what we would want them to do? To help eradicate the most human-worrisome bat viruses? In my opinion, that's exactly what we want them to be doing.From this grant, it's clear that they wanted to use a protein-based subunit vaccine (page 3 paragraph 2). Which again, could not cause this pandemic, and in fact is how we are solving it. The vaccine in this case, would be just protein. It cannot recombine, it cannot create novel viruses, it cannot splice in the wild. It's just protein, no RNA. So it can only create antibodies in the bats, and help them avoid becoming infected with coronaviruses. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC) (edited 08:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC))
 * Err...not sure what you're on about. The answer to the question "is there a more reliable source" is yes, The Daily Telegraph and The Times. fiveby(zero) 02:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Shibboleth is arguing that these are not appropriate sources for reporting on the scientific aspect of this question; because they make some basic scientific errors. In any case, if the only sources which report this are news sources, it might not be ideal as news sources are fine for politics and news (their usual area of expertise), but not quite for complex science like this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is consensus that The Daily Telegraph is generally reliable. Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics. ... The Times is considered generally reliable. (WP:RSPSOURCES.) If you reread those articles, you can see that the authors' motives really aren't that malevolent; at least, they're not seeking to insinuate that the EHA grant would involve releasing live virus into bats in the wild. Nobody wants to harm these cute little sky pups! –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We already knew the WIV was synthesizing chimeric coronaviruses, as they published about it in at least one manuscript. And as we discuss in this article (correct me if I'm wrong) What else does this add? I'm not opposed to well-sourced inclusion of non-controversial facts from The Times. The only novel element (that they wanted to create vaccines based on the spike protein) is reported explicitly incorrectly in 2/3 of these sources, and so clearly that is probably not what we should include. There might be something novel in them wanting to experiment with the cleavage sites, but as far as I can tell, that isn't described in sufficient detail in any of these sources. Overall this is about a theoretical grant proposal. I would describe it as flimsy and this reporting as sensational. It's grasping at every reason to suspect the WIV, without any actual material evidence of wrongdoing or of having conducted any of the proposed experiments. Many people have proposed many things that they have never done. Elon Musk wants to put dogecoin on the moon and describes himself as "CEO of Dogecoin". We don't mention either of these things in his article. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 08:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And I would boot Ebright from the article for this, but that is personal opinion and OR. I think Bakkster Man has the correct approach below. fiveby(zero) 15:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do note, generally reliable does not mean every single article is de facto reliable. Not to mention that the political football of a lab leak can reasonably be considered to apply towards why someone would consider the Telegraph to be potentially unreliable here. Nor does source reliability depend on "malevolent motives", see WP:RSBREAKING, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:SCIRS (particularly Popular press section). While WP:MEDPOP doesn't directly apply here (not biomed information), I think it's also valid to note The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. All that is to say, if these news sources misrepresent the grant proposal (likely because they author misinterpreted them) per other reliable sources (as says), then the information about the EcoHealth grant proposals in these news articles would be unreliable. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a note, if someone were to read about EcoHealth in anyone of these biased articles and come to wikipedia to see an unbiased version, there would basically be no information here to explain anything about weather of not virus was actually released into the caves. They'd have to rely on the incorrect reporting. 70.191.102.240 (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph made a mistake on a pretty crucial detail, as noted by The Intercept, and the Archive page history shows some corrections have been made. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

"They [meaning Whipple and other authors] insinuate that the EHA grant would involve releasing live virus into bats in the wild." Interesting comment. Compare &quot;Gallery of Winners,&quot; Society of Editors, 2021:
 * Winner: Science Journalist of the Year. Tom Whipple, The Times ... ‘Whipple produces essential journalism for the pandemic ...’

–Dervorguilla (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This is now also in The Intercept. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel this Intercept bears mention in the article (also previously posted by 2.96.240.198). Given there was a proposal to add Furin Cleavage Sites(FCS) to SARS-related coronaviruses. The proposal was not funded, but it clearly demonstrates there was an existing idea to modify viruses in this fashion. It was noted from the beginning of the pandemic how unusual the FCS site was High Tinker (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted by the popular press and conspiracists, maybe, but the idea has long been dismissed in scientific circles. The very recent Holmes et al. paper pretty much puts the nail in the coffin:


 * Now, it's already long agreed that when newspapers and scientific journals disagree, the scientific journals (being written by experts and reviewed by their similarly qualified peers) have priority, since Wikipedia is a mainstream academic work, not a newspaper. If, in time, scientists think there's anything that this changes, then surely we'll find acceptable sources which say so. I don't know why the insistence on citing so many newspapers: I wouldn't write a simple work for university in the topic I'm studying using newspapers as sources; much less for actual hard sciences... Again, WP:BESTSOURCES is the pretty much best advice that can be given; and you're in luck, since most papers on this topic are available free of charge via Pubmed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a nail in a coffin. An WP:OPINION. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, a WP:SECONDARY review paper published by competent scientists in a credible journal. A far cry from the mere opinions of Wade or Deigin. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We're discussing a story reported by The Telegraph, The Times and The Intercept, not the articles from Wade or Deigin. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever, none of these are scientific journals. (If they were relevant to the topic I write about) I wouldn't cite them in my own work, so why on Wikipedia? You're trying to build up a false equivalence between these and legitimate scientific journals. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. I have not seen anyone here try to build up a "false equivalence" between these news organisations and scientific journals. We can include this story from these new sources about the furin cleavage site (FCS), which your Holmes et al paper says is subject to "recurrent speculation", and we can give his explanation as to how it is also consistent with natural origins. The speculation about the FCS go back to Wade and Deigin's articles, which were covered by many secondary sources curiously missing from this article, but these Telegraph, Times and Intercept articles now push it [further] above the threshold of notability and dueness for coverage in this article. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why I just added a mention of it in the article? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, why is this going into the bio-weapon section? The articles from The Telegraph, The Times and The Intercept do not imply the FCS would have been inserted into a CoV backbone to create a bioweapon. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You may have misread Wales's statement that mainstream media are more relevant than mainstream "academic work" here.
 * –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Jimbo Wales' opinion is no more important on this matter than anyone else's. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet Ryan treats Wales as a reputable authority on this question. Which means we can too.
 * Maybe we could help fix this page's mountain of text problem and the associated brain drain if we stop treating ourselves as reputable authorities. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The CNET article only establishes that Wales' opinion is likely DUE for the Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic article. I'm not sure how it would be relevant here in actually establishing what sources are reliable. This CNET reporter's opinion does not make Jimmy Wales an expert on coronaviruses. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, this is "how it would be relevant here in actually establishing what sources are reliable." Ryan published a video showing that
 * You supported it (at 0:02/0:18). So did more than one other "expert on coronaviruses." You lost 3:7.
 * According to Ryan, Wales then weighed in on how the lab leak debate should be covered. He did so by stating:
 * It looks like around 70% of the Wikipedia community would concur with Wales's opinion and 30% would dissent.
 * Many of the dissenters do seem have a more intense interest in this matter, though, which is wholly understandable. –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't mischaracterize my position. I voted that some aspects of pandemic origins were BMI, and that others were not. In the future, if you ever reference this again, please do so using the actual wikipedia archives instead of a screengrab by a journalist. Thanks.Wales didn't respond to the RfC. Don't put words in his mouth. You're hypothesizing about how he would have responded. It appears you may ultimately be misunderstanding the RfC results. One aspect was that many participants acknowledged BMI was an unnecessary angle, as WP:SCHOLARSHIP already preferences scientific publications over the news media over matters of science. So the question became "which are questions of science and which are questions of politics?" and we are still arguing about it to this day. Another aspect was that some parts of pandemic origins would be covered by BMI, while others would not. It was not a simple straw poll and nobody "lost." That's not how wikipedia WP:CONSENSUS works. I would urge you to re-read WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WIN.You also appear to misuse WP:DUE here, which actually relies on the overall coverage of the topic in many multiple sources, and asking the question "how often does X appear in articles about Y?" Where X is Jimmy Wales' opinion and Y is the Lab Leak theory. In that context, Ryan's article is one data point, in a non-topic relevant outlet, an article that is wholly focussed on Wikipedia. It's due for the Wikipedia coverage article. It has nothing to do with how we determine source reliability.Overall, this is straying further and further from the topic at hand, and is veering into WP:FORUM territory about my personal opinions and Wikipedia's overall coverage, which has nothing to do with whether the EHA content is any more DUE here... I'm gonna step back and do something else productive. Please don't tag me any further. Thanks — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 07:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do find the Intercept coverage to be more balanced (I'll leave it to others to confirm whether or not it's accurate). I appreciated the context of other scientists pouring cold water on the FCS idea, essentially that if that was the goal of an intentional genetic engineering plan they picked a really poor FCS among the available examples. Which is the context, if/when the information is added to the page, we should be including. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The "FCS is poor" argument doesn't really stand up to even cursory examination. Why is it so effective at entering human cells? Why is it so highly conserved in all virus variants? do you really think humans make optimal decisions all the time? High Tinker (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do find the Intercept coverage to be more balanced (I'll leave it to others to confirm whether or not it's accurate). I appreciated the context of other scientists pouring cold water on the FCS idea, essentially that if that was the goal of an intentional genetic engineering plan they picked a really poor FCS among the available examples. Which is the context, if/when the information is added to the page, we should be including. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The "FCS is poor" argument doesn't really stand up to even cursory examination. Why is it so effective at entering human cells? Why is it so highly conserved in all virus variants? do you really think humans make optimal decisions all the time? High Tinker (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I've re-arranged the sections a bit, because the difference between "accidental release of deliberately engineered virus" and "deliberate release of ..." are meager and usually focus on the same supposed evidence to support the "deliberately engineered virus" section, so it makes sense to merge them together. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Even if it is authentic, as it appears to be, the DARPA proposal does not prove the lab-leak hypothesis, nor does it come close to changing the consensus view that the pandemic started from a natural source." I would say this The Atlantic article is by far the best source to come out about this so far. It would be a good roadmap for inclusion, as this is becoming more and more DUE. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do they cite their source for claiming no change in consensus? It seems that is just the opinion of a few they have talked to? Is anyone surveying a large pool of scientists? We have quotes from other scientists that have changed position. 2600:1700:8660:E180:B0A0:1C2A:1977:A77F (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We also have quotes from scientists who say quite the opposite. So, instead of taking what individual editors think, we just follow the most reliable sources; and these point in one direction - that the consensus has not changed, and that the consensus is that a lab leak was and remains extremely unlikely (even more unlikely given the recent findings noted in the section below, it would seem). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If we have scientists saying opposite things, then dont we by definition not have consensus? 2600:1700:8660:E180:B0A0:1C2A:1977:A77F (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, if the vast majority of scientists are saying one thing (as evidenced by publications in scientific journals), then we do not give equal credence; because, although many statements of fact made in Wikipedia can be reliably sourced as being disputed by somebody somewhere, Wikipedia is written from a mainstream perspective. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the consensus in science journals before a month ago was a natural origin. Due to recent events many notable scientists have changed to "unsure". So far we have one article in the atlantic claiming to know that the consesus of all science has not changed. They cite no source for this. Was a poll taken? 2600:1700:8660:E180:69CE:BC4:C894:5E63 (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement you're making to the opposite is not supported by available evidence (you have not provided any scientific paper on the subject). Nor is it consistent with usual Wikipedia practice, which is to wait for evidence that the consensus has changed and not treat this as some form of breaking news story. The best I can do is point to this recently published (less than two weeks ago, which in the realm of scientific publications in medicine/hard sciences is basically like yesterday) review paper on the subject which is still very clearly in line with previous scientific writings on the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * From that paper: "No epidemic has been caused by the escape of a novel virus, and there is no data to suggest that the WIV—or any other laboratory—was working on SARS-CoV-2, or any virus close enough to be the progenitor, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic." The theorists are claiming that the breaking news DARPA grant (authenticity unproven at this point) demonstrates that the lab had the capability and could have been working on FCSs in CoVs. But I agree that it is worth waiting and keeping an eye out for new publications from Edward C. Holmes et al discussing the DARPA grant. 70.191.102.240 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * and 70.191.102.240, re: Holmes et al., &quot;Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review&quot;. This source's lead author had two known potential conflicts of interest: Can't we find a less biased source for this arguable claim? –Dervorguilla (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like anything disqualifying to me. We don't have much better sources for this, and "potential conflict of interest" does not translate on a 100% basis to "actual conflict of interest", especially when this has undergone peer-review in a reputable journal. As for the source being allegedly biased, one can easily compare to existing similar sources and see that they do not stand out in either tone or language, so that seems like making a hill out of a mole to me. And it isn't a particularly good objection: high-quality sources probably do have their biases, but analysis of the other elements of the source which impact its reliability and suitability for use on Wikipedia (i.e. its coherence with existing research in the field; it being published in a reputable journal and having undergone editorial and peer review; it being published by experts in the field) certainly allow us to cite it without much fuss. In fact, due to being rather recent, and all of the previously listed factors, it probably is one of the best sources we currently have. Claims to the opposite seem like straw grasping at best: what else would you cite, currently available, that is a "better source" than this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

As the OP here, I'd like to first apologize for this becoming somewhat of a forum/battleground. I'm unfamiliar with wiki guidelines on drafts in talk pages, but I think it would be worthwhile for us to construct a(some) draft(s) of a section or just a paragraph. Then perhaps we can vote on which version is most acceptable for inclusion. If you do not believe there are any notable theories that notably feature EcoHealth Alliance, please directly comment below this comment. I will attempt to start a draft below this comment thread, please feel free to edit or add information. 70.191.102.240 (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

EcoHealth's Relations to FCS Insertion Theory - Draft

 * Per WP:FRINGE we do not assert things like this that are so woefully without evidence. Not without describing how unlikely/impossible it is for SARS-COV-2 to be made in a lab. We must give the different theories in this article WP:DUE weight based upon the support they have in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Or at the very least based upon the weight of evidence they have in favor, as published in all WP:RSes. Nothing about these grants shows that these techniques could have created SARS-COV-2, and as pointed out in the Atlantic article, there is no known or substantive reason why anyone would have engineered SARS-COV-2 the way it exists. With such a poor cleavage site. Overall, there is zero scientific evidence that SARS-COV-2 could have been made in a lab, and this grant does not change that. The techniques used in this grant could not have been used to make SARS-COV-2. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Im confused why we need to validate the theory here? It is a theory and it has been well covered in the press. Why do we need to explore the intricacies of what is claimed? Why cant we say say that the theory is woefully without evidence? We could model this after 9/11 conspiracy theories? 70.191.102.240 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Adding four generally reliable news sources:
 * Engber and Federman emphasize that "good-faith investigations of these matters have proceeded in the face of a toxic shroud of secrecy." More mainstream sources support this viewpoint than contradict it. The McKay article adds further support to its being a significant aspect of our topic.
 * As required by policy (DUE and BALASP), our contributor is fairly representing this specific aspect. –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That can be added, but not in any way which suggests this is supportive of the idea that the virus was engineered in a lab; since that particular version of the lab leak theory is the sort of unfounded speculation which is rejected unanimously by higher quality sources and that is indeed a conspiracy theory. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether the virus was or wasn't manipulated before being accidentally leaked is just a matter of WP:OPINION at this point. No "high quality" source can determine this definitively, as I and other editors have said in previous discussions. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if you are right, if it's a matter of controversial opinion, that still brings us to WP:NPOV, which suggests using WP:BESTSOURCES, which in this case are pretty much WP:SCHOLARSHIP/WP:MEDRS; and that brings us to the same outcome: we should describe the idea that the virus was genetically manipulated (as opposed to the idea the virus could possibly have escaped, unnoticed and unmodified, from a lab) as basically a refuted conspiracy theory. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with and  that The Telegraph, The Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic are reliable sources and I concur with  and  that The Intercept's coverage is the most neutral, and I concur with you and  that contrary WP:OPINIONs should be added for NPOV. I find the Holmes et al argument about which FCS the WIV may have used to be a bit like arguing which weapon OJ may have used, and a very poor rebuttal overall, but I am fine with adding it if that's all we've got. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP considers those sources more reliable than others. I think that The Telegraph was irresponsible and The Intercept is in over it's head. fiveby(zero) 19:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you okay with "Many Scientists, including Peter Daszak, claim this is a conspiracy with no evidence." covering this? Could this be worded better? 70.191.102.240 (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s not “many scientists,” it’s the scientific consensus of relevant experts.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this new?
Good morning all. I don't follow the edit of this article, but I wonder if the news in the Telegraph today "Revealed: Wuhan and US scientists planned to create new coronaviruses - Before Covid pandemic erupted, group submitted proposals to mix genetic data of related strains and grow completely new sequences" "... grant application submitted to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), leaked last month, reveal that the international team of scientists planned to mix genetic data of closely related strains and grow completely new viruses. ... The Darpa proposals, leaked to the pandemic origins analysis group Drastic," is new Regards to all, Springnuts (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See above. What's new in the article is the anonymous source from the WHO commenting on the DARPA proposals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiveby (talk • contribs) 13:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like an interesting bit to include in the wiki article: 2600:8804:6600:C4:3960:5A22:2350:25AC (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Missed that it was an anonymous "WHO collaborator" and is not an ...anonymous source from the WHO.... fiveby(zero) 18:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks like theyre described in another paragraph as "A genetics expert working with the World Health Organisation." Hard to know how intimate that role would be. 2600:8804:6600:C4:3960:5A22:2350:25AC (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The source said it was noteworthy that the cut-off for generating such an average sequence was viruses that only had five per cent genetic divergence from each other. It's an interesting circumstantial suggestion by this source that they believe it indicates evidence of manipulation, though it's odd that they reference RaTG13 (not announced until much later) when one would expect multiple such 95% similar viruses would be identified if this were the case. Just me, or does this come across as motivated reasoning? Just pushing the boundary of where the deception started without actual evidence (also worth noting, the source seems to suggest a weird burden of proof, and calling any alternate explanations "misinformation"). Bakkster Man (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They also mentioned the Laos BANAL strains in the article. "So far the closest naturally occurring virus to Sars-CoV-2 is a strain called Banal-52, which was reported from Laos last month and shares 96.8 per cent of the genome." 2600:8804:6600:C4:3960:5A22:2350:25AC (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the anonymous source suggesting the BANAL strains were previously undisclosed discoveries used to create SARS-CoV-2? It doesn't appear they are. Instead they seem to be saying "we wouldn't be able to detect if it happened", and even though there are natural viruses which seem to match the genetic hallmarks the source suggests this research would result in (I'm not a virologist, but isn't phylogenics a lot more about sequences themselves than "averages"?), this is being put forward as evidence for manipulation instead of for the vast undiscovered variety in nature. I'm not opposed to noting that proponents are pointing to these details to support their arguments, but I'd like to see something with a bit more rigor if we're going to go into details of what is and isn't possible. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question, I've read elsewhere on the internet that there were samples collected in Laos in 2017 (by whom im not sure). I've also seen people state that all samples are not always sequenced and published. Hard to know. But as you say Its not discussed in this article. 2600:8804:6600:C4:3960:5A22:2350:25AC (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is unsubstantiated rumor and speculation without any basis in evidence. It does not surprise me at all that this IP was rangeblocked today after making this and other edits. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, this week theorists are pointing to page 61 of this FOIA release. Will have to wait and see if it is deemed noteworthy. https://www.scribd.com/document/537027808/Gain-Of-Function-Communications-Between-EcoHealth-Alliance-And-NIAID 2600:8804:6600:C4:ACE4:BFE4:5C45:C757 (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All this indicates is that bats at wet markets were collected and shipped to the WIV as part of zoonotic sampling. Nothing to do with virus sequences. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 10:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Now, leaked emails between EcoHealth Alliance and US government funders show viral samples were being collected from bats in Laos and sent back to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for study." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/20/bat-virus-shipped-wuhan-laboratory-covid-outbreak-emails-show/ 2600:8804:6600:83:F9B8:305E:EC20:D062 (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, phylogenetics is comparing base by base, aligning each base of the genome to see how similarly the two viruses have evolved. It's a lot more than "%" identical. It's also comparing the actual amount of the genomes that are 100% identical discrete chunks, or very highly similar, and where it may have just shifted! Very different! And occasionally, it's done comparing the amino acids that result from those base triplets (AKA codons)! And how similar those amino acids are electrochemically! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * extremely motivated reasoning. And clearly not a person who has expertise with viral genetics. As previously described, "only" is not a word often used when comparing two viral genomes that are 5% divergent and 30kb in length. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

EcoHealth in relation to origin investigations
If we decide to mention EcoHealth in the lab leak theory page, it might be interesting to mention how divisive affiliations with the organization has become. Nice new Science article on the subject concerning The Lancet COVID-19 Commission.

"Instead, Keusch asserts, Sachs’s decision reflected his own biases. “Anybody who had a connection to EcoHealth became persona non grata,” Keusch says. “I had a long email to Jeff, which said you’re conflating expertise, collaborations, or connections with conflict of interest.”"

"Last month, Sachs says, his concerns about conflicts broadened beyond Daszak to other task force members. On 10 September, he learned details of an NIH grant to EcoHealth, “Understanding Risk of Zoonotic Virus Emergence in EID Hotspots of Southeast Asia,” which was released following Freedom of Information Act requests from The Intercept. Keusch and three other task force members are listed as co-investigators. “None of them reported this involvement with the EcoHealth Alliance grant, though they had been asked to do so,” Sachs says. “In these circumstances, I ended the task force.”"

https://www.science.org/content/article/fights-over-confidentiality-pledge-and-conflicts-interest-tore-apart-covid-19-origin-probe

2600:8804:6600:C4:3810:149:B7D5:A6D6 (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This sounds like content more applicable to the EcoHealth page or to a page about the commission than to this page. We must determine if it is WP:DUE here, per WP:RSUW. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is WP:DUE here insomuch as RS report it as advancing the lab leak theory, or at least making it more plausible. Alexander Kekulé has some good quotes in this N-TV piece. LondonIP (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Content removal on 25 October
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1051752553

"1) a declined grant proposal is a non-event 2) WP:NOTNEWS 3) the group at the origin of this leak is of extremely dubious reliability and trustworthiness 4) this was already discussed here..."

1 if it is a non event, why has the media not ignored it?

2 are you proposing that we delete the entire "Renewed media attention" section?

3 the telegraph also released this same information.

4 where has it been discussed? what was the conclusion?

2600:8804:6600:C4:CC9F:4E65:9616:EAB6 (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This commenter appears to misunderstand the content of WP:NOTNEWS re their points 1 and 2. The Telegraph is not reliable for this content. It was discussed above, and there is not currently consensus in favor of your version. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * and, how did you determine the consensus against ’s edit and did you consider trying a WP:FIXIT before deleting it? I see comments in favour of covering this story from 70.191.102.240, , , 2.96.240.198, , and the IPv4 on this talk page and from  and another IPv4 on the COVID-19 pandemic talk page. This story has been going around in RS for weeks, advancing the theory that this page is about, making it very WP:DUE in every sense of the word. Since there very clearly is on covering this story here, your only concern should be wording and sourcing. LondonIP (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this is off-topic here (because it didn't happen, and because the consensus of scientists [in the better quality sources] is that COVID was not a laboratory engineered virus, so the relevance of GoFR is dubious; and really there's surely a better way to discuss the US controversy over GoFR than mention some leaked rejected grant proposal): this goes in the page about Eco-Health, more probably. It is not an encyclopedia's duty to report something off-topic, even if it "has been going around in RS for weeks" (and yet, every time it is discussed, the only two major sources are The Intercept and The Telegraph, again). Again, go see WP:NOTNEWS. What more, and what you should definitively not be doing, is pinging people: that is obvious, partisan canvassing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , there doesn't seem to be any consensus here against 's edit, and your oft repeated argument that scientists agree that COVID-19 cannot be a product of gain-of-function engineering doesn't enjoy consensus in this discussion, or in similar discussions on related pages. I would be happy to formulate an RfC bringing in all editors who have previously discussed this matter. There are plenty of newer sources that Prototyperspective didn't even cite, such as this N-TV quoting Alexander Kekulé saying it is a possibility, or this Le Point pieceand Frankfurter Allgemeine oped on Simon Wain-Hobson's position. Please undo your revert of Prototyperspective's edit. LondonIP (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Go read my comment below about how this can be included. As for your sources: no. 1 is clearly in a newspaper, and if it's just the opinion of one scientist being quoted in a newspaper, it is a worthless as usual for writing an encyclopedia (you wouldn't go looking in the newspapers to write a scientific paper about a scientific subject: so not a good source; see also WP:MEDPOP); no. 2 I'm not even going to bother, if it is an acceptable source I expect you to provide me the original citation and not a google document; and no. 3 is an opinion piece and shouldn't be used for anything except the opinion of its author, if it is relevant (given it is a name which I've not heard before, and given they don't appear to be a prominent figure in this, I'd guess not). Now go take a look at the sources given at WP:NOLABLEAK, then open LitCovid (link given in the sources section); Pubmed; or even Google Scholar, and try to find similar sources, written by A) people with relevant qualifications which B) have been published in an acceptable peer-reviewed journal and C) which are clearly reviews of existing litterature and not novel experiments or reports. That is the spirit of WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. And that kind of source clearly substantiates that the scientific consensus is indeed that this was not engineered. That you don't like it does not make it "not consensus anymore". As for your request, X mark.svg Not done, and don't ask again. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You appear to be confusing the application of WP:DUE on content proposed for this page, with the same content for the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 page. The Intercept's September 7 report on their FOIA lawsuit uncovering research, reportedly classified as gain-of-function research by relevant experts, and allegedly funded by the US government, gives prominent mention to the lab leak theory (the subject of this page). This report was extensively covered by secondary sources, which also give prominent mention to the lab leak theory   . The Intercept published a follow up October 21 report on the seemingly contradictory assertions made by Echohealth about its experiments on bat coronaviruses with the WIV, which was also covered by secondary sources,.
 * These two reports should not be confused with The Intercept's Sep 23 report on the EHA grant proposal to DARPA that was leaked to DRASTIC, which is also DUE for this article as a related claim, as covered widely in other secondary sources           . Given the US government's possible involvement in this, it’s not all that surprising that we have to have rely on the Intercept and European media to report this. In the last few days, the editorial boards of the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal wrapped all of this up, decrying the state of affairs  . Nature and Science latest articles  also follow these stories.
 * Please undo your revert, otherwise I will have to file a case at WP:AE. This is a contentious topic area and you are expected to attempt a fix beforeing reverting. LondonIP (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You may have some very good points here, but your comment that "you are expected to attempt a fix before reverting" isn't in accord with EDITCON policy. If your first edit is reverted, try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns. –Dervorguilla (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As we both already know, WP:NOTNEWS is a notability policy; editors use it to determine whether a topic should have its own article, rather than to determine the content of an established article. I believe that most editors here do understand and accept that our 25 July 2021 consensus has made that policy irrelevant to these discussions. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT applies to notability as much as to article content. I don't know where you get the impression otherwise, unless you are only reading half the words or something. WP:NOTNEWS seems particularly clear that it applies to article content just as much if not more than to notability: for ex. "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary"; or "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style." Now, knowing what is news style and what is not might be though, especially for politically sensible subjects. You're free to go look up the style of typical academic writing, whether it be in Britannica (available online), any other encyclopedic source, or any serious book about a serious subject written by somebody with qualifications in the relevant subject; as that is about the style, level of details, and tone with which this should be written. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See the NOTNEWS#NEWSREPORTS policy: and the linked guideline (Notability):  The second half of NEWSREPORTS surely does apply to "article content"—but it doesn't really seem to bear on the content in dispute here.
 * To illustrate: Routine news reporting of announcements is not a sufficient basis for inclusion. The content here is about information that didn't get announced.
 * Likewise, no one has provided us a reason to think that most biomedical investigators would view the cited biosafety concerns as daily trivia. –Dervorguilla (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a legitimate and easily discernible difference between stuff like what is being proposed here; and stuff like Despite the unlikelihood of the event, and although definitive answers are likely to take years of research, biosecurity experts have called for a review of global biosecurity policies, citing known gaps in international standards for biosafety.[70][229] The situation has also reignited a debate over gain-of-function research, although the intense political rhetoric surrounding the issue has threatened to sideline serious inquiry over policy in this domain.[232] (which is a proper way to describe this in an encyclopedic fashion and not in a "oh this was in the news"-fashion - copied over from Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19, if you ask). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes this is a proper way to describe these things in an encyclopedic tone imo as well. Just detailing every single turn of event may be salacious and interesting to lab leak theorists, but it is not encyclopedic. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Salacious means arousing or appealing to sexual desire or imagination . Not to question anyone's preferences, but I suspect that most readers would likely regard Prototyperspective's material as closer to encyclopedic (in the sense of comprehensive ). –Dervorguilla (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever the tone issue, this was still unencyclopedic material, of little relevance here unless one wants to push some disruptive point about GoFR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would tell you to interpret the word in context. What you're doing is called "linguistic prescriptivism" and I have never appreciated it. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You call this prescriptivism. Wikipedia calls it descriptivism. See Linguistic prescription and esp. Webster's Third New International Dictionary: –Dervorguilla (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * re. your reverts: you're claiming I'm editorialising, and that it is "partisan editing" (an unfounded accusation which you'll hopefully retract); although I literally provided quotes from the sources; and although you apparently have no problem with the much more blatantly unencyclopedic text originally under discussion here. Please explain yourself? And if the issue is "subtle", as you claim, why not just fix a few problematic words, instead of reverting the whole of it. You do want some content on the controversy about GoFR, right? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This paragraph in the Background section got removed for these three reasons: (1) subtle editorializing, (2) undue implication, and (3) seemingly partisan presentation.
 * 1. See MOS:EDITORIAL -
 * 2. See MOS:SAID -
 * 3. See NPOV#IMPARTIAL -
 * EDITCON policy says, Do not try to discuss disputes across multiple edit summaries. I ask that LondonIP,, RandomCanadian, or others first try suggesting compromises that may satisfy all concerns. –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks you very much for just quoting guidelines without explaining how the edit was problematic, now I have to attempt mind-reading. Using words such as "although" is only problematic if the link is not present in sources. I literally provided a quote which says that Sorting out the balance of risks and benefits of the research has proved over the years to be immensely challenging. And now, the intensity of the politics and rhetoric over the lab leak theory threatens to push detailed science policy discussions to the sidelines". I don't see how using "although" is problematic at all here. Nevermind the broader context of the source (which will show the quote is already an appropriate summary and not cherrypicking), if you can't be bothered, but in short, the usage of although was just natural English writing used to link two ideas which are linked in the sources. You haven't explained how you think no. 2 or no. 3 apply (merely parroting policy is not an explanation), so I can't fix that. And if the issue was just a few words, maybe you're the one who needs to compromise and not revert the whole of the edit? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Point 2 applies to this disputed passage: Researchers have noted ... that words are often twisted to become "fodder for conspiracy theories." According to the source (Smith), one expert biologist (Rodrigo) says this. Per MOS:SAID, using the term noted suggests that Rodrigo said this with a higher degree of carefulness than other authorities said things, or with greater access to evidence. Nothing in the cited source supports that comparison. ∎ –Dervorguilla (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll just fix this with "researchers have said..." — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Point 3 applies to this disputed passage: Researchers have noted ... that words are often twisted to become "fodder for conspiracy theories." According to the source (Smith), Rodrigo also said this: Per NPOV#IMPARTIAL, quoting directly and selectively from a participant in a heated dispute can lead to articles becoming partisan commentaries. ∎ –Dervorguilla (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And of course that required you to revert the whole of the edit and vaguely point at the MOS (which only says that these words are "to watch", not "forbidden") until prompted for a clearer explanation... The simple solution, if you object to a single word, is to WP:FIXIT. See also Revert only when necessary. re. point 3: I've literally quoted the relevant passage from the source (including the quoted words); your objection makes no sense (and Rodrigo's words, as clear in the available quote - which is provided in full, are not dependent on the lab leak being what happened or not). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  20:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * the "fodder for conspiracy theories" line is also supported by the Hakim and Frutos reviews. Which say very similar things:On one side, ‘science’ is often used to support conspiracy theories. The believers of conspiracy will continuously search for ‘scientific evidence’ to defend their claims that SARS‐CoV‐2 is a human‐made virus, such as the case with an HIV‐1 bioRxiv paper that has been retracted. On the other side, however, the believers of conspiracy theories criticise sciences when scientific evidence argues against their beliefs. Thus, the issues are clearly on their ideology, not the science. (Hakim)The origin of SARS-Cov-2 is still passionately debated since it makes ground for geopolitical confrontations and conspiracy theories besides scientific ones... However, no epizootic, no animal reservoir and SARS-CoV-2 virus have ever been identified. Incidentally, this failure in identifying the virus and the reservoir species in the natural environment facilitated the development of conspiracy theories linking SARS-CoV-2 to genetic engineering. (Frutos)So this doesn't rely on just that one individual citation, we have plenty of reason to believe this is true and say-able in wiki-voice. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This passage is still disputed: Researchers have said ... that words are often twisted to become "fodder for conspiracy theories." It quotes directly and selectively from Rodrigo and selectively from Smith. This goes against a well-established core policy, NPOV#IMPARTIAL: And by selectively quoting that phrase "in wiki-voice", we risk making the whole article sound partisan. –Dervorguilla (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As you well know, NPOV means neutral according to the sources; and here you have two review papers (Hakim + Frutos) and Rodrigo making essentially the same point (that the debate has been politicised [something which is also mentioned by Maxmen in Nature, among others], and that scientists are being, sometimes, misinterpreted by conspiracists - Rodrigo says that "What we say can become fodder for conspiracy theories. This is not an issue of a particular country’s problem. If the lab leak hypothesis is plausible and is shown to be true then this is an issue into how we manage labs and research facilities. It is not about China. It is about research facilities and how we manage that everywhere.", making clear that this isn't an issue about whether the lab leak is true or not, but a global issue about research facilities and about scientists becoming soundbites in a political game, something which he hints at right before with "One of the problems we have as scientists is our words are co-opted by people who have a political agenda"). I don't see how you can claim I am selectively quoting this scientist. If you think this isn't good enough; then either A) suggest a better way to word it or B) find sources which say otherwise. I can't read your mind, and if you just keep quoting policy at me without telling me how exactly this can be improved, I can't help. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I must be out of the loop on Rodrigo. Who is he engaged in a heated dispute with? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost everyone, it would seem... He refuses to discount the lab leak theory. But, “It is not about China. It is about research facilities and how we manage that everywhere.” –Dervorguilla (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am new to this page and still trying to catch up, but I was surprised to see this contentious section under "Background". This content reads more like general commentary and doesn't seem to be appropriate for a background section.  SmolBrane (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The controversy over GoFR - which existed before COVID, is, like the facts that previous novel pathogens have not leaked from labs, or the fact that lab accidents do happen, clearly useful context + an interesting development: maybe it should go in some other section. Where else would you put it? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  03:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not objecting to mentions of GoF research. GoF is mentioned in the section although perhaps it could be expanded for context.  I'm just not seeing how Rodrigo's quote constitutes background information, and he also mentions the significance of the proximity of the Wuhan facility anyway.  Conspiracy theories of previous viral outbreaks are mentioned in the section currently, perhaps the conspiracy theories surrounding COVID could use more direct mention in this section, but nonetheless quoting Rodrigo doesn't sound very historical here.  This:
 * “Researchers have noted that the politicisation of the debate is making the process more difficult, and that words are often twisted to become "fodder for conspiracy theories."
 * Is not background information. Unless I'm mistaken on my interpretation of 'Background'.  SmolBrane (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Concurring with SmolBrane's interpretation. Concerned about MOS:WEASEL, too, which says: Accurately represent the opinions of the source. This passage seems to directly quote one researcher (Rodrigo) out of context. –Dervorguilla (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's inappropriate to include this in a background section. Further, the lead—where this sort of commentary should be placed—already addresses “fodder for conspiracy theories”: “Some versions of the theory, particularly those alleging human intervention in the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are based on misinformation or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.“ and it already addresses politicization: “Some scientists agree that the possibility of a lab leak should be examined as part of the ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19,[20][21] though they have expressed concerns about the risks of politicization.”  SmolBrane (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes; it may be inappropriate to include this anywhere, as written. It sounds vague and even ambiguous. (Here's the context for the Rodrigo quote: "If the lab leak hypothesis is plausible and is shown to be true then this is an issue into how we manage labs and research facilities.") –Dervorguilla (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC) 17:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Re "(A)" - Willing to try. It may not be as tricky as some editors think. See WP:FRINGE/ALT: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Compare that with the lead sentence in your source (Smith): So it may now be OK for us to paraphrase Grohmann (who notes that COVID-19 mutated a lot faster than previous natural viruses [and] says scientists need to study bats in the area as well as obtain the genomic sequencing of the earliest patients) or Lentzos (part of a team that studied standards at 59 [BSL-4] labs ... in 23 countries... Only a quarter of those countries scored well on security bio-safety measures. There has been concern from within China that there is not enough focus on biosafety or training compared with other countries.). –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Don't think i've argued in favor of inclusion, at least haven't yet seen any good proposed text. There are more sources available than merely The Telegraph, and The Intercept of course, and when the editorial board of The Washington Post starts asking questions it's likely to stay in the news. Speculation and lacking 'encyclopedic context', but then I would say most of this article has already gone beyond the WP:NOTNEWS #2 policy. fiveby(zero) 14:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , please see Prototyperspective's edit. LondonIP (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, i saw it. Cited the wrong Intercept article, quoted US Right to Know, and asserted facts that are very much in dispute. fiveby(zero) 22:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The denying of the grant proposal is a non-event? I disagree.  The body of evidence regarding the activities of laboratories encompass published work and unpublished work.  In the absence of proper audits of lab logs and notebooks, the surface of a leaked grant proposal has uncovered that the specific scientists listed as proponents had, at least temporarily, conceived artificial FCS insertions as an interesting/useful line of inquiry.  After this evidence emerged, they can no longer say that there is no record of them (again, published+unplished activities) thinking of tweaking viruses in ways that can get close to SARS-CoV-2.  However, I do not feel that it is a fact that has enough DUE weight to be included in this article.  Perhaps we can try discussing it first at EcoHealth alliance's talk page.  Forich (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It didn't cite the wrong Intercept article – the other article was linked from that article so I tried to keep it minimal and only add one ref instead of a whole bunch. Which facts were wrongly asserted rather than described in terms of what people claim or what could potentially/seemingly be the case? Why should it not cite "US Right to Know", or more accurately FOIA, even though it's relevant as materials [...] were released following a FOIA lawsuit by The Intercept? I find it interesting how editors on Wikipedia often bend policies to their liking (or rather passing over WP:RS and simply calling some things fringe and unreliable and apparently thinking WP:DUE means info-extensiveness should resemble what they and self-described non-expert "skeptics" would like to believe, not resemble coverage by the media & experts), having the effect of delaying inclusion of relevant, well-sourced info until public interest in a topic fades or violating WP:NPOV (often using WP:FRINGE as an excuse). See WP:RS and WP:DUE, they are pretty clear. I would very much agree that form and accuracy are very important on such sensitive issues and I do have WP:AGF in that I think that editors only want the best for Wikipedia and the public. I think it's wrong to debate whether we should include content on this – instead we should debate how we include it (as well as using better rationales for removals). For why the content should be included see e.g. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events when considering this to inform about an "event" – however, in this article it would be best to not consider it to be mostly about the event at all...it's more about the new knowledge that is highly relevant to the lab leak theory as well as biosafety more generally (as an explanation think about info about the greenhouse effect in the climate change article: it could be informed about as an "event" of the reports and studies that showed a link, but should also be included more generally simply as relevant knowledge). My addition was something like a proposal I guess and people could have edited it directly or have made other proposals of texts to potentially include on the talk page.
 * I don't care much about the inclusion of this particular content here, so I won't even try to reinsert it myself – what I care about is the utter failure of Wikipedia in some cases even though it still works very well overall. --Prototyperspective (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's wrong to debate whether we should include content on this – instead we should debate how we include it (as well as using better rationales for removals). As a broad observation, this seems to be where most content inclusions get bogged down. Particularly when the first inclusion attempts aren't neutrally written (as is somewhat expected for contentious topics, the most motivated to include are often motivated by the 'gotcha' factor). I might have some availability to look into this over the weekend and try and come up with a proposed wording that would be less contentious, which would hopefully help us get past this dispute. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like we've been contemporaneously discussing two disputed passages: one from Smith, &quot;Conspiracy, Cover-Up or Distraction&quot;, and one from Lerner and Hvistendahl, &quot;New Details Emerge&quot;. As it happens, both of these "first inclusion attempts" quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute, in a way that goes against our core policy on maintaining an IMPARTIAL tone. You may be on to something here! –Dervorguilla (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I see, even the US intelligence report notes that the majority of them agrees with the mainstream science that COVID was not engineered in a lab (On the question of genetic engineering, the report said that most intelligence analysts believe the virus was not human-made in any way, though that assessment is calibrated as low confidence. As of August this year, there have been no sign of genetic signatures that are usually the telltale signs of engineering, it said, but pointed to academic studies that “some genetic engineering techniques may make genetically modified viruses indistinguishable from natural viruses”.). I don't see why we have to keep pretending that "engineered in a lab" is a valid position in light of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV; and I don't see what is not impartial about describing the spread of of various conspiracy theories (as opposed to the not-quite-conspiracy-version) as having resulted from the misinterpretation of scientist word's or stating that the political nature of the debate (for ex. the diplomatic spat between US and China) has interfered with the debate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Importantly, the US intelligence analysts who assessed with low confidence that the virus was not genetically engineered, also point out that some genetic engineering techniques may make genetically modified viruses indistinguishable from natural viruses. When I search the archives for "Baric" and "seamless techniques", I see editors have pointed this out many times before, including two comments from in January, , a comment from  , and another from CutePeach  , in May. Seamless technologies are just one of the techniques the IC describes, that make modified viruses indistinguishable from natural viruses. If Ralph Baric already explained to RAI in November of 2020 what this IC report tells us today, why are editors still arguing about this nearly a year on? Seamless techniques are not even the only techniques the IC refers to, which the FOIAs that  was trying to cover detail, as Richard Ebright explains here. LondonIP (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your above edit includes 2 or 3 editors who are topic banned (one of them is also indeffed due to other more problematic edits) specifically for the same kind of behaviour as you (including refusing to acknowledge sourcing requirements; overt [like the pinging you're doing] or covert canvassing; twisting sources up on their heels to support your position [you can't take a source which says that US analysts have assessed that the virus was "not genetically engineered", even if it says this is with "low confidence", and somehow make it into being support for "this was engineered via seamless techniques" - that is the most egregious, unacceptable kind of mental gymnastics one could imagine: source misrepresentation, and it is more akin to the kind of cherrypicked arguments one would expect from WP:FLAT proponents than from someone seeking to build a neutral, mainstream encyclopedia]). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was banned too, but that’s only because you lobbied hard for administrators to ban anyone who would oppose your POV. Anyway, where did claim the "low confidence" supports "this was engineered via seamless techniques"? I didn’t get that from reading their post. Gimiv (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't even remember interacting with you, nor do I see any of my edits from the time when you were blocked even mentioning you . So wrong on that count. As to LIPs edit, they're clearly responding to my statement that "I don't see why we have to keep pretending that "engineered in a lab" is a valid position in light of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV"; and to do so they're attempting to create a SYNTH link between the "low confidence" of the US IC assessment, the "seamless techniques", and various statements by isolated scientists (including a Twitter post by Ebright, who is not a particularly mainstream source). This is despite them having been presented with a literal boatload of quality scientific sources which explicitly say that COVID was not engineered in a lab - and despite them being given the opportunity to look for similar sources which contradict this (hint: they found none, else we wouldn't be here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I second RC's analysis here. LondonIP, if you weren't citing the IC report to support the plausibility of the deliberate engineering position, then you should know that I've also been misinterpreting your comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , you spend an awful lot of time reporting editors you don't agree with for banning . As the editor who filed the COVID-19 lab leak draft for deletion before it was even published, and even tried having it deleted from userspace, you seem to care an awful lot about this topic. You also posted an RfC trying to get the lab leak theory labeled as a conspiracy theory, and even though it was closed with no consensus, you still insist that parts of it are FRINGE and NPOV, and continue lobbying admins like  to ban editors like  who disagree with your POV, which is not based on consensus. You claim that all scientists who say bioengineering is a possibility are "not mainstream", and that all sources their views are found in are "not BESTSOURCES". Bioengineering is not only a possibility according to Ebright, but also Alexander Kekulé and Simone Wain-Hobson, as LondonIP has noted above, and there are other scientists quoted on this, like Jack Nunberg. According to Nobel laureate David Baltimore: "You can't distinguish between the two origins from just looking at the sequence.", a view expressed after he walked back his "smoking gun" comment to Wade. If you disagree with this position, open an RFC or better yet, an ARBCOM case. Gimiv (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The above is entirely off-topic, but just a note, "lobbying admins like Johnuniq to ban editors like Yodabyte" is an entirely factually wrong invention. Not only have I not "lobbied" any admin to ban Yodabyte, but specifically for, my only edit to their talk page was to report a dynamic IP who was posting this nonsense; and I don't remember pinging them otherwise. Making unsubstantiated accusations, however, like what you are doing above, IS a clear violation of WP:ASPERSIONS, and given you've been warned enough about it, I'm not going to reply to your comments any further, since you have shown you are not here to collaborate but to attack me. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See our NPOV#DUE core policy. The reliable sources policy says that respected mainstream publications do count as published, reliable non-academic sources. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I know what the policy says, and I find it borderline disrespectful for you to quote it without attempting to explain how the article does not follow it. WP:FALSEBALANCE says that "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."; and WP:FRINGE also says that "Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear." Given that we have newspapers, US government intelligence, scientific journals, all agreeing that "deliberately enginnered in a lab" is not the origin of the virus, and the only arguments to the contrary are really the exact kind of stuff described in WP:FLAT (stuff like Gimiv's comment, which are clearly an attempt to personalise the dispute; or their persistent dubious sourcing, which is point no. 2 just underneath) or WP:CPUSH (the textbook example being attempts to dismiss papers like the recent Holmes review because of alleged conflicts of interests, which doesn't really hold water [compare with the example in CPUSH: They argue that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral.]). Said arguments can thus be dismissed. Given the lack of a policy- or sourced-based argument for changing how we cover the "engineered in a lab" variant of the lab leak (which is definitely a conspiracy theory, unlike the milder variant), I don't see what you want from me, nor do I see a purpose in continuing this, since we're obviously not convincing each other. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , so if I understand you correctly, you want to label the possibility of the virus of having been bioengineered to be so WP:FRINGE that it absolves you of the responsibility of fixing an edit which posits it as a possibility? I see this as a great opportunity to start an ARCA and get clarification and how WP:FRINGE applies to theoretical possibilities in origin tracing that reputed scientists have commented on in reliable sources. LondonIP (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't understand me correctly, I'm unable to figure out if it is because I'm not clear enough (my patience for attempting the explain the same thing in unlimited different ways has, sadly for you, worn out) or if it is because you're misinterpreting me like you're misunderstanding the sources which I provided; and on an unrelated note I wouldn't recommend going to ARCA to ask for the same thing as something that's just been rejected. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * re. the blunt question at the end: "how WP:FRINGE applies to theoretical possibilities in origin tracing that reputed scientists have commented on in reliable sources" - when those same "theoretical possibilities" have been mostly dismissed in more reliable sources (such as review papers written by reputed scientists, which have been reviewed by their peers and not by a newspaper's editor), then WP:PARITY comes into play: Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. If an article is written about a well-known topic about which many peer-reviewed articles are written, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced to obscure texts that lack peer review. Given there is a significant amount of peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals on COVID and COVID origins, and that I can find a dearth of them (i.e. I can't find any) supporting deliberate engineering, it's clear which way this is going. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * are you on the right page? LondonIP already explained you are confusing the application of different policies for different pages. This page is about a theory and RS quote scientists talking about bioengineering as a theoretical possibility. Seems WP:DUE to me.Francesco espo (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not the content that was in dispute, is it? This is the edit LondonIP has been berating me about. "high-risk research that could have led to the current pandemic" and "The documents could validify concerns about laboratory biosafety in general and at Wuhan." certainly doesn't seem like "quotes of scientists in RS talking about a theoretical possibility" to me, unless there's something wrong with my English... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * These are both very clearly in wiki-voice and thereby subject to enhanced sourcing requirements, to sources which likely do not support the statements in question, or are not reliable for them. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * that might be true, but is still not a good reason to delete a good editor's good faith attempt to cover a controversial topic. Changing an edit so that is not in Wikivoice is one thing, but RandomCanadian is arguing against including this story at all, which has made this discussion one of the longest of them all. Why does it have to be like this?--Francesco espo (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with RC that this story is not yet substantial enough, covered enough, or carrying enough evidentiary weight to be WP:DUE for this article. We've already put a section on this in EcoHealth Alliance. But as of yet, there is no substantial reason to believe these experiments even occurred, let alone that they could create SARS-CoV-2. We know they could not have created SARS-CoV-2 this way. We know the grant was rejected. Some people assume that the experiments were conducted anyway, without evidence. How can we, in good faith, write about that in this article given that there is no reason to believe the two are connected? If we do cover it, WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY tell us that we need to cover it from the mainstream perspective, namely that some people have said this, but there is no evidence to support it and it is not the mainstream view. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on, it's not my job to cover other people's mistakes. If the issues were only minor grammatical errors, or simple enough omissions, sure. But when the edit has much more fundamental issues (such as those highlighted by Shibboleth), then really you should maybe take the revert as constructive criticism, not as a (as I understand your comment to be implying) "lazy attempt to delete a good faith edit". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , none of London​​'s RS say the experiments went ahead, but they did mention it in context of the lab leak theory, so I don't even know what you're talking about. If neither you or are going to WP:FIXIT, then you are contravening WP:POVDELETION.--Francesco espo (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * FE, you are being needlessly combative. If you're so worried about this, nothing is preventing your from drafting a proposed text which addresses the issues with the existing one. Complaining that others (especially when they're being borderline harassed with constant links to WP:FIXIT) were not doing so when you were not yourself trying to do it is a bit ironic, is it not? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Especially when the editor asking everyone else to WP:FIXIT is the editor who is most interested in including the material... There's a reason why edit requests typically require the proposed change to already have talk page consensus. It's because it's a waste of time to spend our time arguing about this instead of actually proposing changes. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not just a lack of NPOV that led us to delete the content? It's a problem with WP:DUE and WP:PARITY and WP:RSUW. In particular, see WP:PARITY: Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. If an article is written about a well-known topic about which many peer-reviewed articles are written, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced to obscure texts that lack peer review. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Importantly, and I want to emphasize this: I am not opposed to including this content here. It simply must be A) contextualized properly, B) restricted to due inclusive content, and C) based on the best quality reliable sources. The edits described above do not meet any of those criteria, and indeed contravene several other policies besides. Let's work together to find an NPOV, DUE, and verifiable set of sentences about this to include here. I would suggest we start with the content that is in EcoHealth Alliance and work backwards from there. See below:
 * — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Shibbolethink's draft looks pretty good. Is it worth adding that it was EcoHealth's grant application? 2600:1700:8660:E180:810F:4EE6:EF97:C7CB (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Worth adding. It looks like the EcoHealth aspect may have some overall significance to the lab-leak theory. (Per NPOV#BALASP, we attempt to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in ... reliable, published material on the subject.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Worth adding. It looks like the EcoHealth aspect may have some overall significance to the lab-leak theory. (Per NPOV#BALASP, we attempt to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in ... reliable, published material on the subject.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And another source: https://theintercept.com/2021/11/03/coronavirus-research-ecohealth-nih-emails/ LondonIP (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

And hopefully this source brings this 15,000 word discussion to a close. LondonIP (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a primary opinion article written by two people with no expertise in virology. Why would this change anything? It's not a particularly reliable source. It's published in a reputable journal, but it is still an opinion piece written by non-experts. The pertinent policies would be: WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSPRIMARY — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty much everything on this page is WP:OPINION, and molecular biologists and bioinformaticians are very much relevant experts, as are virologists like Alexander Kekulé and Simone Wain-Hobson. The position of this peer reviewed perspective paper is that the FCS is consistent with both engineered and natural evolution, so its about as neutral as a paper can get on the question. If you want to take this to WP:RS/N, I will point out that the last discussion on a peer reviewed paper on this topic ended there just before an response paper came out on it, enabling us to present all WP:OPINIONS as per NPOV. More importantly, it demonstrates the point made in a recent ARBCOM case, and a similar point MarshallKe made in Village Pump about how editors will bend policy to suite a POV. This is a particularly good example, as Tyshkovskiy and Panchin clearly state that Segreto and Deigin did not claim the RaTG13 itself was an ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 in their article, which is something we have discussed when you WP:CHERRYPICKING something from a (primary source) source to construct that straw man . Considering the length of these discussions, this can be considered as another case of Tendentious editing. LondonIP (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)