Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 8

Split the "Wuhan lab leak story" section into: "accidental leak" and "engineered as a bio-weapon"
This section is creating so much confusion and debate, and one of the reason is that, as the second sentence states: We're really dealing with two completely different hypotheses, that are treated differently by the experts. For clarity, these two should split it, in order to make it clearer and also help the discussion/debate about sources. Eccekevin (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is related to the above RfC. In short, both the "bio-weapon" and "accidental leak" are sufficiently marginal that having separate sections on each one would be legitimising them unduly (at least, if you ask me). Anyway, no need to split the discussion between here and the RfC RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How could just splitting the sections legitimize them? This page is literally called COVID-19 misinformation . Splitting the section would make the whole topic much clearer, both for the reader and for the discussion that is raging on. The issue is that editors are debating two different ideas as if they were one, hence creating a lot of confusion. Eccekevin (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If we split the two separate WIV related stories; then proponents of the "lab leak" will take free rein to say add things which unduly legitimse it, such as can be seen at the previous MfD for a related POVFORK page; or even here with the "it's not impossible" (incorrectly shifting the burden of proof from those proposing the theory to those opposing it) arguments. Keeping the two bits together will prevent such free additions - the two conspiracies are intrinsically related: they involve the Wuhan lab, and some form of conspiracy to hide the alleged, fictional, events, whether it be sinister bioengineering or a more mundane leak (both have been deemed extremely unlikely, if not outright rejected, by MEDRS)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The two hypotheses should not be treated as the same. The WHO does not treat them as the same and WHO mission chief Peter Embarek clarified the unfortunate "extremely unlikely" wording in his interview with Science magazine. Embarek even said that calling the hypothesis "extremely unlikely" is an "accomplishment" because previously it was "impossible": https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/02/politics-was-always-room-who-mission-chief-reflects-china-trip-seeking-covid-19-s CutePeach (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what the source says. Exact quote:

Q: But my question is whether you learned anything new in China. Now that you’ve been there, do you have more reason to say it’s “extremely unlikely” than before? A: Yes. We had long meetings with the staff of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and three other laboratories in Wuhan. They talked about these claims openly. We discussed: What did you do over the past year to dismiss this claim? What did you yourself develop in terms of argumentations? Did you do audits yourself? Did you look at your records? Did you test your staff? And they explained how they worked and what kind of audit system they had. They had retrospectively tested serum from their staff. They tested samples from early 2019 and from 2020. There were a lot of discussions that we could not have had if we had not traveled to Wuhan. We also did not have evidence provided by outsiders to support any of the claims out there. That could potentially have tipped the balance. What we saw and discussed gave us much more confidence in our assessment. The consensus was that this is an unlikely scenario.


 * So this went from "extremely unlikely" to "even more extremely unlikely"; not the other way round, and certainly not from "impossible" to "extremely unlikely". I've already had this discussion in the RfC above. Claiming that the lab leak theory is regarded seriously by MEDRS is dubious at best, misleading at worst: in the most generous of assessments, we could say that it's, like all other "not impossible" but not debunked theories, "under [various degrees of] investigation". But then again the exact origin of COVID will likely be "under investigation" for a while further (many years), so singling out one particular theory (and a fringey on a that) in this aspect would bring out undue attention on it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And directly after the section you quote is:


 * Q: So, it will be investigated further, just not by you and your team?

A: It’s not something we’re going to pursue in the coming weeks and months. But our assessment is out there, and the topic is on the table. This is to me a big achievement, because for the past year it was mission impossible to even discuss it or even put it on the table or on the agenda of any meeting or discussion.


 * Likely or not, these two hypotheses are not one and the same. The sources do not treat them as the same and there is no better source than the WHO mission chief. The WHO's full report will be published next week. CutePeach (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The circular repetition of this same point is disruptive, particularly since the complainants don't seem to have read the article where the different types of misinformation are teased out, and backed by good sources. To quote (references redacted):

This is completely explicit. It does not lump everything together as "conspiracy theory" (some is just "unfounded speculation") and also specifically mentions "the result of an accidental leakage of a coronavirus". Sources are cited backing this up. Sheesh. Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Alexbrn. -Darouet (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with your view point and your reading of the sources. I agree with 's view point that we are dealing with two completely different hypotheses that are treated differently by the experts. The interview with WHO mission chief Peter Embarek in Science Magazine makes it very clear that the hypothesis of an accidental leak is treated differently to the hypothesis of engineered as a bio-weapon, which in your sources are conflated. Embarek also spoke about this later in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSS5DzeV_wU CutePeach (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you even read my response, or the article? This is just nonsensical raving, detached from the text(s) in play. Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Calling my words nonsensical raving is a personal attack (tagging ). Please stay at the top of this pyramid with your argumentation and refrain from gaslighting tactics. I am a biotechnology professional by education with a successful career in implementing biosafety and biosecurity practices in hospitals and laboratories. I read your reply and the text and I respectfully disagree with your view point as I don't see how the selective quotes from your texts can supplant the statements of the WHO mission chief. There are other editors more experienced than I who agree with my view point in other discussions above and on other pages, such as, , , , , , , , , ,  and . You may disagree with our view point, but we are not nonsensical ravers and you should accord us the same respect as you would with a colleague in your university or work place. CutePeach (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as a friendly warning, pinging (by linking their user page using u) like-minded editors, is presumably WP:CANVASS (by seeking a partisan audience) - please refrain from doing that (you can use noping - or simply not do it because discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE).
 * Whoever you are in real life, on Wikipedia you must be able to cite proper sources which support the addition or change of information. So far, I've only seen convoluted interpretations (which are closer to WP:SYNTH than to WP:V). Both "hypotheses" (if we can accept calling them that), the completely outlandish or the slightly more mundane one, have been mostly dismissed - not proven false, of course: if you have a formation in science you must certainly be aware that proving something false is much harder than proving it true; but language such as "extremely unlikely" is pretty much unequivocal that these are fringe positions. We can afford to group them together (since they both involve the WIV) and discuss the mainstream view, which is that they're pretty much on the bollocks side of the scale; without employing WP:FALSEBALANCE by suggesting that there is a significant amount of doubt about the current consensus.
 * Anyway, Wikipedia is supposed to lag behind the consensus of sources, not report latest developments. If and when we have more complete investigations, and more definitive answers on the origin of COVID, then of course we can update the information. Until then, arguing the same points ad nauseam hoping people will get bored of this is not the way to go forward. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The complaint here is nonsensical raving because the OP asserts the bio-weapon and lab leak notions are "treated as the same", when they are explicitly itemized in our article as two distinct narratives. Thus the central point of the complaint is refuted. This is really a complaint about reality, and not something we can fix with the sources as they are. What we have properly reflects peer-reviewed, scholarly publications. All these lab origin ideas are somewhere in the "unfounded speculation" / "conspiracy theory" / "misinformation" realm per the solid RS cited, without recourse to ingenious interpretation of weaker sources. Ironically the OP invokes Graham's hierarchy while trying to talk-up their own personal credibility, which is fallacious. In lieu of new strong sources, I suggest we are done. Alexbrn (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No the complaint is not nonsensical raving and this language is denigrating and entirely inappropriate (again tagging ). As explained above, this article is about misinformation so the "Wuhan lab leak story" section should be properly split into "accidental leak" and "engineered as a bio-weapon" as the former hypothesis one may not even belong in this article. The wording must to be impartial to better represent the sources used and more sources with different view points included. Peter Embarek’s words saying the theory is "more unlikely" than before are cherry picked as he also said the "extremely unlikely" classification is an improvement from the “impossible to even discuss” it was before. CutePeach (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Repeating the same refuted argument while bolding lots of words does not a stronger argument make, but savours even more of raving. What would make a difference is an explicit edit proposal with good text properly WP:VERIFIED by a reliable source (such as we already have). Until and unless that happens, I shall not respond further. Alexbrn (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with that we should focus on serious scholarship and I will work on an edit proposal as you suggested. I will work on it in my sandbox and send it to you when ready.  CutePeach (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why you say said in above conversation that we should avoid using Sallard et al as a source to clarify for our readers that a laboratory escape is something that isn’t necessarily misinformation? In above conversations, agrees the paper's authors are reputable but objects to calling it a review article, even though it is classified as a review on PubMed. The article was published on 11/26/2020 in Environmental Chemistry Letters, a single-blind peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 4.41, so it is a very reputable journal. The journal covers harmful consequences of biological agents or toxins and very popular with biosafety and biosecurity professionals. The first version of the article was initially published on 8/10/2020 in Médecine/sciences, a peer-reviewed journal which exclusively publishes reviews, so its PubMed’s classification of it as a comparative study is puzzling. The second version would have been peer reviewed by the second journal’s experts, so it shouldn’t matter.
 * As part two of my question: why are we avoiding this source when the current sources used such as the Hakim paper, doesn’t specify the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory? In section 3.2 of the Hakim paper, the laboratory release theory is rejected with four reasons given, but concludes: However, an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation. Finally, we can always learn from the previous SARS‐CoV accidents that the best biosafety practices must be implemented to prevent any accidents in the future.
 * I think both papers, when read properly, support our colleague ’s proposal to discuss these different hypotheses separately. This is a critical point in identifying serious scholarship.CutePeach (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sallard et al is in a low-quality (not MEDLINE-index) chemistry journal, so is not usable. The original is indeed published in a more reputable French journal, but this (correctly) does not classify it is a review, but as the comparative study that it plainly is. The Hakim source is correctly reflected as is. You can't use a source which refers to these ideas as "speculation" or "conspiracy theories" to elevate them into some kind of mainstream scientific questions or (ye gods) "scientific theories". 08:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn’t know about noping but the users I tagged are already here in this discussion already on this very page so it is not canvassing. Your interpretation of the WHO mission chief’s words are false and misleading as he clarified the "extremely unlikely" wording in the Science Magazine interview and the other interview I linked to above. This is not an ad nauseam point in this discussion and instead of lecturing me, you should read the Science magazine piece and compromise on your position. CutePeach (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well sure, if you read the interview like this:
 * Q: But my question is whether you learned anything new in China. Now that you’ve been there, do you have more reason to say it’s “extremely unlikely” than before? A: Yes. We had long meetings with the staff of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and three other laboratories in Wuhan. They talked about these claims openly. We discussed: What did you do over the past year to dismiss this claim? What did you yourself develop in terms of argumentations? Did you do audits yourself? Did you look at your records? Did you test your staff? And they explained how they worked and what kind of audit system they had. They had retrospectively tested serum from their staff. They tested samples from early 2019 and from 2020. There were a lot of discussions that we could not have had if we had not traveled to Wuhan. We also did not have evidence provided by outsiders to support any of the claims out there. That could potentially have tipped the balance. What we saw and discussed gave us much more confidence in our assessment. The consensus was that this is an unlikely scenario. Q: So, it will be investigated further, just not by you and your team? A: It’s not something we’re going to pursue in the coming weeks and months. But our assessment is out there, and the topic is on the table. This is to me a big achievement, because for the past year it was mission impossible to even discuss it or even put it on the table or on the agenda of any meeting or discussion.


 * If you actually read all the words together it's obvious this has nothing to do with the viability of the lab leak idea and everything to do with the WHO's ability to make any assessment of it at all. It was "mission impossible" to make any progress in the investigation until the team actually went to Wuhan, after which their findings informed their conclusion that it was "extremely unlikely". JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , that is really not obvious to me at all. By my comprehension, Embarek is referring specifically to the lab leak idea as previously impossible to table, and not just any progress in the investigation. I agree that Embarek does not give more weight to the viability of the lab leak idea in his comment, but no one claimed that he did, so that is a red herring. We are not discussing the viability of the idea here, but about splitting it off from conspiracy theories / misinformation as it is one of the four hypotheses in the preliminary report on the WHO’s scientific study. Maybe we should we wait for the final report. CutePeach (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems OK with me, as I said in the RFC we should differentiate between the conspiracy theories and genuine scientific questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)
 * I don't even know what the argument about this is. The current page states: . Since as the page itself states it's two hypotheses, let's discuss them separately. I haven't heard a good reason not to.Eccekevin (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Attempt to circumvent the RfC
On Wikipedia generally, both “variants” of the lab origin concept - bioengineered and lab leak - have been treated as a conspiracy theory with virtually no support in the scientific community. This reflects the mainstream scientific view that both variants of this concept are highly unlikely. Now, an ongoing RfC, above, appears to be once again confirming this view. In that context, this section comes across as an attempt to preemptively negate the RfC outcome once again confirming that the “lab leak” is misinformation. We need to accurately convey to readers the scientific consensus on this issue: a natural virus being collected by the WIV and subsequently leaking to cause this pandemic is viewed by scientists as highly unlikely. -Darouet (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Some editors don't agree with the wording of the RFC and even Alexbrn says it won’t settle it. As Alexbrn and the Wall Street Journal say, there are different lab leak theories. We are still waiting for the WHO to release its full report to know what the science says. We also have to wait and see how it is received by the WHO’s member states. Please see Politicization of science. CutePeach (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article text as is is evolved beyond the question of the RfC, making it moot. Per the best sources, all the lab origin narratives are somewhere on the spectrum between "conspiracy theory" and "unfounded speculation", and we say that. Nothing is elevated to the status of (legitimate) "theory" in the context of science, so using that word is WP:PROFRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a moot point. It doesn't change the fact that they are two separate ideas and should be treated as such, even if they are considered both conspiracy theories or both legitimate or whatever. But they are two different ideas. Eccekevin (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well they are considered as such, as should be clear if you read the article. That does not mean we need to have separate sections on them; especially if they have plenty of common characteristics... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Except they are not, because the commentary is the same for both, when it's clear from the RfC that they are not treated equally by the scientific community. Eccekevin (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To quote the current state of the article: "Conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation have gained popularity during the pandemic, holding that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[27][28] One such narrative says the pandemic was the result of an accidental leakage of a coronavirus, another that the virus was engineered as a bio-weapon.[29][27][25][30]". The reason for putting them together is very clear - and if you're arguing that the "accidental lab leak" hypothesis is being treated as anything but "extremely unlikely" by the scientific community (this viewpoint, a careful reading of the RfC and sources therein provided will show to not be accepted), we'll need you to quote proper MEDRS for that. If you think the text is otherwise misleading, please identify which parts are actually misleading and suggest improvements. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, the sources treat the accidental lab leak as extremely unlikely, but they treat the biological weapon hypothesis as a conspiracy theory. While some serious scientists have been open to the possibility of the first (however unlikely), none has been for the latter. Hence, they are treated differently. But the current page lumps them in, hence making it seem that the scientific community treats them as one. Eccekevin (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not quite right. Some sources treat all "lab origin" stories as a conspiracy theory. And Not all "human engineered" stories invoke bioweapons. It's all, however, in the province of online speculation without any supporting scientific evidence, in the context of the general understanding that the virus was of natural origin. Our article says "One such narrative says the pandemic was the result of an accidental leakage of a coronavirus, another that the virus was engineered as a bio-weapon." That differentiates them as much as our sources do. People wanting to create some kind of "But this might be true" sub-heading are pushing a WP:PROFRINGE idea that is not supported by the WP:BESTSOURCES. Wikipedia is not a vector for politically-motivated speculation. No "serious scientists" is open to the idea of a "lab leak" when constrained by the rigours of scholarly publishing. That a handful say odd things when dazzled by TV lights or media attention, or when having to contort themselves into politically-acceptable positions, has been a feature of this pandemic in all its aspects. And of course, as with climate science, creationism, etc. there will be maverick "scientists" advocating fringe ideas too. Wikipedia's policy as always is to reflect the accepted knowledge as published in the best sources, of which we have several. Alexbrn (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

List of "serious scientists" and some of the "odd things" they say (in alphabetic order):


 * Angela Rasmussen: "Lab origin is one hypothesis that should be tested. My opinion is that it is less likely than natural origin but still possible and can’t be ruled out. As a scientist I believe the data must lead the way."
 * David Relman: "Alternatively, the complete SARS-CoV-2 sequence could have been recovered from a bat sample and viable virus resurrected from a synthetic genome to study it, before that virus accidentally escaped from the laboratory."
 * Daniel R. Lucey: "Might a Chinese laboratory have had a virus they were working on that was genetically closer to Sars-Cov-2, and would they tell us now if they did?"
 * Filippa Lentzos: "investigating the range of possible spillover sites - from the wet market, to an accidental lab or fieldwork infection, or an unnoticed lab leak - requires a forensic investigation."
 * Marc Lipsitch: "the @WHO team will need to consider the hypothesis that the virus was accidentally released from the lab" - "Otherwise, the report won’t have done its job."
 * Michael Eisen: "And there is an at least plausible case for lab accident too, in that the virus first appeared in the rough vicinity of a lab that is studying precisely this kind of virus and doing the kind of experiments that, if something went wrong, would lead to disaster."
 * Rasmus Nielsen (biologist): One problem, he says, is the spread of conspiracy theories that Covid-19 was created in a lab and then intentionally released. “I think that has really harmed the case for a proper investigation.” While investigating a lab-accident origin is important, he says, it’s gotten lumped in with tinfoil hat ideas.
 * Richard Ebright: "The question whether the outbreak virus entered humans through an accidental infection of a lab worker is a question of historical fact, not a question of scientific fact. The question can be answered only through a forensic investigation, not through a scientific investigation."

So yes, a sub-heading would be the right way to go.

Thank you

tinybubi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinybubi (talk • contribs) 08:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)  — Tinybubi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Yes, of the millions of working scientists on earth, you can find a few who say that we should take the "lab leak" idea more seriously than do all other scientists. Every one of the sources you're linking is either a twitter comment, a comment in an ordinary newspaper, or in two cases a comment in Science news / an opinion piece in PNAS. This doesn't change the fact that most scientists view the lab leak hypothesis as extremely unlikely, and as a political conspiracy theory. -Darouet (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Status of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis
After being involved in this article for a couple of days, it has become apparent to me that there is not a clear consensus amongst reliable sources that the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis is either "misinformation" or a "conspiracy theory". And given that the WHO included it as one of the four hypotheses when investigating the potential source of the virus, I am not convinced that it belongs in this article. For those reasons, I propose that we remove it from this article per WP:VER. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus among editors doesn't decide content, but reliable sources do. All "lab origin" scenarios come under the aegis of conspiracy theory or counter-scientific speculation per the WP:BESTSOURCES, e.g. PMID 32945405 or PMID 33586302. Wikipedia merely reflects that. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , as I said, there does not appear to be a clear consensus amongst reliable sources that the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis is either "misinformation" or a "conspiracy theory". You raise the notion of "consensus among editors", and that is what is needed to decide what is the consensus amongst reliable sources. Currently a reader cannot reasonably verify, from the information given in the article, that this hypothesis is "misinformation", and therefore that it belongs in an article with this title. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's wrong I think. The highest quality sources are aligned. Of course there may be disagreement among a minority of weakly-published scientists, lay press, blogs and so on. But that's the same for most nonsenses from bigfoot to homeopathy. Your argument is essentially the WP:GEVAL fallacy. Alexbrn (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , what, in your opinion, qualifies a source as being "highest quality" when it comes to holding an opinion on whether this commonly suggested possibility is "misinformation" (which generally means designed to deceive)? And why would we expect the opinions of scientists, weakly published or otherwise, to be given more weight that those of people from other professions when it comes to so judging the motives behind this suggested possibility? Sure there may be some people who find this possibility a convenient tool for some ulterior motive, but to categorically cast it as "misinformation" needs, I think, a consensus amongst a wider array of sources than just those dedicated to publishing the opinions of non-weakly-published scientists. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * which generally means designed to deceive No, it does not. See Misinformation and Disinformation. This makes the rest of your contribution irrelevant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , even if we assume that more lenient definition (and forget for a moment that Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source), it still leaves us asserting that this suggested possibility is in some way false or inaccurate. Remember that even the WHO have refused to rule it out at the moment. It is plausible, even if not the most likely of the four hypotheses that the WHO say they considered. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are changing the subject, and you are doing original research. From "someone from the WHO did not rule it out" does not follow "it is plausible". WP:MEDRS sources are definitely much stronger than your logic, even if your logic was valid, which it is not.
 * forget for a moment that Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source If you actually used that reasoning instead of forgetting it, it would just be Wikilawyering. I linked the misinformation and disinformation articles because I thought you would be able to go there and look at the sources those articles are based on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind my opinion, look to the WP:PAGs, particularly WP:MEDRS. Per WP:MEDRS we are looking for sources which are typically: secondary, scholarly, and reputably-published in a relevant publication. So, a review article in a virology journal (like PMID 33586302 which we cite) is an excellent source. We don't seek on Wikipedia a "consensus of sources" which means we use junkier sources to contaminate the knowledge found in high-quality ones; in fact that is explicitly forbidden by WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't see any discussion there about which sources to use to support opinions related to the moral and other non-scientific aspects of this topic. I don't see any reason why scientists should be given the monopoly in judgement opinions. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an article on misinformation, and the question of whether the virus was produced in a lab is a scientific question. Quality scientific sources - yes - do have a monopoly on scientific questions. Or at least, they do on Wikipedia. If you want to write about the moral aspects of the pandemic, this isn't the right article. Alexbrn (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , who said anything about it being produced in a lab? This is about whether it could have leaked from a lab. Perhaps you are conflating this hypothesis with some other conspiracy theory? All the more reason to remove it from the article I think you'll agree. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The cited MEDRS sources also mention accidental or intentional ‘escapes’ from a lab. They make no such distinction between accidental release and bio weapons, treating them as conspiracies all the same. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources we use cover all these scenarios. However, if SARS-CoV-2 was not "produced" in a lab but existing in nature beforehand, its origin is ipso facto natural. I am aware the believers keep twisting and turning in order to try to slalom around each piece of refutation in their way, but we can only deal with the misinformation as it is described in relevant sources. If we try to encompass every weird mutation of the conspiracy theory, we will fail. Alexbrn (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that peer-reviewed journals and scientists can’t keep playing whack-a-mole with the conspiracy theory variation of the day. Not only is it impracticable (takes 1 minute to cook up a variation of the conspiracy, much longer for scientists to dissect and publish) and is a waste of time for virologists to do when they have, you know, a pandemic to worry about... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite. Brandolini's law is a reason why Wikipedia does well to rely on the highest-quality sources. Alexbrn (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * With lower-quality sources it can go like this:
 * Journalist: "Can you rule out the theory that extraterrestrial aliens made the virus and implanted it into bats?"
 * Scientist: "What sort of crappy 'theory' is that? It is unfalsifiable, of course they is no way to rule it out. Only ignorant loons who do not know the first thing about science would even consider it."
 * Journalist, writing article: "The scientist said he could not rule out the theory that extraterrestrial aliens made the virus and implanted it into bats."
 * Wikipedia author: "We cannot call that idea misinformation because the scientist said it was plausible." --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Hob Gadling Has the US Government ever demanded a UN body to investigate extraterrestrial aliens in the way the current US Gov is demanding the WHO to investigate COVID-19 lab origins? Do you have reliable sources of such a story? It would be WP:DUE for an article of its own. TacticalTweaker (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please consult the articles Reductio ad absurdum and Red herring to find out if it is possible to heal reasoning which was destroyed by reductio ad absurdum (such as the one that was destroyed by me, above) by changing the subject, applying the same reduction to that other subject, and noting that it does not work in that case (as you did).
 * Regarding that other subject: What the US Government did does not affect any facts about viruses or science. As before, you need WP:MEDRS sources for medical claims. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , please consult WP:BLUDGEON and answer my question concisely. Has the US Government ever demanded a UN body to investigate extraterrestrial aliens in the way the current US Gov is demanding the WHO to investigate COVID-19 lab origins? TacticalTweaker (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Does anybody here think that demanding an answer to a rhetorical question is a smart thing to do? (I do not demand an answer to that question.)
 * I will ignore you now, since your discussion style has gone below the kindergarten horizon. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever the US government demands the UN investigate, it is not a MEDRS (especially if it involves a political claim with it's main global economic rival), and concluding things from that insistence is WP:SYNTH. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That it's a conspiracy theory seems to be verifiable & DUE. I have added more journal and news sources to support. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless - the "lab origin" scenarios cant be ruled out. That was in the article and sourced, but was removed by you Alexbrn. That doesnt seem very encyclopedic or a good idea. Alexpl (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We follow the WP:BESTSOURCES. Let's keep the job simple. As we now say, the disproof (if possible) of the conspiracy theories is very difficult. This gives the conspiracists plenty of time to fill the void with their Truth&trade;. Alexbrn (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I imagine the main reason for not doing so is political, since there's an agenda by various parties to push blame onto China (sourced). Plus, it's hard to definitively prove otherwise and science is generally not about closing doors prematurely (any theory can be wrong, to decreasing odds with time, research and evidence). It falls into WP:FALSEBALANCE territory, and the scientific consensus is that this is very unlikely to be valid and journalistic consensus is that it's a politicised conspiracy theory, so the article should portray the same. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Deadlock?
It seems clear that some in the community here do not believe that we should separate the two ideas that I think are being (wrongly) conflated here: the hypothesis that the virus could have escaped or leaked out of the lab where it may have been languishing; the conspiracy theory that the virus was somehow produced in the lab. Although the latter belongs in this article, I am not convinced that the former does. Perhaps it is time for an RfC amongst the wider Wiki community. Thoughts? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You can always start an RfC. I still advise you actually read the cited sources first before expending community time on this, but if you want to go ahead then I suggest drafting a well-crafted question that still broadly addresses the conspiracy so we don't have to have this discussion again and can add it to the COVID-19 "Current Consensus". What RfC question are you thinking of asking? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be good to see any sources for this. So far as I can see the odd idea that SARS-CoV-2 was somehow spontaneously "languishing" in a lab is a scenario I've not seen in any decent source! In general, the arguments of the leak believers seem to be very light on actual sources. Alexbrn (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure about "spontaneously" or that you need to be a believer to acknowledge that such a hypothesis has been proffered. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well if the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not natural, how did it get to be languishing in a lab? What is the source for the sequence of events you seem to be proposing we include? Alexbrn (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , why assume the origin is not natural? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because if the origin is natural, then there is no controversy about the origin because ... it's natural. Alexbrn (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the question here is about whether a biosecurity failure allowed a spillover into the community, not how it got into the lab in the first place. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What!? That's shifted the goalposts even further into an area which seems to make no sense. If you are going to argue the virus "got into the lab", there needs to be some reasoning about that. In a source. Am I right in thinking the source count in support of this increasingly fuzzy scenario is ... zero? Alexbrn (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , nothing has shifted. That is why I came here here - to try and understand why the lab leak hypothesis is being conflated with some lab related conspiracy theory. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is there is apparently no cogent "lab leak hypothesis" that conforms to what you have been saying. I challenge you to produce a source setting it out. Without sources, this entire discussion is pointless as there is no basis for improving the encyclopedia. So: source? Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , a good place to start would be this article in Science, and it is already cited as a reference in the article. It covers some details of the hypothesis, and why the WHO have kept it on the table along with three or four other hypotheses. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that doesn't really answer my question. That sources does say how, in the view of Embarek, it is extremely unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 "originated in a Chinese laboratory"; but we know that. What I'm asking about is the positive hypothesis you are alluding to which has a natural virus languishing in a lab. Also see below where I wonder if this is a phantom theory. I just want somebody to point to a description of what, at a basic level, the "lab leak hypothesis" actually is . Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , the question is whether the two concepts amount to the same thing, and whether they both belong in the same section, or even in the same article. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So: "Should Wikipedia portray the lab leak theory as misinformation, and by extension include it in the COVID-19 misinformation article?" ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd have suggested "What is the most accurate statement regarding the status of the lab leak theory": A) It is misinformation B) It is a minority scientific hypothesis (there's the even more obviously bollocks "It is WP:THETRUTH/a significant hypothesis/...", but obviously we don't want to be attracting twitter trolls and bots any further); but then whatever the the outcome of that question it would not change that only a short section on it should be included in whichever article, and of course that will not fly well with the POV pushers... The fact that a third of Americans appear to be scientifically illiterate (per that poll mentioned somewhere) doesn't help. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , no. Something more like "Should Wikipedia portray the hypothesis that the virus was legitimately present in the lab and accidentally escaped from there, and the theory that the virus was actively created in the lab, as one and the same conspiracy theory?" -- DeFacto (talk). 14:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a convoluted question. And reaches a not-helpful answer, because it doesn't directly influence how we write content in this article. You said on this page that it's not misinformation and doesn't belong in this article, so my proposed question tests that. I'm not really sure what your question tests. Obviously they're not the same conspiracy theory and there's likely differences in coverage between them, but they are both covered as conspiracy theories in MEDRS. As for news sources, one is more covered as a conspiracy theory than the other. So again, obviously they're not the same conspiracy. Just the "bioweapon" one was obviously becoming too fringe, and was being discredited openly by US intelligence whilst Trump was busy peddling it (sourced in article), so he had to ditch it and move onto something slightly more plausible. But I'm not sure a running commentary is suited for this article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Wikipedia needs to be wary of falling for the motte and bailey fallacy used by the conspiracists, and it seems by some editors here. When challenged the believers retreat into saying they are just entertaining a mild "hypothesis", but the misinformation is not that, but rather the idea that the virus did (or almost certainly) come from the Wuhan lab and that the Chinese have covered it up, etc. Reliable sources don't discuss the "hypothesis" other than to say its extremely unlikely etc. But in discussing misinformation, RS is addressing the rumours that the virus actually "leaked" (not "might, in extremis, possibly have leaked") from the Wuhan lab. Anybody asserting the virus leaked from a lab is spreading misinformation, because there is no scientific evidence in support of such an assertion. This is what RS tells us. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * thrice "legitimately" is clearly an attempt at making this a leading question. Both of these are still WP:FRINGE (see the quote from the Science interview) - and the "bioweapon/lab-construction" theory is not even the thing under discussion. And, as pointed out, the "accidental lab leak" theory would still need an external source which got into the lab, an hypothesis for which you have not provided any MEDRS to support. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess, in part, I might see what DeFacto is saying. For example: Many scientists and authorities debunked the conspiracy theory, including American biologist Richard Ebright, NIAID director Anthony Fauci, prominent scientists, and the US intelligence community. is unclear. afaik they fully refuted the bioweapon one only. Ebright made some contradicting statements, not sure about Fauci, and afaik intelligence community refuted the bioweapon one and called the other one unlikely. So I guess, for strictly speaking accuracy, we this paragraph can probably be cleaned up a bit and may need some rewording. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm a bit behind on which figure has said what it seems; Fauci has discredited both. I've moved the prose around a bit, and adjusted the cites, and also got rid of that Forbes contributors ref. I've removed some names in the process since I don't have refs on hand, but those can be added back if people find something to verify them. Is this an improvement to your concerns, DeFacto? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Phantom theory?
This is what puzzles me, and seems to have been the point that's been reached on several pages during discussion of how Wikipedia should treat this topic (which seems to have been going on for ever). Everybody seems to agree that the bio-weapon and lab-engineered origin scenarios are debunked for SARS-CoV-2. So then there's a fall back to an apparent "lab leak without lab-engineered virus" scenario. But so far as I can see, this scenario does not exist. Not in RS. Not even in the Talk page contributions of its proponents. (The Draft currently up for deletion refers to "the accidental leak of a coronavirus undergoing studies" without a source or explanation). Just for sanity's sake can we confirm we're even discussing an actual concept somebody has articulated somewhere? What exactly is the "lab leak theory" and where is it set out? Alexbrn (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good questions. (It's kind of looking like a "lab leak of the gaps" argument by now.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Some media sources cover them as slightly separate events. The "intentional bioweapon" one came around before the "accidental lab leak" one. The former is totally not considered to be valid. There's apparently a separate angle on the "accidental lab leak" conspiracy. Some individuals are slightly less dismissive of that idea. My understanding is that neither have traction in normal RS and definitely no traction in academic sources, though, and are both generally considered conspiracies. I'm not sure I'd treat them wholly as two distinct things to the point of separate sections, but we do still have to make sure the text is verifiable, so if a certain individual only discredited one of the two theories (and said "still investigating" on the other) we can't really imply that they did both. Example: : But the office said it had determined Covid-19 "was not manmade or genetically modified". + "The [intelligence community] will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan." It was the first clear response from American intelligence debunking conspiracy theories - both from the US and China - that the virus is a bioweapon. Now, how exactly do you have a lab leak of a natural virus whilst it not being engineered, but still being not natural, I'm not quite sure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I think this only matters to the extent that we quote who said what. I don't think it's really relevant beyond that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , in case you missed my reply above, to your request for sources, I'll reiterate... A good place to start would be this Science article. It covers some details of the lab leak hypothesis, and why the WHO have been unable to fully investigate it themselves. It is one of a handful of hypotheses they still have on the table. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, Alexbrn already responded to that link above. I really admire their patience and the patience of others engaging with you, DeFacto. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, to answer my own question. The review article we cite, PMID 33586302, says:

and this in turn references PMID 32102621, which is a primary source so not MEDRS, but may be used in conjunction with our secondary source to flesh things out per. This says:

So it appears the "hypothesis" is that the Wuhan lab leaked an experimentally modified form of RaTG13, which is SARS-CoV2. Is this right? It would certainly explain why there's been some questionable editing at our RaTG13 article (which I have since tidied up). Our review article goes on to say that Could this be the basis for some content? Alexbrn (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So it appears the "hypothesis" is that the Wuhan lab leaked an experimentally modified form of RaTG13, which is SARS-CoV2. Is this right?
 * No. RaTG13 is the closest relative to SARS-COV-2, but it is too far to be its ancestor. From its own records, which have been covered by reliable sources, the Wuhan Institute of Virology was known to have collected at least 9 SARS-like coronaviruses since 2013, which it worked on in undisclosed ways (one of which could be the backbone of SARS-COV-2). The Wuhan Institute of Virology took down its database of viruses, and the US Government has demanded that they provide this data, and any other data on viruses they may have collected and worked on. Here is a Telegraph article describing these accounts: https://archive.is/bK8vO TacticalTweaker (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Interview / Failed verification
I disagree with the tag. Source goes on to clarify: What we saw and discussed gave us much more confidence in our assessment. The consensus was that this is an unlikely scenario. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * re. "Will you self-revert" : No. The full question (and partial answer, emphasis added):

"Q: But my question is whether you learned anything new in China. Now that you've been there, do you have more reason to say it's 'extremely unlikely' than before? A: Yes. We had long meetings with the staff of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and three other laboratories in Wuhan. They talked about these claims openly. We discussed: What did you do over the past year to dismiss this claim? What did you yourself develop in terms of argumentations? Did you do audits yourself? Did you look at your records? Did you test your staff? And they explained how they worked and what kind of audit system they had. They had retrospectively tested serum from their staff. They tested samples from early 2019 and from 2020. There were a lot of discussions that we could not have had if we had not traveled to Wuhan. We also did not have evidence provided by outsiders to support any of the claims out there. That could potentially have tipped the balance. What we saw and discussed gave us much more confidence in our assessment. The consensus was that this is an unlikely scenario."
 * So "the consensus was that this was unlikely" and "what we saw (after meeting with the staff) gave us much more confidence in our assessment"... You can't cherrypick just a part of the question... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , why do you insist on putting your comment of 16:13 (UTC) before that of the original poster who added theirs at 15:57 (UTC), and why have you indented it as if a reply to a previous post? See WP:INDENT and WP:THREAD. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cause with all the edit conflicts things are becoming a wee bit confusing. Hopefully fixed? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , -- DeFacto (talk). 17:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , if you disagree, you should have come here first, per WP:BRD, rather than edit-warring your edit back in.
 * From the source, the interviewer asked the question: But my question is whether you learned anything new in China. Now that you've been there, do you have more reason to say it's "extremely unlikely" than before? The answer given was was quite long, but you seem to be relying on the first sentence which was Yes.
 * Even if we do assume that that was a direct reply to the second question of the interviewer's two questions, rather than the first one asking whether they had learnt anything new in China, it takes quite a leap of faith to believe that what would have been meant by, effectively: 'yes, we do have more reason to say it's "extremely unlikely" than before' could be taken to mean: with the WHO mission chief saying in a subsequent interview to Science that the investigation had rendered the lab leak theory even more unlikely than before, as you put it in the article! He definitely didn't say it was even more unlikely, just that he had more reason than before to say it was as unlikely. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? You boldly made the change, which makes you B. => I’m the R. This is the discuss. I just gave you a specific quote from his same paragraph... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , oops, I beg your're pardon. It was 's edit, 'twixt a stream of yours, that I reverted. Apologies. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The answer given was was quite long, but you seem to be relying on the first sentence No, the whole of the answer, quoted above, goes in the sense that the answer to both sentences is yes: they learned something new, and that has given them more reasons to think the theory is "extremely unlikely"
 * Even if we do assume The answer is rather quite clear, especially the last two sentences as quoted by me and PR.
 * He definitely didn't say it was even more unlikely, just that he had more reason than before to say it was as unlikely. So this seems like a minor issue of wording, not one of failed verification. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I couldn't verify that he said it was even more unlikely, that's all. If a re-wording fixes it, fine. What do you think about adding their given reasons for not being able to investigate this hypothesis further, from the same answer in the same source. That would add clarity. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He definitely didn't say it was even more unlikely, just that he had more reason than before to say it was as unlikely. So this seems like a minor issue of wording, not one of failed verification. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I couldn't verify that he said it was even more unlikely, that's all. If a re-wording fixes it, fine. What do you think about adding their given reasons for not being able to investigate this hypothesis further, from the same answer in the same source. That would add clarity. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

, I see you removed the 'fv' tag, asserting that it didn't fail verification. Are you seriously claiming that saying I have more reason to say it's "extremely unlikely" than before is equivalent to saying it's even more unlikely than before? More evidence that something is unlikely doesn't imply it is more unlikely, it implies that you have a higher confidence level that it is unlikely. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We are not looking at distinct categories here. We are looking at a continuous likelihood. Before it was less clear how (un)likely it is. Now the answer is "extremely unlikely" with a higher confidence. Everyone else involved in the discussion understands that. --mfb (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Best Sources
The US Government's position is that virus could have leaked from a lab which collected it (or its precursor virus) from nature (a mine). The WHO's investigation does not aline with this position, as they weren't able to conduct a forensic investigation, but the WHO DG has said all hypothesis remain on the table. No other source should supersede the WHO's position, and the US government's position is also important, as they funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology's work as described in these sources:

Bloomberg "The virus could have emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals, spreading in a pattern consistent with a natural epidemic,” the State Department said. “Alternatively, a laboratory accident could resemble a natural outbreak if the initial exposure included only a few individuals and was compounded by asymptomatic infection." You can read the full "Fact Sheet" from the US State Department that Bloomberg references here. The sheet describes how the WIV conducted "gain-of-function" research, and also mentions that the WIV collected a viruse from a cave in Yunan, and demands for the WHO to have access to WIV's work.

France24/AFP "Price said the January 15 fact sheet was "very clear that it was inconclusive -- it didn't give credence to one theory over another." This statement by Edward Price makes clear what the Biden administration's position is on the fact sheet describing the lab leak hypothesis published by the State Department during the Trump administration.

Reuters All hypotheses are still open in the World Health Organization’s search for the origins of COVID-19, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a briefing on Friday. This statement by the WHO DG makes it clear what the WHO's position is on the lab leak hypothesis.

TacticalTweaker (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * WHO position: How have you managed to skip through all of the above discussion?
 * US Government: 1) is not a WP:MEDRS, and 2) it's probably also WP:BIASEDSOURCE? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Were MEDRS sources required for the inauguration of Joe Biden? This is no less a political issue. TacticalTweaker (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg, AFP and Reuters are biased? What? TacticalTweaker (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but medical issues are different form political issues like the inauguration. WP:MEDRS needs to be adhered to.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have seen this policy discussed to death on this talk page and others. The lab leak hypothesis is not a medical issue. TacticalTweaker (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In one sense you're right, in that "the hypothesis" seems mainly to be the domain of politicized blowhards who'd have no idea what science was if it came up and smacked them in the face. But on the other hand, nope: anything that claims or implies knowledge in the realm of biomedicine needs a WP:MEDRS source. Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alexbrn. At its core, this is about the origin of a new pathogen and that is 100% within the purview of MEDRS.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion but I disagree. I can't find the link right now but there was an RFC on this a few weeks back and there was no consensus on whether MEDRS sources are required for the lab leak hypothesis. The WHO's preliminary report lists four scenarios and the WHO DG has said they are all on the table, so I don't see what a MEDRS source could possible change about how Wikipedia covers this topic. TacticalTweaker (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you edited under any past accounts? If so, which ones? ProcrastinatingReader (talk)
 * It was a medical event, ergo, medical sources are going to have the best understanding of what happened, and due to Trump's documented interference, the US government isn't particularly reliable, especially since this was rolled in with numerous other instances of deliberate misinformation emanating from that source.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We have two US government statements (the second one is from the Biden admin), and the WHO DG statement, which are in line with each other. Which other source, MEDPOP or MEDRS can supersede these statements? TacticalTweaker (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not make us waste time by repeating the same points all over again. About the WHO statement, just scroll the page a wee bit up, to Talk:COVID-19_misinformation, and you'll see why. As for the US governement, political sources are simply not suitable for this kind of information (in any case, Biden or Trump, the relationship between US and China is not exactly one of close friendship), and AFAICS Trump is already mentioned there and elsewhere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a voluntary project. If you do not have the time to go over these important points, we will not begrudge you. The US government and WHO's position on the lab leak hypothesis is something that is worthy of our time. Do you have any other sources that somehow supersede the above sources laying out the US Gov and WHO positions? TacticalTweaker (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Take the time to read the section starting at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation (really, just above, surprised it was missed), which clearly explains why the WHO position is not 1) contradictory and 2) does not support the lab leak story, from an interview in Science by the WHO mission chief. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the US State Department spokesman and WHO DG statements in the three sources above. As reported by AFP, the US State Department spokesman said the Fact Sheet did not give credence to one scenario over another. The lab leak hypothesis is one of four on the table. TacticalTweaker (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you considered that the US might have political reasons to try to blame China (it's arch-rival since the fall of the USSR)? The politics maybe warrants a mention, but we don't and cannot give it undue weight when compared to the academic consensus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not engage in debates. Wikipedia covers debates as reported in reliable sources. The WHO's position is now aligned with the US government position, which warrants mention. TacticalTweaker (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is not, per the Science interview. Any claim to the contrary is confirmation bias or motivated reasoning. Even if we ignore that, the US government position can be disregarded for scientific purposes since it is clearly a political claim, while the WHO saying that the hypothesis is "still on the table" doesn't meant squat if there's no credible reports in academic peer-reviewed publications about it. So far, I have not seen even one such MEDRS-compliant source about this which doesn't say anything more than the typical scientific "we can't discard the hypothesis entirely". See also Russell's teapot. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're using that incorrectly. Russel's Teapot is an argument about an incredibly unlikely thing. But a lab leak is likely - it's why we have all the rules and procedures. This is more like the restaurant teapot hypothesis, you'd be wrong to just claim sight-unseen that a restaurant has a teapot do but you wouldn't be terribly surprised if they did. InverseZebra (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Russell's teapot is about shifting the burden of proof. If one claims something, then he has to provide evidence for it, not just say "it's possible" and ask for the other side to disprove it (which is basically what the proponents of this theory are saying; that because it isn't completely disproven we should cover it as though it was equally valid). And this neglects the fact that while the lab leak is not entirely implausible; the conspiracy theory also posits that there is some supposed cover-up about said leak - which is a more unlikely suggestion for which there is again no more evidence... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention thinks it is "most likely" that the virus escaped from the lab., so it is obviously a view that needs to be taken seriously. It cannot and must not be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. To do so obviously prejudices any serious investigation, which is vital for the future biosecurity of the planet. It is also worth comparing the likelihood of a lab being the source, with that of what has been the dominant hypothesis since the beginning of the pandemic, the Wet market theory. There are around 44,000 wet markets in China and only one Biosafety level 4 lab (that studies dangerous pathogens including coronaviruses found in bats). That lab is the Wuhan Institute of Virology . The Wuhan lab leak hypothesis is emphatically not a conspiracy theory, it is, as the former head of the CDC says, "most likely".Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Former Trump official promoting lab leak misinformation
On what grounds are you objecting to this? That there's too much information (in which case it can be shortened a bit), or that it isn't related to misinformation (in which case I'll have to say, again, that it is, despite twitter threads from clueless people and Trump syncophants claiming the contrary). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * & others: FWIW - seems the edit is worthy imo atm, and should be added to the main article along with relevant refs - if interested - there is a related discussion here => "Talk:COVID-19 pandemic" - iac - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I gave the grounds in my edit summary. Linking it to the previous sentence with the use of "despite" gives undue weight to the credibility of the WHO opinion, and implies Redfield's opinion was in defiance of the WHO opinion rather than it was merely a private and unrelated opinion. But even without that it is, as an opinion or viewpoint, not itself "misinformation". Properly attributed to the holder, it is a statement of irrefutable fact - he was reported as thinking that.
 * I thought France would win the rugby match against Scotland yesterday, that I thought that was an irrefutable and absolute fact. That other people thought Scotland would win, and that in the end Scotland actually did win, does not alter that. You seem to be arguing that my opinion about France should be considered to be misinformation. That is clearly ridiculous. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought France would win the rugby match against Scotland yesterday, that I thought that was an irrefutable and absolute fact. That other people thought Scotland would win, and that in the end Scotland actually did win, does not alter that. You seem to be arguing that my opinion about France should be considered to be misinformation. That is clearly ridiculous. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: the duplicate discussions about the same subject at Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 and Talk:COVID-19_pandemic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak hypothesis: MIT Technology review article
The following MIT Technology Review article, which came out yesterday, overviews the current scientific state of knowledge on the origin of the covid-19: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/26/1021263/bat-covid-coronavirus-cause-origin-wuhan/

In the article, the lab leak hypothesis is explained to be one of several plausible theories that are currently being investigated by scientists.

Now, the lab leak may or may not be what happened, but it certainly doesn't belong here in an article about covid-19 misinformation (not to mention, literally the first section in the article). When people land here from google and see the lab leak section (like me), they may well dismiss the whole article, which is unfortunate because the rest of the article contains a lot of good material. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello friend. We don't really trust the mainstream media such as the magazine you linked for our medical articles on Wikipedia. Our WP:MEDRS guideline tells us that we should only trust high quality articles in academic journals (and a couple of other sources such as the WHO). These high quality scientific sources barely discuss the lab leak idea at all, and when they do, they speak negatively about it, calling it "extremely unlikely", "highly unlikely", "online speculations", etc. There is consensus among our medical editors that the lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory, therefore it is included here in the misinformation article. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The MEDRS rule is in the context of people not getting fringe information in regard to health advice and medical treatments. The question of the virus origin has nothing to do with health advice. I don't agree that the MEDRS rule is appropriate for this topic.Cowrider (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * OK. That seems like an extreme rule though. The MIT Technology Review is highly regarded for its science journalism. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Using an article titled "No one can find the animal that gave people covid-19"; which also clearly ascribes the lab controversy in the context of politics: "What’s certain is that the research to find the pandemic’s cause is politically charged because of the way it could assign blame for the global disaster." and is clearly a piece of journalism and not an article in a peer-reviewed journal (you can look up the page by NL above to see what these look like), is inappropriate for our purposes here - we can use them to describe politics, but as sources for science, not sufficient. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm a scientist in my day job (in a totally unrelated field; geosciences; I know nothing about epidemiology), so I know about peer reviewed articles and the academic process. But it just seems... strange... that there would be a blanket rule against all news articles and secondary sources, and wikipedia can only rely on journal articles and primary sources. Are wikipedia editors really the right people to interpret the scientific literature? 24.18.126.43 (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi geologist - there are a lot of scientists volunteering at wikipedia, and in this case the editorial reliance on MEDRS with COVID-related articles has really helped with removing conspiracy theories. Most virologists, evolutionary biologists, and ecologists working with viruses agree that the virus likely spilled over into humans under natural circumstances, as has been the case for every other novel pathogen in history. -Darouet (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Even stricter: when the situation demands it, we require secondary sources (review articles), as described at WP:MEDRS. News is okay for plenty of topics, but in case of issues of scientific contention, we prefer scientific sources (I guess you would also prefer to cite a specialist resource, say, a reputable publication on geology, than some random article in a popular newspaper). And well, reputable medical journals (see here for an incomplete list) tend to see the "lab leak" idea as not the best hypothesis to explain the origin of the current situation... Anyway, I don't see where in the article the lab leak theory is described as "plausible". The only thing I can find is them giving the opinion of "Matthew Pottinger, a former deputy national security advisor at the White House" - clearly not a medical expert; and maybe just more sign of what I'm saying, that this is a political issue more than it is a scientific one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The head of the WHO went on record saying that the lab leak theory is plausible and needs to be investigated 68.148.28.136 (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Well to be fair to the other people in this thread, the director of the WHO is also primarily a political figure, so ignoring his statement is at least internally consistent. But I think the problem here is the framing of the issue as a whole. There is a spectrum of possibilities for theories, ranging from misinformation and conspiracy theories, to possible, to likely, to established science. In a new or developing area, most theories are somewhere in the middle. This article presents the lab leak as misinformation, but that categorization just doesn't seem credible at this point. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan conspiracy theory, its wp:Fringeicity notwithstanding, merits granularity
cbsnews quoted by realclearpolitics: "Jamie Metzl, a former NSC official in the Clinton administration and member of a WHO advisory committee on genetic engineering, said: 'To quote Humphrey Bogart, "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, why Wuhan?" What Wuhan does have is China's level four virology institute, with probably the world's largest collection of bat viruses, including bat coronaviruses.' // "'It was agreed first that China would have veto power over-- over who even got to be on the mission,' he said. 'WHO agreed to that... On top of that, the WHO agreed that in most instances China would do the primary investigation. And then just share its findings with these international experts. So these international experts weren't allowed to do their own primary investigation.' // "'No!' Leslie Stahl said. 'Wait. You're saying that China did the investigation and showed the results to the committee and that was it? ... Whoa.'" --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried adding something here, but that was reverted by the usual suspects... Politics should be covered. However, a broadcast on CBS news is not sufficient for anything besides mentioning the political aspect and the opinions (probably non-medical experts) there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that some wikicontributors misinterpret wp:FRINGE's " If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner" -- as meaning no mention at all thereof ought to be made.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 March 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 misinformation → COVID-19 conspiracy theories – per wp:NPOV - old name puts in wikipedia's voice that all the theories contained herein are known to be incorrect. Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not all misinformation is conspiracy theories, and moving to the suggested title would provide an inappropriate reason to stop covering some of it; possibly raising the possibility of even more content forks (when we should be trying to consolidate existing articles). And I fail to see the NPOV concern; "conspiracy theory" is even more of a loaded term than misinformation... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * cmt - I see: So, as of this point in time, WP still lacks a list of NPOVish terms to which editors can resort, for like circumstances: less loaded than, say, witchhunt, without implying the legitimacy of probe?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That might be a more general failure of the English language. Though closely related terms are "inquiry", "investigation", "interrogations". Though some of these do imply a bit more of a formal organisation... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Conspiracy theories are misinformation, but not all misinformation comes in the form of a conspiracy theory. Maybe there should be a conspiracy theory section on the page. B.KaiEditor (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a question whether we should categorise misinformation by type or by subject (origins, ...). The second option seems superior if you ask me. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for the reason stated above by RandomCanadian and B.KaiEditor. ACLNM (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons above. Examples of sections in the article which would not be appropriate to label as 'conspiracy theories' include "Large gatherings"; Cruise ships' safety from infection; Efficacy of hand sanitizer, "antibacterial" soaps; Public use of face masks; Alcohol; Vegetarian immunity; and more. Misinformation is the appropriate title. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons above, though I would consider a content fork that could go by that name. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 02:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article covers a wide variety of content, including conspiracy theories. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and please WP:SNOW close - this article covers far more than just conspiracy theories. --mfb (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. ~ HAL  333  17:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WHO Director General statement
''..However the theory "requires further investigation, potential with additional missions involving specialist experts," Dr Tedros said. "Let me say clearly that as far as WHO is concerned, all hypothesis remain on the table," he added.''

“We have not yet found the source of the virus, and we must continue to follow the science and leave no stone unturned.”

I've seen the WHO listed as a credible source in previous discussions, and it's clear that the Director General believes a lab-leak is a possibility that's being actively investigated. He's also on record stating that they haven't found the source of the virus, so it seems that either all potential virus origins being investigated by the WHO are misinformation or none of them are. Any arguments as to why this wouldn't warrant the lab-leak section's removal on the COVID-19 misinformation page?68.148.28.136 (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The WaPo article says, "Right-wing news outlets in the United States published tendentious and thinly sourced reports that the virus may have come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology". Sound like misinformation to me. We already say that an investigation is the only way this will be put to bed. Nothing has changed, and the fact that lab-leaks, meteorite delivery etc. remain remote "possibilities" doesn't cancel out the misinformation which has been spread. Alexbrn (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been made clear by yourself and others in this talk page that articles themselves aren't reliable sources and don't warrant discussion, so I'm not sure why you'd try and build a counter-argument around one. Any text from any article that is not quoting the WHO directly is irrevelant and pure conjecture. I'm focused on what the Director General said: "“Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy.”" Note that he didn't even use the previous term "extremely unlikely", least likely can be anywhere from 1-49%. It's explicitly clear the head of the global authority leading the investigation does not deem the lab-leak hypothesis to be misinformation.68.148.28.136 (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like someone has not read the actual report . Still says that the lab leak is the most unlikely hypothesis. And that conforms with all of the other MEDRS. Of course, it needs further investigation. That does not make it "credible". Painting it as such would be tendentious and WP:FALSEBALANCE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did read the report, specifically the section titled "Introduction through a laboratory incident" (p. 118). Regardless of the likely-hood, the WHO chose to include it as a possible origin. To re-iterate, in the report that the WHO released on possible origins of COVID-19, they listed a lab-leak as a possibility. Consequently, it's the only hypothesis on the misinformation page that is officially being examined and hasn't been denounced by the WHO. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see a section in their report titled "Bio-engineered weapon". The inclusion of 'lab-leak' as misinformation fails even the most basic logical tests at this point, as is quickly approaching misinformation in itself 68.148.28.136 (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * More specifically, the WHO conclusion labels this explanation "extremely unlikely". Bakkster Man (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And why does that matter if they're investigating it as a potential origin? And how is it misinformation if the Director General is quoted as saying a leak “requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts”? 68.148.28.136 (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's about the nuance. Some of the details in the article's section are clearly not supported by this WHO research and the statements around further investigation; for instance being a bio-weapon developed at either WIV or Ft. Detrick. Some of it refers to statements being made which misrepresent the likelihood of the theory being true. Really, all of this comes down to the current consensus being that this theory is "extremely unlikely", with plenty of misinformation surrounding it for this article. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry I couldn't find the reference page for WP:NUANCE. I think it's about using the most recent and reliable information from the governing body that conducted the investigation, even if it contradicts the language in the report (which at no point discredits the lab-leak hypothesis as misinformation anyway) CommercialB (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The WHO mission chief explained the "extremely unlikely" label and even talked it down in this Science Magazine interview . The WHO interim report and now full report lists four hypotheses, one of which is cold chain food transmission which they labeled as "possible" even though there is no direct for it, or even a peer reviewed paper. It is now obvious that this was not a credible investigation.

p.s. Alexbrn’s meteorite delivery hypothesis is not one of those four so it deserves the label misinformation while the lab leak must be split off. CutePeach (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not it's "considered a possibility", the "lab leak theory" has been used as misinformation - mostly by people claiming it's the "only option" or that there's some "conclusive evidence" to prove it. While yes, it hasn't been disproven, so it's not a conspiracy theory, it still is being used in misinformation by people exaggerating the possibility this was the source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , the problem is more often with people downplay the possibility and labeling those who propose it as conspiracy theorists. It started in the scientific community with the Lancet letter authored by Peter Daszak who attributed it to Charles Calisher who now distanced himself from it . This toxicity has spilled over into Wikipedia as some editors on this page equate the lab leak hypothesis to little green men and meteorites. CutePeach (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The real problem is people wishing to write an article on a scientific topic and basing it on the popular press, so as to promote a fringe viewpoint. Much better would be to look for proper MEDRS. These (even if we completely ignore the WHO report), if they mention the lab leak at all, dismiss it as "extremely unlikely", etc. Instead of Google, you're better looking for review articles in places like pubmed. A search for a query like "covid-19 origin" yields plenty of acceptable sources; and well I'm not going to repeat myself. No, the lab leak does not need to be split out of this. It is, at best, evidence-less speculation; and at worst, a transparent political blame game. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think most of us are aware of what the real problem is at this point. Framing the lab-leak theory as misinformation is at best a direct contradiction of the WHO's most recent statements; and at worst a transparent attempt by a handful of politically motivated editors to discredit it as a theory. CommercialB (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Nonetheless - Latest WSJ News re Lab Leak origin of Covid => "Yet enough already is known about the WIV suggest this [ie, that the WHO lab leak explanation as "extremely unlikely"] lacks credibility." - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A WSJ editorial is opinion, not news. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * WSJ is not a MEDRS, as already repeated plenty of time. I assume that analysis of the situation, incorporating the WHO report, will appear in peer reviewed journals soon enough. Until then, we stay with the existing scientific consensus, which is that there's no more evidence for the lab leak theory than for little green man. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You have already been pointed to peer reviewed MEDRS, yet you and Alexbrn continue to WP:STONEWALL. Here is one of several MEDRS that have been linked to:
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33558807/
 * You have made your position abundantly clear, nothing will convince you (don't make me dig up all the links, you know I am not lying about this and your little green men). Time for you to step aside and focus on something else or sanctions may be in order.  I have seen no one here asking for anything more than a common sense, NPOV, and appropriately DUE explanations of the situation. Yet the WP:STONEWALL continues contrary to every policy and principle of Wikipedia. There is no scientific consensus, there is politics pretending there is.  The science says we do not know what happened and that the necessary transparency for future science is lacking.  With almost 3 million people dead, every possible explanation is to be fully explored until an answer is found. Calling a potential lab leak misinformation or a conspiracy theory is absurd. It might even be time for Wikipedia to delete this misinformation/conspiracy theory page altogether. While it may have served a purpose at one time, it is obviously being abused for centralized 'right-think' and really is not in alignment with the history and purpose of Wikipedia; but that discussion is probably for another day. In the mean time, Wikipedia needs to tell the truth about the subject, politically and scientifically.  The current page does neither. Dinglelingy (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly agree here, these are blatant attempts to WP:STONEWALL by RandomCanadian and Alexbrn. They've become increasingly oppositional in response to mounting evidence against their arguments, and continue to deflect from the head of the WHO's recent comments. A record of their actions have a more rightful place on the COVID-19 misinformation page than the lab-leak hypothesis. You have to wonder if the WHO envisioned a handful of rogue editors contradicting their organization's statements when they agreed to partner with the WikiMedia foundation. CommercialB (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed-out numerous time before, is in a low-quality (not MEDLINE-indexed) chemistry journal, so is not a good WP:MEDRS. Why scrape the barrel when we have several really good sources? Doing do is suggestive of WP:POVSOURCING. Alexbrn (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, add your 'special' undocumented requirements to MEDRS. Laughable WP:STONEWALL. Good sources on what, zoonosis?  There are no papers proving anything and the WHO has stated so.  You are making crap up.  Stop lying about what the science says to support your POV. A topic ban may be necessary if you continue this propaganda campaign and your dismissal of valid sources you disagree with.  Are you and RC the top commenters here, yet claim you speak for consensus?  Hmmm, let me look. Like I said, we need to question if this page should even exist given such intransigent in the face of common sense and valid RS and MEDRS. Dinglelingy (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Lack of MEDLINE indexing and articles in out-of-field journals are mentioned in WP:MEDRS so again, you're wrong. If you want to propose a topic ban feel free to post another rant at ANI. Rants on this page are disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you are claiming it is a predatory journal and out of field? lol.  Keep digging. Dinglelingy (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, only you has used the word "predatory". This is beginning to look like a WP:CIR issue or maybe trolling. Anyway, I shall not respond further unless or until new good sources are produced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs)
 * Great, because your 'special' MEDRS requirements are listed as a way to spot 'predatory journals' under MEDRS, not a requirement for all journals, and there was debate about even mentioning medline under 'predatory journals' due to the fact that all reliable journals are not in medline, especially non US ones. With respect to competence, you might want to actually read the journals you dismiss, the subjects they cover, etc. before making claims that they are not in field.  I know its tempting to think a journal with 'Chemistry' in its title is 'out of field' but that would show a lack of basic reading comprehension as to the stated purpose of the journal, much less the topics of the peer reviewed papers they have published. Thanks. Dinglelingy (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The WHO report summarizes:

A priori knowledge about coronavirus ecology, and seroprevalence among rural populations in SE Asia, led scientists to conclude even early in the pandemic that a laboratory leak was highly unlikely. After more than a year of research into this virus by tens of thousands of international scientists, and after assessing that research and conducting their own, WHO scientists still consider a lab leak origin to be "extremely unlikely." It's appropriate that we continue describing efforts to push the lab leak idea as misinformation, and important that we educate readers as to the most likely biological sources of the pandemic. -Darouet (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thankfully there's a page for that- Investigations into the origin of COVID-19- where you can educate readers as to the most likely source of the pandemic. Doesn't come close to making the lab-leak theory misinformation. If the Director General says the lab-leak needs to be investigated further than it's not for a handful of non-experts to re-interpret that message. Either you make the case that the WHO head is an unreliable source and deliberately spreading misinformation by advocating for further investigation of the lab-leak, or we take his statements as the most recent and reliable information on the matter.  CommercialB (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with here. A desire for further research to eliminate an extremely unlikely pathway doesn't change the basic fact that it's an extremely unlikely pathway. (And the unsuitability of the Environ. Chem. Lett. paper was established a long time ago.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh really, I must have missed the retraction from Environ Chem. My bad.  Can you please send a link to this retraction?  Much appreciated. Dinglelingy (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll say this bluntly - if you User:Dinglelingy make another sarcastic comment towards another editor here, or if you continue to play with words to try and attack others, I will request you be blocked from editing COVID-19 related articles. They did not say it was retracted - they said that the article was determined by consensus to not be suitable as a source for this article as it would not be due weight to give that article's views prominence here. Your refusal to accept that outcome does not change that Wikipedia runs on consensus of editors, and you don't have consensus to support using that article here. Making sarcastic comments towards others is not helping your case at all. If your next post on this talk page is anything other than suggesting specific changes (i.e. put an old sentence then suggest specific changes to wording, or suggest brand new sentences added, with sourcing), I will ask you to be blocked from this page for [[WP:IDHT|refusing to accept that consensus is against you. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha, okay. I appreciate your bluntness and the fact you are trying to make your argument with logic. That has been lacking here from the minority of editors disposed to call everything they don't understand a conspiracy theory.  I also appreciate your call for specific changes to the page.  That's how it should work here.  But that has never been the case for anyone proposing changes here and every assertion I have made about editor behavior can be verified by multiple links.  Its far worse than your concerns about my supposed sarcasm. That said, your understanding of Wikipedia processes is lacking if you think that MEDRS requires the article was determined by consensus.  That is not up to you, or me.  If the journal is bullshit, then there is a watchlist for bullshit journals.  It is not up for debate.  No consensus required.  Wikipedia does not vote on MEDRS, its MEDRS or it is not.  Anyway, I will respond to your call for changes later in the new section break, but I really don't have more time to address your other thoughts today.  And honestly, if you really have concerns about sarcasm in addressing this topic, we are on the same page about acceptable behavior and arguments.  It would be nice if personal attacks were discouraged by admins but it seems that calling anyone you disagree with a sockpuppet or SPA is allowed in order to discredit the account instead of the argument. Dinglelingy (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * MEDRS does require that consensus is used to determine if an article meets MEDRS or not. Consensus here is that the article in question does not meet MEDRS requirements, thus cannot be used for medical information in articles. If you wish to challenge that, given that nobody seems to be agreeing with you here, your appropriate avenue would be to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard to ask a wider community view as to whether it applies or not. Until you get a consensus that it's acceptable though, you do not get to unilaterally declare it acceptable, and given that it's unacceptable (as per past consensus), you don't get to use it just because you disagree. And no, it does not need to be on any "bullshit journal" watchlist for it to be unacceptable, nor is it not being on such a list indicative of it being acceptable - we operate on much more than binary determinations on Wikipedia, which I see multiple editors have tried to explain to you. I appreciate your confirming that you are concerned with the behavior here, but to be honest, the only behavioral problem I see is your sarcastic responses, bludgeoning of the topic, and attempts to change the subject when you get an answer you don't like. The section isn't going to be removed, because there has been a lot of misinformation regarding the lab leak theory - even if the theory itself hasn't been disproven, how people have been using it in the real world is misinformation - it has not been proven, it's highly unlikely, and people claiming "it's the only possibility" or that it's being "seriously considered" is misinformation. I made edits the other day to make sure that it's clear that this section is discussing the use of the theory, not the theory itself - if you think the section improperly implies that the theory itself is disinformation, and not how it's being used, please propose specific edits to improve the section. The TLDR version is that even a theory which hasn't been disproven can be misinformation if it is improperly elevated or spread as a "proven" or "likely" theory when it's not - which is what happened here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't recall the WHO saying they were only researching the pathway to eliminate it as an option. Would be quite the WP:CRYSTALBALL you had if you knew for sure that was their goal. Regardless, that still does not make it misinformation in any sense of the word. There's only one subsection on the COVID-19 misinformation page that is being actively investigated by the WHO, with that investigation further re-iterated by the Director General. That makes the lab-leak subsection a blatant outlier on the page, and subject for removal. CommercialB (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * CommercialB, it's your second day here at Wikipedia, and you're already throwing a bag of Wiki policies at us to explain why we should unduly promote politicized psuedoscience. Please. -Darouet (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-arbitrary break to refocus
We are arguing about sources for specific claims to try and say whether the section should go as a whole. Contrary to what some people have been claiming here, the section as it stands in the article now does not say that the lab leak theory itself is misinformation or a conspiracy theory. This article discusses hyperbole, exaggeration, and flat out lying about the theory (ex: saying it's been proven or is the "only option" as opposed to being extremely unlikely). Regardless of whether the theory proves true or not, that is still misinformation - and what's covered in this article, appropriately so, is that sort of hyperbole/exaggeration or outright fabrication of evidence for something. Furthermore, some lab leak theories truly ARE conspiracies. A conspiracy theory doesn't have to be false - it simply has to use improper or "snowball's chance in hell" jumps between facts/logical arguments to get to the conclusion - regardless of whether the conclusion proves true or not. There have been people who have gone beyond saying "it's a viable consideration to make" and have started piecing together unrelated information or misrepresenting facts to push this theory. That is the definition of a conspiracy. So, put bluntly, no, the section is not getting removed. And if the SPAs commenting here continue to WP:BLUDGEON the process with deflections and failure to even read the policies involved, there won't even be any constructive edits out of this. I recommend anyone looking to make substantial changes to wording/sentences point out specifically what they want changed here so it can be discussed. I'll also note that if continued disruption occurs to this discussion by users who refuse to accept consensus is not in their favor, I'll ask an admin to step in. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, please get an admin to step in. I think we can all agree that this topic is of sufficient public interest to escalate this discussion. CommercialB (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You may wish to review what administrators are. They are not some "judges of fact/rightness", they are not some "super powerful vote" in a discussion, they are merely around to stop people from violating the rules, such as WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:NPA. Administrators will not say "you're right" and block people you disagree with - they will say "you violated these rules" and block the person violating rules. Although, for someone who already has a good understanding of the Wikipedia space pages, I'm surprised you didn't know that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand what administrators are, and I'd welcome a review on my and other's discussions on this talk page. There have been several accusations against other editors for violating the rules, which judging from the responses were not addressed or met with outright hostility and/or threats of punitive action. In fact I've read several threats of administrative action on this page with little or no follow-through, primarily targeting users who are petitioning for the removal of the lab-leak section. It's nothing more than an attempt to force consensus through coercion. It is my and other's opinion that a small subset of editors have engaged in blatant WP:STONEWALL on this issue. If my removal from this discussion is part of broader set of very necessary housecleaning actions to clear out all malicious editors, then I'd happily accept that ban without objection. So please, contact an admin. CommercialB (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with CommercialB above, this should be escalated to admins. The consistent attempts to WP:STONEWALL when presented with ANY new source of information that gives credibility to an unintentional lab leak scenario has reached the point of absurdity, and I'm disappointed to see this on Wikipedia. I'm hoping we can resolve this in a manner that works for all. CatDamon (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for joining this discussion. It is uncharitable to call new users SPAs. I was motivated to create my account reading User:Rich Farmbrough’s kind words directed at new users contributing to this topic .There are widely varying views among scientists on the origins of COVID-19 and how to assess the probability of different origin hypotheses, and the debate on Wikipedia is centered around the question of how to select sources and interpret them. I am sceptical that the edit proposal discussion you initiated below will change the minds of certain activist editors involved in this topic. For example, User:Alexbrn says above that the article text as is is evolved beyond the question of the RfC, making it moot but persists on calling the lab leak hypothesis "conspiracism", based on a misrepresented source (Hakim paper) which has been noted by other editors , , . There are now also problems with one of the other sources used by activist editors on this page . For there to be constructive edits on this topic, the above RFC must first be closed by an experienced administrator. There is also a discussion on the RS noticeboard which one of our activist editors tried to close prematurely . Tinybubi (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More falsehoods. There are time-wasting discussions all over the place yes. Alexbrn (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan lab origin (Section change proposal, comments at the end)
Wuhan lab origin The origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined, however speculation and conspiracy theories regarding the possibility that the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was a Wuhan research lab, have gained popularity during the pandemic.. Despite much speculation on the Internet, "lab" related theories are not supported by current scientific evidence. Definitively proving or disproving a "lab" related origin of the virus is a difficult and lengthy process, and long investigations are required to provide a definitive proof or disproof of any theory of the virus' origin.

One early source of misinformation was a bio-weapon origin claim made by former Israeli secret service officer Dany Shoham, who gave an interview to The Washington Times about the Wuhan laboratory. The Epoch Times, a newspaper affiliated with Falun Gong, refers to the SARS-CoV-2 virus as the "CCP virus", and a commentary in the newspaper posed the question, "is the novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan an accident occasioned by weaponizing the virus at that [Wuhan P4 virology] lab?" One scientist from Hong Kong, Li-Meng Yan, fled China and released a preprint stating the virus was modified in a lab rather than having a natural evolution. In a peer-review, her claims were labelled as misleading, not scientific, and an unethical promotion of "essentially conspiracy theories that are not founded in fact".

Some US politicians have speculated on a potential "lab" origin, including Republican Senators Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, as well as then-President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Many scientists and authorities countered that there is no scientific evidence to support the claims being made, including NIAID director Anthony Fauci and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. , while others have called for a forensic investigation to look for evidence.

On 30 March 2021 a joint study team of 17 Chinese and 17 international experts probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic for the World Health Organization released their report

"The joint team’s assessment of likelihood of each possible pathway was as follows:
 * direct zoonotic spillover is considered to be a possible-to-likely pathway;
 * introduction through an intermediate host is considered to be a likely to very likely pathway;
 * introduction through cold/ food chain products is considered a possible pathway;
 * introduction through a laboratory incident was considered to be an extremely unlikely pathway."

The WHO Press Release and closing remarks by WHO Director General Tedros have emphasized that all hypotheses remain open.

The EU and a number of other countries including the United States issued joint statements primarily supporting the WHO mission while also encouraging full access, transparency, and timeliness in follow on studies to determine origin.


 * Per request from Berchanhimez, proposed changes to 'Wuhan lab leak story' section including a title change. Removed non NPOV language and some sentences, especially individual quotes from certain experts that can be countered with quotes from other experts saying the opposite, I don't think we need a quote war with various experts.  Changed WIV reference to Wuhan research lab for accuracy and to avoid singling out a particular facility or group of scientists.  Also didn't quote Tedros to avoid taking his statement out of context.  Might need some minor cleanup but otherwise this is my NPOV proposal that will probably upset all sides of the discussion but is hopefully accurate while minimizing conjecture. I think we can add without comment any additional RS references on either side of the discussion to the following line without hurting the overall NPOV of the section while waiting for more MEDRS:
 * "Many scientists and authorities countered that there is no scientific evidence to support the claims being made, including NIAID director Anthony Fauci and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.[16][17][18], while others have called for a forensic investigation to look for evidence.[19]"
 * Dinglelingy (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just the title change is problematic, as it squashes the idea this is a story that has a counterpart "story" this was a US bioweapon developed at Fort Detrick (and it entirely cuts that text accordingly). That is a presumably a "theory" which the lab leak proponents insist is still in play because "no hypotheses have been ruled out" etc. etc. This is meant to be an article about misinformation! In that light, the proposal also loses information from our best RS about how the conspiracy theories are pushed online by science-resistant believers, and contains much else which is off-topic. In sum: WP:PROFRINGE and not an improvement. Alexbrn (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree to 's title change. There are three labs in Wuhan - Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), Wuhan Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Wuhan Institute of Biological Products (WIBP) . First two were known to collect and handle bat CoVs from Yunan and there are dual use concerns with the third.
 * Disagree with ’s proposed Fort Detrick story as plausible hypothesis with equal validity. Fort Detrick lab origin is not one of the four hypotheses mentioned in the WHO’s Mission report, clarified with WHO DG statements, as reported in reliable sources. Misinformation on Fort Detrick can be split into new subsection and with all the new sources on China’s latest push, it can even grow into an entire section, or a new page.
 * This edit proposal builds on improvements and is a good start towards building consensus on use of best sources. I will add to this edit proposal.
 * CutePeach (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dinglelingy's proposed title change and edits, including the exclusion of the Fort Detrick story for similar reasons stated by CutePeach. Adding a reference to a US lab-leak in a section titled 'Wuhan lab leak story' is not a constructive edit. Additionally, we are WP:MNA that the WHO is the most reliable source on this issue (as per their formal partnership with the Wikimedia foundation to combat misinformation and having access to the most recent raw data), and as such the findings of their report and statements on the Wuhan lab origins should be included and updated as needed. It defeats the purpose of having a page on misinformation if we aren't presenting the most recent publicly-available information regarding it. CommercialB (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Nope We've explained this enough times by this point. I fail to see any MEDRS which would sustain the lab leak being anything but an extremely unlikely theory - citations above are entirely to popular press sources (Taiwans News, CNBC, CNN, whatever). We can use them to report on political and other happenings. Using them to attempt to bring WP:FALSEBALANCE to the lab leak. And yes, the WHO report is among the top sources, but it's only one MEDRS, and we should seek to establish what the consensus of MEDRS is (already explained previously). Also, per WP:SUMMARY, we should only seek to include the most relevant viewpoints. The other hypotheses have received very marginal coverage. Therefore we should focus on the scientific consensus (natural origin, via which exact route not precisely known) and the hypothesis most commonly used to promote misinformation (the lab leak - which although theoretically possible has little to no support amongst scientists who publish in peer-reviewed publications and is instead mostly used by political whackos, sycophants and the like). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I explained to you above, it doesn’t matter whether the lab leak is likely or not, but whether it is a working hypothesis being investigated. The WHO DG statement that the "least likely" lab leak hypothesis "requires further investigation" is itself a MEDRS, and sits above all other MEDRSs published to date. WP:FALSEBALANCE would be giving equal validity to origins by meteorites or little green men. As per WP:SUMMARY, there is significant coverage of the lab leak hypothesis we can summarize. CutePeach (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The proposed edit looks like an improvement, and presents a more balanced summary of the situation, in my opinion. I'm not a fan of the title change though. Before everyone starts making ad hominem attacks and calling me a conspiracy theorist, I'm not. I'm a research scientist (in a totally different field, but I do know how to survey academic literature and think critically about it). I am against Trump and everything he stands for. I don't even think the lab leak is the most likely scenario. But with all the information that has come out in the last few months, in MIT Technology Review, USA Today, Washington Post, New York Magazine, and many other news sources, it is just not credible to say that an accidental lab leak is misinformation any more. Early in the pandemic, a couple journal articles that came out in Nature and the Lancet (which are journals of the highest quality), and people are interpreting these articles to make the claim that a lab leak is impossible. But this is not what the articles show, and not even what they claim, which is that the virus was not genetically engineered. These articles cannot rule out accidental release of a virus that was being studied. Bat coronaviruses were being studied at the lab, and viruses do accidentally escape from labs occasionally. Other SARS coronaviruses have escaped from labs in China before, and the USA today article gives numerous additional examples of other viruses escaping high security labs. Now to a bigger point, the discussion keeps coming back to this MEDRS rule, which is being used here like a lawyer trying to win a case on a technicality. But even a cursory reading of the rule shows that it is being misapplied. Where the virus came from is not, primarily, a health or medicine topic. If there were toxic chemicals in a river getting people sick, surely no one would claim that investigation into the source of the chemicals is a medical/health topic. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So John Doe writing in the Littletown Gazette would be a valid source for highly complex scientific issues? Ha. No; and anyway, for all the reasons previously given there is already consensus that MEDRS are what is required here. And these say things like "the only evidence for a lab leak is that there was a lab in the same town"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @RandomCanadian It seems that this discussion has devolved from an honest assessment of the evidence and sources, into more of a courtroom battle, and you have found yourself on one side and myself on the other. So, at this point anything I say will cause you to harden your position further. But just for yourself; do you really believe what you are saying? Do you really believe that your argument is a logically coherent assessment of all of the available information? Don't answer this (after everything else that has been said on this page, it would be difficult for you to publicly change position) but just think about it. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comment as a whole is a fallacy; by implicitly claiming my argument is not logical or honest; without evidence. It is indeed very difficult to change position when those supporting the other side can't be bothered to read WP:MEDRS and instead only find articles in the popular press covering politics (which are of no interest to us, except for pointing out that the claims as misinformation spouted by ignoramus politicians). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can sympathize with you; Donald Trump and his cabinet were definitely a band of ignoramuses, and he said lot of dumb and wrong things in general, and especially with regard to the coronavirus. And I even agreed with your position 6 months ago. But with all the new information that has come out recently, I changed my mind. The lab leak is not misinformation. It is also not guaranteed to be true either. It is one of several plausible hypotheses that cannot be ruled out. I'm being genuine here when I ask you to reconsider your thoughts on this topic. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not matter how you categorize the idea, or what RandomCanadian or any other Wikipedia user (such as me) thinks; neither does it matter how mass media categorize it. You can try to convince as many users as you want, it will not matter. Only what WP:MEDRS say counts. Maybe if we repeat that often enough, it will sink in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not quite as simple as you and others make the source situation out to be - there are reviewed articles on the laboratory hypothesis, for example:
 * Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review
 * Might SARS‐CoV‐2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?A potential explanation for much of the novel coronavirus’ distinctive genome
 * SARS-CoV-2: the “Uncensored” Truth about Its Origin and Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells as New Potential Immune-Modulatory Weapon
 * And - there is no article that falsifies the laboratory hypothesis according to strict scientific standards. Assigning hypotheses to conspiracy theories contradicts scientific standards.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 is a PRIMARY source since it includes original research and it's published in a non medical journal (though it's a translation of an earlier French article). Disregarding that, you clearly haven't read it. It again says that the scientific consensus is stuff like "The zoonotic origin of CoVs is well documented." and "The hypothesis promoted by most specialists is that the virus has a zoonotic origin." (I could quote the original French, but can't be bothered). 2 is a pre-print by two "researchers" who do not appear be affiliated to any reputable institution nor to have any qualifications in the field. 3 is published by plastic surgeons. Neither of these are MEDRS. Please stop gasping at straws. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "Disregarding that, you clearly haven't read it" SOURCE 1: "To conclude, on the basis of currently available data it is not possible to determine whether the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a zoonosis from a wild viral strain or an accidental escape of experimental strains. Answering this question is of crucial importance to establish future policies of prevention and biosafety. Indeed, a recent zoonosis would justify enforcing the sampling in natural ecosystems and/or farms and breeding facilities in order to prevent new spillover. Conversely, the perspective of a laboratory escape would call for an in-depth revision of the risk/benefit balance of some laboratory practices, as well as an enforcement of biosafety regulations." The result are quite clear - and disproves your position and also waht is written in the article.Sources 2 and 3 can be discussed if something new is included. Source 2 - author Karl Sirotkin is a researcher and was Vice President at National Institutes of Health. You haven't read or understand source 1 and the others. The simple scientific fact is until now: "No one can find the animal that gave people covid-19".....


 * There are far too few investigations to conclusively clarify the labothesis, the scientific consensus is not based on causal evidence but on the consensus theory of truth - some already know the truth - even without rigorous investigation. Therefore, artificial origin hypotheses are per se conspiracy theories. To know the result already before the investigations are finished - is the best fuel for conspiracy theories. --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That is absolutely a bad-faith characterization of the argument being made here. Robert Redfield, the WSJ, MIT Tech Review, NYMag, WaPo, etc. are not small time news sources or outlets. I would agree that the above revision is an improvement as we continue to work towards further investigation and evidence moving forward (given the cooperation of the international community). It is worth repeating that in order to classify something as "misinformation" one should be prepared to give evidence in the affirmative that such a theory is false. It seems that evidence is not available yet, and we are relying on the opinions from institutions and individuals that have many competing considerations, and we should recognize that reality as such. Lastly, the SARS-COV2 virus itself IS, in fact, a highly complex scientific issue HOWEVER the investigations surrounding its origins do not fall into the "highly complex scientific issue" category, and its reasonable that non-virologists can understand those dynamics. Lets steer clear of ad hominem attacks please. CatDamon (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This proposal puts undue weight into arguing that the theory hasn't been disproven completely - this isn't about the theory, it's about the misinformation surrounding the theory. Any more than what is currently in the article attempting to legitimize the theory - regardless of its truth or not - is not due for this article. This article is about people who have turned the theory into misinformation/conspiracies - not about the theory's veracity. Even in the virtually nil chance that this theory is proven later, the information here remains as describing misinformation - such as claiming it's been proven or the only possibility or even that it's more likely than it is. Regardless of your personal beliefs as to the theory's veracity, it's a fact that people (including high ranking politicians from various countries) have taken this possibility and turned it into a propaganda machine full of conspiracy theories, faulty logic, and misrepresentations of facts - and that is what this article is and will remain about. So no, this proposal is not an improvement, as it removes valid information regarding the misinformation campaigns, and it replaces that information with undue weight on the theory itself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez if it were the case that the previous page of “Lab leak hypothesis” hadn’t been collapsed into a page entirely devoted to misinformation (this was within the last 3 months if I recall correctly). There has been a great deal of misinformation constructed from this hypothesis, certainly (I.e. bioweapon claim, etc.). Would you agree that an individual page describing the benign, accidental lab leak hypothesis (key word, hypothesis) would be warranted? I am very uncomfortable with the current state of the way the lab leak hypothesis is being presented here is all. CatDamon (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as the "benign, accidental lab leak". It is not considered seriously by the scientific community (see WP:NOLABLEAK; and the newest sources mentioned here and previously about the WHO report and reactions thereto in serious publications such as Nature) and it has been mostly used as a vehicle for misinformation - it is not possible to dissociate any account of it from the amount of misinformation is has been the source of; claims that it hasn't been disproven (Russel's teapot) notwithstanding. Creating a separate article would be a POVFORK, as already established at previous deletion discussions. There's nothing about the lab leak that can't be covered here or in a more summary fashion at some other article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , no, it would not be, per WP:POVFORK - the lab leak hypothesis is already presented in its entirety, with as much detail as is WP:DUE, at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Wikipedia does not give inflated weight to fringe viewpoints just because they may have a lot of "information" out there about them. You say you're uncomfortable with the way it's presented here - you need to ask yourself why you're uncomfortable. If you're uncomfortable because Wikipedia isn't pushing it as a theory that's being strongly considered, or because you feel Wikipedia is "shooting the theory down", you should review this essay which explains that Wikipedia is not about what is "true" or what you believe to be "true", but what is verifiable - and any notion that the lab leak theory has any traction beyond "hasn't been completely ruled out but is exceedingly unlikely" would be not verifiable - because all reliable sources on this topic do not give it any traction beyond that. If that makes you uncomfortable because it disagrees with your personal feelings/beliefs, that is not our problem - Wikipedia is not here to be a soapbox for your views or to counter what reliable sources say. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this section is, as it does not contain the whole evidence, recent statements of WHO, statements of states and also the recent scientific studies - itself a total disinformation. There is no strict differentiation between hypotheses, theories and conspiracy theories here. Not all statements on the laboratory hypothesis are conspiracy theories or disinformation. But the article presents it this way, selects evidence in such a way - that all statements about the laboratory hypothesis are conspiracy theories - this contradicts all our Wikipedia rules and also the discussion in the science and national community. We need neutral article on the laboratory hypothesis. This is pure disinformation ! --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I quite like quoting myself when I'm faced with the same points again (saves time, effort, and frustration); so here it is: "it is not possible to dissociate any account of it from the amount of misinformation is has been the source of; claims that it hasn't been disproven (Russell's teapot) notwithstanding." The lab leak theory does not have much support in scientific literature. Yes, they might occasionally mention (but they also overwhelmingly prefer natural zoonosis), and of course we should mention the political aspect of it here. That doesn't bring any more credibility to the soapboxing this page and others have suffered, and does not in any case allow us to give this WP:FRINGE viewpoint an inflated standing simply because of the persistence of some twitter "citizen scientists". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've included some reviewed articles above - maybei for you citizen scientits.... Just because there is a broad consensus of science - a hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory. But that is your position and that is unscientific. The lab hypothesis is broad in scientific and public discussion and we should reflect that here. Whether right or wrong we cannot decide here - as long as there is no reliable evidence.Concerning Russell's teapot there is no proof at all at present - for no thesis or theory concerning the origin, not more and not less. But to interpret Wikipedia rules - as it fits best into one's subjective opinion (that what one -you- believes or is a personal opion) - contradicts the principle of neutrality.Just that the hypothesis is sorted under misinformation - is not neutral. That is a misleading, also because the investigations about the origin it still continue - but some know here already the right theory or truth. --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're misrepresenting my position. My position is that the lab leak is a minority, fringe position which does not have "broad support in scientific discussion", unlike the zoonosis hypothesis (the lab leak is somewhere on the spectrum between a pseudo-scientific confirmation-bias-supported position and a questionable but possible theory which has few expert proponents; and it has been demonstrably used mainly to promote misinformation. There is also much stronger evidence for natural zoonosis than for the lab leak, whose sole evidence for essentially boils down to "The only evidence that people have for a lab leak is that there is a lab in Wuhan". Simply because it's not "impossible" (i.e. hence the reference to Russell) doesn't mean we need to treat it the same as the majority scientific consensus, which you are obviously actively disregarding. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  21:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The article in Nature - is also just an opinion - and refers to the WHO study, without any deeper investigation and data ! The investigation of the laboratory hypothesis was explicitly forbidden or excluded by China - so strictly speaking no statement - about the Likelihood / probability - can be made at all ! That is what 14 states have called for. To date, it is a political likelihood not a scientific one. As far as I know, there is no explicit fring theory in philosophy of science and epistemology - I don't know any study or book - about it, what is written in the article about fring is mostly theorizing (TF). Concerning Lab - we are still on the level of hypotheses. If the laboratory hypothesis should be confirmed - this here in Wikipedia would be the biggest misinforamtion of the 21st century. --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "biggest misinforamtion of the 21st century" Can't beat Bush's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq... Anyway, it's not WP's job to be at the avant-garde of science (or in this case, fringe science, as described by WP:FRINGE). "is also just an opinion" So thanks for admitting that you've been citing opinion pieces this whole time and that we're just going in circles. At least the opinion in the Nature article is from somebody who's a subject-matter expert, not a random twitter person. "The investigation of the laboratory hypothesis was explicitly forbidden" doesn't seem to match up with what is in the WHO report - they explicitly had discussion with the scientists at the lab and information about test results (all negative) for workers there. The investigators clearly had enough material to make an assessment of the theory. Your WP:OR criticism of said assessment is not sufficient reason to doubt it. The theory hasn't been disproven (like Russell's teapot), yes, we agree on that. But that doesn't solve any of the other issues as to why it is actually misinformation. Anyway done with this for now since we're going in circles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Funny - the are only two article concerning fring theory in google scholar. "Somebody who's a subject-matter expert, not a random twitter person" -the person has only worked scientificly on spiders ! She is not a expert in the field. I dont´t know the "randon person" -but she is concering corna virus. "The investigators clearly had enough material to make an assessment of the theory" - Really ? No sorry, you don´t know nothing about the WHO investigation ! I have heard statements like yours primarily from Chinese officials. I don't know if you have any idea about science - how such a thing really works. In any case, the laboratory hypothesis is not misinformation  --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your opinion, like mine, is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is what sources say; and we prefer WP:BESTSOURCES (and require WP:MEDRS for subjects like these). Do you have any credible source which supports your WP:OR criticism of the WHO report? Otherwise you can keep making personnal attacks and disruptively ignoring what's being said to you and that will get you exactly what you're begging for. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)