Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2/Archive 1

Interesting sources and drama

 * Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology contains a detailed discussion on some sources that might be relevant here.
 * It also contains a bunch of drama if you should decide it is necessary to be more concerned in the properties of editors than the content of the article. Something that should, I feel, be done sparingly. Talpedia (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Pangolins
Hey I added back pangolins because it's mentioned in the source with what appears to be equal prominence to bats. Is this outdated? Talpedia (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe that it's outdated, but we should check a better source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with mentioning pangolins, but then one must also include other refs which say that the intermediate hosts probably were not pangolins or that the intermediate host is actually unknown.My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I found this source in Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology that User:Alexbrn wrote earlier this month. There might be something more recent there.... Talpedia (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The current source for pangolins vs bats (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32724171/) is a primary source with a bunch of genetics. It would be better if we could get a secondary source. edit: Talpedia (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

CNET
I question the use of this source to promote speculations of "increasingly difficult to ignore". It is a type of computer tech magazine that is considered reliable for tech news like computers and video games... — Paleo Neonate  – 19:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this must be rephrased. Too POV-ish. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We should probably not be using a computer magazine as a source in this article at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Even if the origin of a disease somehow weren't a scientific question, I wouldn't be going to get my news about it from people whose latest story is "HBO subscribers: Watch Wonder Woman 1984 for free with HBO Max before it leaves Jan. 24". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a search for "better" sources related to this. I was wondering whether "polling" or "politics" journals might be good sources. A lot of the material seems to be about "conspiracy theories" which isn't exactly useful for this. We are interested in promience separate of whether something is a conspiracy or not and "prominence amongst people who matter". Talpedia (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that it depends upon how you conceptualize the subject of the article. My impression from looking at the early versions is that the idea was to make a list of significant research projects, rather than to describe the results of those studies and the scientific consensus.  If I've understood the goal, then this is more like a "List of major grants to study COVID's origins" than "Conspiracy theories about COVID's origins" or "Scientific consensus about the origins of SARS-CoV-2" article.
 * What's clear to me is that much of what's on the page right now needs to go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. A "list of major grants and projects" type of article would be justifiable, I think, and statements about the existence of a project and who's involved with it are easier to source than scientific hypotheses. The current text seems rather far from that and needs a lot of work. (For example, it takes the State Department's accusations at face value, when the best secondary sources so far available cast doubt upon their significance, calling them little beyond insinuation.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim was "difficult to ignore". If most people thought that this needed investigating (polling) or most "important people" (e.g. scientists, doctors, politicians) felt that it needed to be investignted then this claim becomes quite technical. Grants are another way of measuring what people care about. The claim as it stands seems to mostly be the impression of the author of the quote rather than something that is objective, even in a loose sense. This sort of claim about "public mood" seems to turn up a bit in history Talpedia (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the above thread is very confusing and unconstructive, because no one is really discussing the actual CNET source: the content, the viewpoints, the links to research papers and other reliable sources, etc. I encourage other editors who have a genuine interest in improving this article to read the sources and make their judgments. Normchou   💬 05:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This was specific to this material that used a suboptimal source to make a questionable claim. The source appears to have been reintroduced albeit not to support the same sentence.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Origin Scenarios
I added an "Origin Scenarios" section, based on the "Classifications" found in Wikipedia's entry on Emerging infectious disease, which is in turn based on a paper by two gentlemen named David M. Morens and Anthony S. Fauci. I thought it would be valuable to have proper classifications of emerging infectious diseases, so that reports of investigations into different origin scenarios aren't conflated with each other. I am unsure why this section was removed instead of improved (it would not have been hard to find the source in the page it linked to). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed it because it was entirely unsourced. Its relevance here is also questionable. This article should be about the scientific investigations into the origin of the virus, but instead, it focuses almost entirely on conspiracy theories. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The four classifications of emerging infectious diseases, which can be sourced in the paper I link to above, defines origin scenarios (which the investigations will presumably investigate). I am not sure what you mean about conspiracy theories. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

, I propose to end the "Unkown Origins" with the sentence ending "remain unknown", as many laypeople do not know this as fact. I propose to spin of a new "Origin Scenarios" section directly below (like the one I created here) to posit theoretical origin scenarios, of which there are four (described by Fauci in the above-mentioned paper), or by Chan in this diagram, explained as succinctly as possible, taking into account points from 's "Messy Terminology" post on the WIV talk page here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently none of these theories are supported by unequivocally convincing evidence, so I think they should be kept as is under the "unknown origin" section without being unduly represented elsewhere. Once more evidence from reliable sources comes out, we can discuss about re-arranging the content. Normchou   💬 18:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They aren't so much "theories" as they are "scenarios", which serve to explain how infectious diseases immerge. "Newly emerging infectious diseases" would be better than "natural accident", as it better describes the process of zoonosis. The second classification of "Re-emerging infectious diseases" talks to the allegations being made by Chinese MFA spokeswoman Hua Chunying that Covid-19 possibilty originating elsewhere in the world at an earlier date. The "Deliberately emerging infectious diseases" scenario was alleged by the likes of Li-Meng Yan, which have largely been discredited. The "Accidentally emerging infectious diseases" would be the more scientifically accurate than "laboratory accident", or possible escape of a laboratory animal, or improper disposal of waste, etc. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

, please can you consider estimating probabilities of one origin scenario or mechanism of transmission in a second section on "Origin Scenarios", and not the "Uknown Origins" section itself. I don't think we want to present the presupposition findings of the investigation before its concluded. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I think we should give WP:DUE weight to the current scientific consensus on sources early on in the article... and what gets written in systematic reviews is kind of consensus. Talpedia (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I am just talking about a matter of style. I think its best to first establish that the origins of the virus are unknown, and then to get into its evolutionary history, the identity and provenance of its most recent ancestors, and the place, time, and mechanism of transmission of the first human infection (Zoonotic or otherwise).
 * Also, I would say there is a scientific consensus on the virus originating in bats, so I think "agreed" would be better than "appears". There is still some debate over origins in Pangolins, so "appears" is better there. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure that the consensus is that originated in bats, the consensus is that we don't really know but probably bats - I sort of think that scientific knowledge includes uncertainty. We could move the consensenus into the lead and add some context for style. This could fix the flow... Talpedia (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * According to PMID 32945405 (a review), it is certainly of bat origin. To quote:
 * I don't think any reliable source now demurs from that view on viral origin, does it? Alexbrn (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The source used to cite the sentence does: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32724171/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32920565/ I picked that source out of the reviews you identified on another page as the "most relevant one" - I didn't like the fact that the review you quote here was more broad ("social...") but perhaps it has other things going for it. Like being more recent. Talpedia (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoa, PMID 32724171 is a primary source and shouldn't be used - especially when on-point secondary sourcing is available. Alexbrn (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I used the wrong URL above (fixed). Yup that's a primary source that someone added for the *bat* rather than pangolin origin I think. It should be replaced with a secodary source. I commented on this (a little vaguely) here, and just edited this comment to be less vague. Talpedia (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I used the wrong URL above (fixed). Yup that's a primary source that someone added for the *bat* rather than pangolin origin I think. It should be replaced with a secodary source. I commented on this (a little vaguely) here, and just edited this comment to be less vague. Talpedia (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS
Given that WP:MEDRS was used as a purported reason for one of the reverts, here is the genuine question of how WP:MEDRS relates to this article. WP:MEDRS itself supports the general sourcing policy, with addition attention paid to content. But to what extent is the source-tracing of a virus medical in nature? In my opinion, WP:MEDRS should not be abused in non-medical context within this article. Normchou  💬 19:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * @Normchou, MEDRS applies to every "scientific" statement about a virus that causes a disease in humans. So, for example, MEDRS applies when deciding whether the virus originated in bats vs pangolins vs some other way, but MEDRS does not apply when deciding which people traveled to which countries on which dates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not see what you've described in WP:MEDRS, which says it deals with "all biomedical information", not "every 'scientific' statement about a virus that causes a disease in humans". Biomedical information gives more context but I see no mention of "a virus that causes a disease in humans". There are a lot of other perspectives, both scientific and non-scientific, in the investigation into the source of a virus, whether it can directly cause a human disease or not. Normchou   💬 19:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * MEDRS covers biomedical information, and editors can, and do, treat "scientific" information about viruses that infect humans as being biomedical information. If you would like, I can start a quick RFC for you, but after hanging out with WikiProject Medicine for the last 14 years, and writing Biomedical information myself, I already know what the result will be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would rather discuss the issue at hand instead of highlighting my "tenure" and "contributions" to give the impression of being an "authority" on Wikipedia, which I am not and never intend to be so. I alluded to Biomedical information because it is a reference I find useful, but I am also fully aware of its caveat that This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. If there is community consensus that this article cannot escape the long arm of WP:MEDRS, then I respectfully accept it. Normchou   💬 20:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on Wikipedia:Biomedical information, something like virus (including evolution of viruses) or water would not be covered, however any information on how they affect human health would be covered. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ This is much more reasonable than every "scientific" statement about a virus that causes a disease in humans. Also, Biomedical information itself has not been thoroughly vetted by the community, which I believe further limits its power in terms of "jurisdiction" beyond its normal boundaries. At any rate, I don't think this article will have any information on "how something affects human health". Normchou   💬 03:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That page says, under the section heading "What is biomedical information?", that this type of content is covered by MEDRS:
 * Biomedical research
 * Information about clinical trials or other types of biomedical research that address the above entries or allow conclusions to be made about them.
 * I wonder why you think that lab research into the origin of a virus is not "biomedical research" that addresses the entry above labeled "Attributes of a disease or condition" (specifically "how it is caught", since we are talking about how the first person caught this virus). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think what you've suggested above is highly misleading. We are not here to talk about the biological and physiological characteristics and mechanisms of the viral infection process in the first person who got COVID-19. How the first person caught this virus? in the context of this article is semantically more or less equivalent to "Where did the virus that infected the first person come from?" The subject of the article is the virus' origin. It has nothing to do with the first person who got COVID-19, or their body, or their immune system, or their organs, or their cells, or their antibodies, or whatever specious "biomedical aspect" inappropriately imposed, so that as long as someone shouts "Not WP:MEDRS!", it can have the destructive effect of censoring significant viewpoints supported by reliable sources. Normchou   💬 04:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC); edited 04:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC); edited 05:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think one should simply follow WP:RS and use common sense. For example, something like that or that or that I think would be OK to source that we do not know who was "patient zero" (arguably, an epidemiology question). My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Wrong title
Doesn't everyone know Covid-19 originates with a viral infection? Shouldn't this page be "Investigations into the origin of SARS-CoV-2"? GPinkerton (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, but we should probably figure out whether this article is about "the investigations" or "the origin" before we try to move it (again). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Content removal
Regarding the content that User:Thucydides411 removed:

It directly summarizes these two sentences from the RS:

Regarding the content they removed:

It directly summarizes this sentence of the RS they removed:

Regarding the content they removed:

It directly summarizes this sentences from the RS:

I have not examined the new materials they introduced, but will do it later today. If this kind of WP:SNEAKY behavior continues, I will file a report at ANI to have an uninvolved admin to further scrutinize their conduct.

Normchou  💬 14:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It directly summarizes these two sentences from the RS. The RS attributes those statements to US officials. The text that I removed said, "While it is a known fact that ...". Note the lack of attribution and the POV language, implying a contradiction ("While") between a supposed known fact and the next claim, that the results of the investigation were inconclusive.
 * Regarding the content they removed: I replaced this passage, including the preceding sentence, with a single sentence that more succinctly summarizes the information, and which includes the fact that the investigation was ordered by Trump administration officials.
 * , you've accused me on my talk page of vandalism, and here you've accused me of violating WP:SNEAKY. This policy covers behaviors such as adding plausible misinformation to articles and mpersonating other users by signing an edit with a different username or IP address. There's no way my edits could plausibly be construed to fall under this policy. Wikipedia policy is very clear that accusations of vandalism should not be made against good faith edits. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Putting aside accusations of vandalism and ill-faith for a minute, why did you remove what was the first statement by the US government on an official investigation activity, made by the OST on 6 February 2020. As it reads now, the section US Investigation section launches straight into a tirade against a certain theory (which we shall not utter), without making any mention of any US government investigation activity (by that time, even the Chinese gov had barely launched an investigation), and the CIA statements don't seem to based on the results of any investigation. I think the section on US government investigation should stick to the subject of actual US government investigation activities, starting with the OST statement. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I am accusing you of subtle vandalism because you are reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. These two improvements  would not have occurred should the original sentence be removed, as you did in your edits. If you think I should accuse you of something else, presumably more serious than subtle vandalism, I am pretty confident I can collect the relevant diffs of your edits and file a report on ANI. So please stop this type of behavior.  Normchou   💬 15:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC); edited 15:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You've been editing Wikipedia for more than 10 years. You know better than to make false accusations of vandalism. Please strike your comments. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No,, I will not strike my comment about a fact. Also, in your above comment, you claimed the reason for the removal of the first sentence was The RS attributes those statements to US officials, yet in this edit you introduced , you precisely omitted the attribution to US officials. And instead of removing the entire sentence you introduced, I fixed it . Normchou   💬 16:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with my edits, you're free to say so, but calling my editing vandalism is not acceptable. Strike your accusations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Normchou, on Wikipedia, saying that something is vandalism is exactly equivalent to saying that you think the person who did it was actively trying to harm the article. If you want to make that claim, please make it at ANI (and please notify me if you decide to do that).  Otherwise, please strike your accusation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Normchou did not notify me, so I'll post the ANI link here for anyone else who might be interested: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The result of this discussion is that Normchou will not be editing COVID-19-related articles for the next three months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Over at ANI, you accused me of vandalism for, among other things, including the statement that German intelligence had suggested that claims made by the Trump administration might be "misinformation". You pointed out that the CNBC source does not include that word. I went back and saw that it indeed does not. However, the original report in Der Spiegel says it might be a "gezielte Falschmeldung" ("deliberate misinformation"). I used the CNBC article because it's in English. I didn't notice that it doesn't contain this piece of information. Rather than going to ANI to accuse long-time editors of vandalism over trivial issues like this, you can just lay out your objections/concerns on the talk page. You're much more likely to make actual progress on resolving content disputes that way than by making baseless accusations of vandalism. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. There was little indication in your edits that you attributed or intended to attribute it to Der Spiegel, and it constituted a very minor aspect of my accusation anyway. I am more than happy to retract this part if what you've said above is true, and I would still encourage others go to ANI and see for themselves all that you've done with this article together with corroborating diffs. 2. No, the more conducive way would've been for to first acknowledge my warning  before you decided to go ahead with your sneaky little trick.  Normchou   💬 01:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Normchou, there is no consensus that any of this was "well-sourced content". It is, to quote you, "only your opinion" that it was well-sourced.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

POVFORK
It's becoming increasingly clear that this page was created as a WP:POVFORK for conspiracy-theory material that has been rejected elsewhere (e.g., at Wuhan Institute of Virology). The same sourcing standards apply here as elsewhere, and the heavy emphasis on conspiracy theories should be replaced with an emphasis on the actual scientific investigations into the origin of CoVID-19. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:POVFORK, the accusation of "POV fork" should only be done under circumstances such as  disruptive editing, unless the accusing editors themselves are prone to POV-based judgements.  Normchou   💬 16:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that the discussion on Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology and Talk:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic has not reached a consensus, and I see that you have been asked by Forich on your talk page to help shortlist MEDRS/RS sources. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree. This is clearly not a content work of Wuhan Institute of Virology because it is covering political matters on investigation, not just the institute. Further, this material might detract from the page on covid 19 which should probably be more medical in focus and less to do with investigation and current affairs. I would be more open to the argument that this might be a fork of sections on the covid page.
 * I think the material should be augmented with more scientific material. Talpedia (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The concern about povfork is valid because some previous attempts obviously were. This article has a better scope and enjoyed more scrutiny, in its current state I wouldn't consider it an unambiguous point-of-view fork.  To help, the lead should probably include a statement about the current state of research and maybe a mention about conspiracy theories while leaving those outside of the article's scope (it has its own article).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that instead of getting into the conspiracy theories in the lead, it would be better to have an "origin scenarios" section below the "origins" section, so as to fully encompass all possibilities in the scope of scientific investigation. The two main conspiracy theories that have been propagated relate to biowarfare, as proposed in a paper by Li-Meng Yan, which has been picked apart and disproven, and HIV inserts, as proposed in a paper by Luc Montagnier, who retracted it. Within the scope of science, there are really only three scenarios that can be investigated (nifty diagram here), while allegations of biowarfare can only be investigated by a UN agency similar to that of the IAEA, which currently doesn't exist, though it may very well come come up later this year at the Ninth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theories now mentioned although outside of the article scope with a see-also link to the misinformation article, — Paleo Neonate  – 02:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The mainstream scientific view of the origins of SARS-CoV-2
This article leans heavily towards the conspiracy theories about the lab leak, but does not emphasize the mainstream scientific view, that the virus spilled over naturally. The mainstream scientific view should be explained and given much more weight in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure that this is the mainstream opinion. The mainstream opinion is likely closer to that it *probably* spilled from animals, perhaps due close contact between people are animals but further research is required. I agree it would be good to have some scientific literature on the piece Talpedia (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is about documenting the investigations taking place. I don't understand why you removed details relating to US government investigations and replaced it with "US government claims", and counterclaims, covered by sources from last year. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I included a more complete description of the claims made by the Trump administration. I actually included more information about the actual investigations being conducted by US intelligence, as opposed to claims made by Trump and Pompeo. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And why did you remove the section about how the investigations were formally initiated? Who wants to hear about what Trump in the very opening of a section about US government proceedings which had nothing to do with him? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's poorly sourced, and not obviously DUE. The only source given is a PDF of a letter from the White House to the NAS, which is a primary source. Is there any secondary coverage of this letter? -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear you about the primary source. But shouldn't this section be focused on the investigation activities of the US government, as opposed to all the "he says and she says" of the virus origins as it is now? The way the section read before was just chronicling known investigation activities, and while I agree that it said more about investigations into lab leak, that is only because there weren't a lot of statements about investigating other origin scenarios (because the US doesn't have access to the WIV or HSWM to do that). The US approach has been quite skewed towards alternative scenarios, and it will be hard for this article not to reflect that. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Relying on primary sourcing is a form of original research. You're deciding which part of which primary documents to include (for example, you didn't include the part of the letter that asks the scientists to look into an HIV-related conspiracy theory). Unless there are secondary sources, this material has to go. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't so familier with the WP:PRIMARY policy and I thought the White House website would naturally be a good reference for a letter they put out. Please can you advise on content changes or on better sources, keeping within the focus of this page; which is investigations taking place by different national and international governments and organisations? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SECONDARY sources are what are needed. But if this material is just based on primary sources, then it should be removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Mainstream" is mainstream because there is sufficient reliable and verifiable sources to support it, not because what one thinks is "mainstream". I object to a lot of what User:Thucydides411 did in their editorial decisions. In particular, instead of adding new "mainstream" sources and content, they deleted large chunks of texts and reliable sources they deemed "not mainstream". I would like to remind them of WP:NPOV, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOTCENSORED regarding any future edits they make. Normchou   💬 15:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. Keep in mind, this is also a political controversy. Therefore, removing something that Pompeo said just because that was Pompeo is wrong. The official views by US government are obviously important. If these views will change in a future on that matter (I doubt), then it can be corrected. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Are WP:SECONDARY sources always required. I'm confused in light of this from WP:PRIMARY "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Sloorbeadle (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * All articles are supposed to be WP:Based upon WP:Independent and secondary sources (which are not the same thing). Primary sources can be used to add a few details, but they should be used carefully (e.g., if the source says "Paul Politician said this", do not turn that into "Paul Politician said this important thing" or "Paul Politician was correct when he said this"), and they should not be used to contradict stronger types of sources.  For example, if a major scientific report says something, then editors would not cite a political magazine to say that the scientists are wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

U.S. government investigations
The "U.S. government investigations" section has WP:PROSELINE problems. It should probably be condensed, with less emphasis placed on dates and quotes.

Also, over-quoting can be a really big problem with articles. I've seen this in my work with the Guild of Copy Editors. Keep in mind that quotes are not subject to our normal revising/polishing process (can never have their text changed), can pepper an article with POV statements (since we can state POV with quotes but can't in wiki-voice), and increases mental burden on the reader (quotes tend to be less succinct than summary prose stating the same thing). WP:QUOTEFARM. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the same thing may apply for the WHO Investigation, and I just saw this statement from WHO Official Michael Ryan who said he isn't going to give continual updates till the investigation is completed. I'm sure he'll give a statement at least when the investigation team comes back from China in a couple of weeks, but the investigation can take years. Given that this is a current event, isn't it normal to add statements as they come out? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTNEWS. Granted, this mostly gets ignored during big events - which is why COVID-19 articles are often terrible pile-ups of tedious blow-by-blow accounts of what happened, as it happened. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, articles about big events tend to grow rapidly and without planning, requiring cleanup later. Better to think carefully before adding new things, particularly when the "news" is "there's not going to be real news". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that these sections aren't in good shape. What I think would be helpful is if someone could identify the actual, discrete projects being undertaken.  I'd like to see content that sounds more like "Big Agency started Some Project in Month to research Detail".
 * I've just boldly removed anything from the ==US== section that didn't look to me like an actual investigation (e.g., that a politician said one thing in one interview and the opposite in another interview on the same day). That left a request from OSTP to NASEM to do something (not exactly an investigation, but close enough?) and the investigations by the US intelligence community (completely non-scientific, but maybe it counts?).  I think it's an improvement that moves this article towards objective knowledge instead of "psychological warfare" and political machination.  What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was having similar thoughts. Good call. Alexbrn (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the mass delete. I've put it back, per WP:BRD. Maybe change the section title to US government position or similar, then address each item separately, if needed. Arcturus (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The topic of this article is "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19". Content needs to specific to that. Alexbrn (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with trimming down the section, but I also agree with that we should discuss it here, so as to foster cooperation. I agree to removing the paragraph with the statements from Pompeo, as he didn't reference any investigations, or reveal any new information, and only further politicized the issue. However, the paragraph with the statements from Pottinger does reference investigations (US intelligence agencies do have scientific capacity), and it did reveal new information (whistleblower and position on WHO investigation). The USDOS "fact sheet" is highly relevant, providing new information from investigations, including the whistleblower that Pottinger spoke about in his Zoom call with the MPs, and the comment about the WHO investigation is especially relevant as an official US gov position. I also think the Psaki statement is significant, in that it demonstrates that despite the politicization of the issue under the Trump administration, the Biden administration has not disavowed the position of the previous administration. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there any evidence that the "fact sheet" put out by the Trump administration is actually based on any sort of investigation? Do we even know whether this alleged whistleblower actually exists? Yes, intelligence agencies can access scientific expertise, but they can also engage in disinformation. I think this article should be about actual investigations, not about a collection of unsubstantiated claims by various politicians or governments. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The text in dispute also violates NPOV by eliding the skepticism displayed by the most detailed secondary source we have about the "fact sheet": The claims were dismissed by analysts; "Zero details given," noted Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at Scripps Research, rating the statement as "an F"; Mr Pompeo's statement offered little beyond insinuation. I've pointed this skepticism out before at WP:RSN and Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * AIUI the "scientific capacity" of the intelligence agencies has a lot more to do with computer security than, say, DNA studies.
 * The article made three claims about the fact sheet:
 * that they didn't know how the virus first spread to humans,
 * that some staff at the lab had respiratory infections last autumn (me, too, by the way – does that mean it actually started in the US?), and
 * that the lab had done some research for the Chinese military.
 * None of these sound like actual investigations to me, and the last item has no stated connection to the subject. You're just supposed to read between the lines, or maybe engage in a little apophenia, and guess that maybe a worldwide pandemic could be a deliberately created bioweapon, because the Chinese military is only going to fund Bad Stuff™.  (I wonder what these people would think if they learned that the US military has been a major funder of breast cancer research for decades.  Maybe they'd conclude that the US military is trying to cripple the world by making everyone's grandmas die young?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how any of that justifies the removal of content about US government investigations into the origin of COVID-19 from a page about investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Your guess about the CIA's scientific capacity is as good as mine, and their investigations are likely classified, leaving us with very little to cover, other than what is stated by other US gov agencies. We only have the statements from Pottinger due to disclosure by British MPs on the contents of a classified discussion that was held over Zoom, as covered n the Times piece, and that set the stage of the later USDOS statements. For an encyclopedic entry, the US government's statements, particularly in relation to the US government's position on the WHO's investigation, all meet WP:DUE. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Despite the objections of several editors above, you've added largely the same conspiracy theory material as before. This is really unacceptable. Please revert your addition and seek consensus here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:REMOVAL. Consensus should first be reached on reasons to remove content that has already been contributed, especially if it is as well-sourced and relevant as it is in this case. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: ScrupulousScribe has been indefinitely banned from all articles related to COVID-19, and is blocked at the moment for violating that ban.  Not pinging banned editors about topics they're not allowed to discuss would be an act of kindness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the argument about trying to make a point by accumulating a lot of material... — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary WHO results
Material was added regarding the preliminary results of the WHO investigation. WHO investigation material should be placed in its respective section and stated in a neutral fashion. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the New Indian Express is usable here? There appears to be a small previous RFC resulting in the original Indian Express being considered an acceptable journalistic source, with some negative comments about the New one and the ANI agency at WP:RSN.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @PaleoNeonate, https://apnews.com/article/who-coronavirus-experts-learned-in-wuhan-86549d1189f3d174273a26e39d177d05 might be harder to dispute. I particularly recommend using the information in this source to identify and remove existing claims (especially if poorly sourced or outdated) that are probably wrong/probably WP:UNDUE from any article about COVID-19. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 05:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting us know your concern regarding the veracity of the statements in the New Indian Express. I have provided a source to verify the statements. See here. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You have restored some material without having reached consensus here (WP:BRD), I'll let it stand to see what other editors think, — Paleo Neonate  – 11:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with the added material, we can remove all the material that has been added over the past two days per BRD. I am fine with how the article reads at the moment. Perhaps, the Chinese and WHO material on cold chain transmission can have its wording improved. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Fresh new RS sources
Hi! I just found out about those two brand new articles from the Washington Post and the Daily Telegraph  about the possibility that the virus escaped WIV. I wanted to have a conversation to see if they're relevant here, thanks. Feynstein (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a quote from WaPo, the telegraph is paywalled. "But there is another pathway, also plausible, that must be investigated. That is the possibility of a laboratory accident or leak. It could have involved a virus that was improperly disposed of or perhaps infected a laboratory worker who then passed it to others." Feynstein (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Would need WP:MEDRS for any biomedical claims (e.g. about the origin of the virus), as discussed elsewhere ad nauseam. Alexbrn (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reference #3 is an opinion piece (says it in the title) => not MEDRS. I thought it didn't require it then but I must be wrong. Here's a quote from the telegraph's "In a significant change from a year ago, a growing number of top experts – including (ordered alphabetically by last name) Drs Francois Balloux, Ralph S Baric, Trevor Bedford, Jesse Bloom, Bruno Canard, Etienne Decroly, Richard H Ebright, Michael B Eisen, Gareth Jones, Filippa Lentzos, Michael Z Lin, Marc Lipsitch, Stuart A Newman, Rasmus Nielsen, Megan J Palmer, Nikolai Petrovsky, Angela Rasmussen and David A Relman – have stated publicly (several in early 2020) that a lab leak remains a plausible scientific hypothesis to be investigated, regardless of how likely or unlikely. We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list." Holy cow eh? How fringe is it now? XD. You should read the Telegraph's article, pretty good. Feynstein (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Angela Rasmussen? The Angela Rasmussen who wrote in Nature about the contradictory and sometimes outright ridiculous conspiracy theories that spread faster than the virus itself: SARS-CoV-2 was the result of a laboratory accident or was intentionally engineered ? That Angela Rasmussen? If that's the level of fact-checking being applied, the "source" deserves to be chucked in the bin forthwith. XOR&#39;easter (talk)16:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, she even tweeted it: "This is a wonderful thread about why we should reject conspiracy theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. No, we can’t rule out laboratory origin. Yes, we need an unbiased investigation into origins. Just because lab origin is plausible doesn’t mean it’s probable.". Looks like she's pissed at the fact no zoonotic animal was found XD, or she has a bunch of lab money riding on it not being a leak. Who knows. Feynstein (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The thread she shared was a criticism of the New York Magazine cover story that hyped up the lab-leak idea. When a scientist calls something physically possible but improbable, they're not endorsing it. It's like saying we can't rule out that a particular UFO was really an alien, but conspiracy theories about the Face on Mars are still conspiracy theories. And including a bunch of people who have made statements of that nature into a list, while omitting the details they go into when they actually explain themselves, might be a way to bulk up an opinion column, but it doesn't actually amount to much at all. WP:RSOPINION applies. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here let me point out something to you from the article in case you missed it when you read it: "We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list.". It might as well be an opinion piece, but your argument is not the reason why WP:RSOPINION should apply.Feynstein (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did see that. First, I've encountered enough instances of people giving consent to be quoted in one thing and ending up quoted in something else that I don't trust statements of that sort. Second, and more importantly, a list of names is just a list of names; an actual scientific review, rather than an opinion column, would provide pointers to actual prior statements, discussing the nuances of each position (logical possibility versus actual probability, etc.), rather than merely piling them up to make a case look superficially good. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that misquoting is a problem in science. We'll see if she retracts her name from it in the next few days. I think the story will come out eventually. Feynstein (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of these are WP:RSOPINION anyway, as far as I can tell. Newimpartial (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I just can't believe this argument is going to be re-hashed again. Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't do it this time I'll let other editors figure out the double standard. Have a good one bud. Find me on my talk page once you read that telegraph article. I don't think it qualifies as an opinion piece, if it is it's not explicitly said so like in WaPo. Tourelou! Feynstein (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As stated on my Talk page, that's just what the UK broadsheets do. Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The two authors of the Telegraph opinion piece are Alina Chan, who is known for pushing the lab-leak idea, and Matt Ridley, a journalist and businessman whose past hits include "5 reasons why the coronavirus nightmare may soon be over" (25 July 2020 ... oops). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that piece hasn't aged well. The first point was right, the last point was (to be generous) half-right, and the other three points were pretty much unadulterated crap. Newimpartial (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a source for the plausibility of the lab-leak hypothesis. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000240 Sloorbeadle (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes but it's not MEDRS because it's a primary source. And someone decided the origin of the virus was requiring MEDRS at some point so now we've been stuck in a limbo for a year because the virus is too young for scientists to release secondary papers (litterature reviews) about probable origins. And of course the CCP being the totalitarian police state that it is, research with local, good quality samples has been shut down and no one has released anything from mainland China, sparking wild conspiracy theories that have now been used in the scientific community to shut down debate on legit lab leak hypothesis. On one side we've got nutjobs talking about secret bioweapon programs for the great reset and on the other we have big wig virologists with clear conflicts of interest regarding funding if it ever was revealed as an accident making suspiciously assertive claims and building up a career destroying cancel culture around the issue. In a nutshell: no progress has been made anywhere and it means here also. Feynstein (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this gets to WAID's concern above. If this article is about "Investigations into the origin of covid-19" (as the current title claims) then the article should focus on investigations (which is how it's currently structured). "Some experts think the virus could have come from WIV" has nothing to do with an investigation so there's not really a place for it here, unless exploring the lab leak hypothesis is an explicit goal of one of the ongoing investigations (I think it might be a goal of the Lancet commission?). Instead, you want an article on Origin of SARS-CoV-2, but so far that exists only as a subsection here. Ajpolino (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The origin of sars-cov-2 article all but rules out the possibility of a laboratory recombination event. That's hardly fair given the current body of evidence. Sloorbeadle (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ajpolino, someone created Draft:Emergence of COVID-19 outbreak. It's possible that this page ("organized research projects") and that page ("Were pangolins involved?") could be merged, but at minimum, if someone wants to argue about whether it's 99% unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 was present in a particular building, or whether it's only 90% unlikely, then I think that draft would be the place to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * These sources are good because the leakage from the lab is not a medical claim, but mostly a political controversy. Medical sources simply do not cover political controversies. Saying that, this is also a conspiracy theory from WP perspective because it was described as such in multiple RS. But again, one does not need WP:MEDRS sources to define it as a conspiracy theory. My very best wishes (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Several sources have been determined to be primary, suboptimal and pushed on Wikipedia by efforts coordinated on social networks. These must of course be avoided, this includes those from Frontiers Media journals (now at WP:RSN), editorials/opinion sections of newspapers, BioEssays. — Paleo Neonate  – 06:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Biden Administration "deep concerns" about WHO report handling
On February 13 2021, the Biden Administration expressed "deep concerns" about the handling of the WHO report, and called for the release of raw data from early in the epidemic. This should probably be incorporated in the article. Park3r (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. This material should be added. I think in the WHO part since below I have quotes from the Wall Street Journal from a WHO member. Looks like he was disappointed. I don't understand why the Chinese government didn't give the raw data.
 * "But the WHO team wasn't allowed to view the raw underlying data on those retrospective studies, which could allow them to conduct their own analysis on how early and how extensively the virus began to spread in China, the team members said."


 * ""They showed us a couple of examples, but that's not the same as doing all of them, which is standard epidemiological investigation," said Dominic Dwyer, an Australian microbiologist on the WHO team. "So then, you know, the interpretation of that data becomes more limited from our point of view, although the other side might see it as being quite good.""


 * Oh and then there was this confusing snippet from that article:


 * "WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the U.N. agency hadn't ruled out any hypothesis."


 * I really do think we need to update this article to make it more accurate. This is a Covid-19 article we can't have incorrect information in it. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The State Department of the United States has been accused many times of having a republican bias in their statements about the investigations on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Republicans were accused many times of being anti-chinese, and of pushing unfounded accusations on the World Health Organization.  We should be careful then of using them as sources for Wikipedia, specially regarding scientific topics in which they are not competent. Forich (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement and comments were made by Jake Sullivan who is the National Security Adviser, not part of the State Department. According to his bio, he was heavily involved in both Obama and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaigns, and was Hillary Clinton's adviser, before becoming an adviser to Obama and Biden. Hardly fits the profile of a Republican operative. Regardless, that shouldn't factor into whether this is included in the article.Park3r (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the change in administrations? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure this should be about US administration. Here is most recent publication which briefly mention WHO findings (the virus probably circulated in China long before December 2019, and no one knows where it came from). It is also significant that Chinese government denied them access to specimens. This is a clear indication they are hiding something, possibly even leak of the virus from the lab, or who knows what (see here, for example), but the WHO team was unable to complete the proper investigation, due to the denied access to data. My very best wishes (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with others that the State Department is biased on this issue. And there are RS's saying the Trump Administration was one of the biggest promoters of COVID-19 misinformation in the world. With that said though, I don't mind mentioning US government, Trump administration, Biden administration, and State Department statements in this article (because this article is a good place for them). But, I would like them to all have secondary sources (not interviews, press releases, State Department website, White House website, which are primary sources). And I'd also like to not cite the primary source at all. Preferring secondary sources avoids problems with WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I'd also like to see us move away from quotations (WP:QUOTEFARM) and towards summary style. And I still remain quite concerned about WP:PROSELINE problems in this article. Once some time elapses, all of these paragraphs starting with "On Jan 1" "On Feb 22" etc. will probably need to be copy edited to remove their dates and re-focused on a concise summary of the issues. And we should also start including some secondary sources that don't just regurgitate what the State Department and White House said, but their critical analysis of it, and how it fits into the overall story, which will get clearer with time. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Let me remind all you guys, that editors recently argued against using US intelligence as a source, because of an alleged Trump association. For example, User Hemiauchenia said that the US-government's criticism of China was due in large part to "cover for the failure [of Trump's administration]". . Forich (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Due weight of Frozen food hypothesis?
What is the current weight achieved by the frozen food hypothesis: mainstream, minor, tiny, speculation, fringe? Forich (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question, according to the recent source WhatamIdoing suggested above (https://apnews.com/article/who-coronavirus-experts-learned-in-wuhan-86549d1189f3d174273a26e39d177d05) it may be possible for transmission from frozen products to humans to occur ("left open the possibility"), they then attribute to a virologist that the cold chain itself is not enough as an origins theory (i.e. they still must have been contaminated by an infected organism somewhere recently enough)... My impression is that it remains speculative unless conclusive evidence of earlier infections elsewhere is found, — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been given heavy weight by the WHO team during their briefing here. They say that it is "[similar] and connected" to their #1 most likely hypothesis. I searched PubMed review articles for "frozen food covid", and this January 2021 article is the only article that popped up. Although foodborne transmission has not been fully explored yet, it important to underline that the contaminated cold storage food could serve as a long-range carrier of SARS-CoV-2, presenting a systematic risk of its transmission across the regions and countries via cold chain industries. and The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via contaminated frozen food and packaging surfaces represents a newer possibility which must be investigated with high attention. In conclusion, I think it is not fringe, and deserves some weight. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion creeping in between cold frozen food as a method of general spread vs origins. Bodypilllow (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

In this NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-health-organization-coronavirus.html about the WHO investigation, one of the WHO team members is quoted as saying that the likelihood of the initial spread to humans via frozen wildlife products is a "very unlikely scenario". Given that this page focuses on the origins (i.e. presumably the initial transfer from reservoir species to humans) rather than subsequent spread between humans, at least that WHO team member is not putting much weight on the theory. Bodypilllow (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article also calls the frozen food origin hypothesis a "mantra" of the Chinese government which the Chinese government urged WHO to consider, where the WHO agreed to look but were "skeptical". Bodypilllow (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. I agree with you. Frozen food transmission is China's state media narrative, which the WHO oddly enough seems to be embracing. The virologists based on the following quote appear to be just shaking their heads :
 * WHO: Did the virus that caused a worldwide pandemic make the jump to humans via frozen food? That was one hypothesis put forward on 9 February by a joint World Health Organization and Chinese investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
 * China: The idea that the coronavirus was carried inside or on the surface of frozen food, which has been advanced by Chinese state media, could place the source of the virus beyond China, from an animal imported from another country.
 * Virologist: “I would say it’s extremely, extremely unlikely the virus would have spread through that type of route,” says Lawrence Young at the University of Warwick, UK, who specialises in human virology.
 * These snippets are very confusing. I think something needs to be added to the article. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned. If the Chinese government is correct does that mean we will need to start wiping down our frozen pizza boxes before unpacking them? I think other people might also start to get concerned about their frozen food from the grocery store. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @ Novem Linguae, Is your source a MEDRS? Many editors have proposed the idea that any scientific hypothesis requires a mention in at least a couple of MEDRS. And it has to be a mention that supports the theory, it is not enough if the MEDRS says that the hypothesis can not be ruled out, according to what many editors have proposed regarding other hypothesis. Forich (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the WHO is MEDRS. The journal article is a PubMed review from Environmental Science and Pollution Research (international). I guess you could argue that environmental science is not related enough to virology and epidemiology, so that one is debatable. Since posting those two though, I have changed my mind about the frozen food hypothesis. I have now seen enough evidence that it is my personal belief that USA wants the origin to be something that gives China maximum responsibility for the pandemic (lab leak), and China wants the origin to be something that gives China minimum responsibility for the pandemic (imported frozen food), and both are using their massive platforms to promulgate their preferred version of events. At this point, in my opinion, the most likely and most neutral origin hypothesis (random, natural spillover from horseshoe bats in China) is probably the correct one. Hard to write articles on hunches though. This whole subject area desperately needs scientists to release definitive journal articles on the subject, to start debunking these POV's, biases, and misinformation being pushed by governments. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Most WHO material is *not* MEDRS. Per WP:MEDRS "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty much anything published by the WHO can be acceptable under MEDRS. (There's a difference between "acceptable" and "ideal".  Much of what we say about MEDRS is referring to what MEDRS calls "ideal sources".  The ideal is not the minimum standard.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The US government has stated now:
 * "After more than a year since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was declared a global health emergency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continue to underscore that there is no credible evidence of food or food packaging associated with or as a likely source of viral transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing COVID-19."
 * Is the US government a reliable source? They seem to be always contradicting the Chinese government and the WHO. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In my experience consuming international news on this topic, the ranking of official national sources according to alleged anti-China rethoric is:
 * 1) Australia
 * 2) India
 * 3) Taiwan
 * 4) United States
 * 5) UK and Arab World
 * The outlets that in my opinion handle the news the most NPOV on this matter seem to be Reuters and AP. We can then triangulate national sources by this rule:
 * Claims from these countries regarding Covid-19 that are favorable to China are most likely true
 * Other claims require being repeated at Reuters, AP to pass the NPOV test. Forich (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree with you that Reuters and AP are the best reliable sources. However, in the case of the US CDC it is considered more reliable according to the medical project on wikipedia. This would mean that there is no credible evidence for cold chain transmission. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * China CDC says there is evidence (both by tracing the outbreaks back to people who work in the cold chain and by finding contaminated cold-chain products) that a number of later outbreaks in China were caused by cold-chain transmission. They've published a paper about the September 2020 outbreak in Qingdao: . That doesn't say much about the original outbreak in Wuhan, but it does say that China CDC views cold-chain transmission as a possibility, and has done research into it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we should be clear thats its a political hypothesis first and a scientific one second because thats what the WP:RS say, as far as science goes this is a long shot but China’s political leadership has decided that this is the horse they want to back. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, WP:MEDRS has an explicit subpolicy on how to counter bias. We can follow it by using secondary sources that denounce the bias, which will make the facts come cleaner.  Forich (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems to be an origin/vector hypothesis, but I'm not seeing anything about "an investigation". Did anyone stand up a "Committee to Research Transmission via Cold Chain" yet? How about a "Frozen Food Research Project"? Nope? Then it doesn't belong in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the whole premise of this talk subsection being "Is there due weight on X hypothesis?" seems to be a bit of scope creep from the article topic which is supposed to be the investigations into the origins, not the substance of the origins themselves. The editors pursuing this are mostly quite experienced wiki editors as well which makes it more odd to me. Bodypillow (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Major POV problems
I share the concerns expressed above about this article. I have tagged the entire article as violating WP:NPOV, and specifically highlighted this sentence, which I think illustrates the problems:

The "lab leak theory" has become increasingly difficult to ignore in light of the coincidences and circumstantial evidence that continue to accumulate

This sentence is a serious violation of neutrality. It provides WP:GEVAL to a minority viewpoint, rather than treating it like the minority viewpoint that it is. It has a breathless, unencyclopedic WP:TONE that is better suited for an unprofessional podcast. Instead of relying on the highest quality sources (e.g., reputable scholarly review articles) to give WP:DUE weight to various viewpoints, it cites a news article. It also indicates that it's "increasingly difficult to ignore" it on grounds of scientific plausibility (rather than, e.g., because of its political effects), which is another violation of WP:DUE and incompatible with WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS.

There might be a good encyclopedia article to be written on this subject, but this isn't that article, and these aren't those sources.

I think this could be addressed by seriously shortening the article to report, e.g., a simple list of the major investigations that have happened (keeping WP:DUE weight in mind to exclude distantly related, poorly conducted, or "studies" that amount to a politician dictating the results because the US wants to blame China, Russia wants to blame the US, Palestinians want to blame Israel, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't help but agree. My proposal (above) is to simply lay out the four different origin scenarios that are presumably being investigated, as per Emerging_infectious_disease#Classification (see Fauci paper as source there), and lay off on the running commentary a to which scenario is more likely or plausible than the other. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should just revert back to your early version, which did not have such serious problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Its harder to strip off content at this stage. I am mainly concerned about the removal of the removal of "Origin Scenarios", because now "Unknown Origins" has become a dump. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not see POV problems as serious you have described. If you actually read the "news article" it provides quite some useful information regarding this minority view which can be easily sourced using the provided links and Google (scholar) search. For example:



Normchou  💬 19:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you are extrapolating well beyond what those quotations say. Consider, e.g., the quotation that "The second, third, fourth and fifth entries of the original SARS coronavirus into human populations occurred as a laboratory accident."
 * Does that tell you anything about the origin of the first SARS outbreak? No.
 * Does the origin of any SARS outbreak tell you anything about the origin of COVID-19 outbreak? No.
 * And yet you seem to be quoting these as if that will convince us that since a different pre-existing natural virus infected a lab worker and then spread to the general population, then this new virus must also have come from a lab accident.
 * That is exactly as illogical as believing that HIV was produced in a lab just because some lab workers were later infected while handling contaminated materials. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've made a mistake by making this into one about how specific arguments should or should not be made within a topic, which I have no interest in. My comment is only intended to address your WP:NPOV concern, which is about representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Normchou   💬 20:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * None of this is from "reliable sources on a topic", and none of this represents "significant views" about the science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, but that's only your opinion. I encourage other editors to read the article, click on the links to the research papers and other reliable sources provided in the article, and make their own judgments regarding the purported POV issue. Normchou   💬 05:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: Do you think the POV tag still applies? If so, an update on what should be improved is welcome. Many thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 05:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * @PaleoNeonate, I have tried to get through the whole article tonight, so I could answer your question with a clean conscience, but I haven't made it even half way. Given the discussions on this page, I would be surprised if we have achieved WP:Due weight in the US government section.  (I'm sorry that it took me over a week to get back to you; please ping me if you need a quicker response.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's not urgent of course, always a work in progress, — Paleo Neonate  – 10:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @PaleoNeonate, it's still a mess. I've removed a whole lot of "Politician got his name in the paper", and there's probably still more.  Also, I'm pretty sure that half of what I pulled has been removed before, which suggests that some people are desperately trying to get these talking points into some Wikipedia article, and they don't seem to be deterred by unimportant details, such as the fact that 'U.S. State Department published a "fact sheet"' is not "an investigation".
 * I'm going to take a break. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm if I start by reading the "Scope and subject of this article" section below, am I right that the lead should probably be rewritten to specify the scope (generally done for list-style articles although it's probably good here) and that some of the article's body doesn't fit? — Paleo Neonate  – 06:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)