Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology/Archive 3

Citation 2
Citation 2 does not state that the lab was in any way, shape, or form, funded by the United States. It instead states that China wanted to build the WIV Lab to mirror similar facilities in other countries. It only mentions French assistance and collaboration prior to, or during its construction. NIH funding may have come at a later point, but it is hard to determine how much funding was distributed to the WIV. WittgensteinsShoe (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page history, the reference for the lab being partially funded by the U.S. government was added here and removed here. However, the text was not removed, only the reference supporting it. The reference was from a senior contributor at Forbes and says the U.S. government helped build and fund the Wuhan virology lab. This was removed because Forbes contributors are considered generally unreliable (see WP:FORBESCON). Since you are correct that the US funding statement is currently unsupported it should be removed or tagged with . CowHouse (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I’ve removed the statement that I originally added, since I haven’t been able to verify that claim from any other reliable source. If someone finds an RS repeating the claim that the establishment of the lab received US funding (not the NIH grant to the NGO affiliated with the WIV lab), feel free to add it back. — MarkH21talk 05:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Archival Standard
I'm sorry if I've misunderstood the layout here, but I am a little unsettled by the aggressiveness of the archival process. I understand moving old/out of date or, more appropriately, consensus items to archive, but I believe many topics, most specifically "Conspiracy theories vs theories" are still prescient and have not achieved community consensus. Can someone clarify the archival standard (or point me to a WP guide doc)? Data8504 (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The archiving setup didn't seem to include the typical "minkeepthreads" parameter. I've added it now so that it'll always leave at least three threads here. — MarkH21talk 07:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Data8504 (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Questionable Citations for 'Debunking' The Theory
It's curious Wikipedia opts to cite a media article to 'debunk' what is a scientific theory (citations 10, 26, 27, 28 and 29). Unless they can supply actual studies rather than opinionated journalistic articles, it hardly constitutes as 'debunking'.

Also, conflict of interest tag is required for virologist Peter Daszak, given as he worked so closely with Shi Zhengli - who is the *head of the Wuhan Institute of Virology* - it gives him a massive conflict of interest. Why would Daszak criticise the handling of the very lab of the very person he spent 15 years collaborating with?

And why is there so little coverage on the evidence in favour, such as: 1) The fact no bats were sold at the Hubei *sea food* market (because bats are not found at sea, or in noisy cityscapes)

2) The fact no Pangolins were sold at Hubei (Pangolins are not eaten, they are used in traditional Chinese herbal medicine, and China has laws that threaten a 10 year jail sentence if anyone imports them, given they are endangered)

3) The bats with the closest matching virus were well over 990km away, or over 600 miles, in remote caves in mountainous regions, which would put question to how exactly such a human-bat interaction occurred

4) That the same bats were being studied by the Wuhan Institute of Virology (see: https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/12/wuhan-lab-experimented-coronavirus-infected-bats-12546053/)

5) The US even financed the study of said bats (see: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8211291/U-S-government-gave-3-7million-grant-Wuhan-lab-experimented-coronavirus-source-bats.html)

6) That the Wuhan Institute of Virology previously had no less than two viral outbreaks of the earlier SARS virus (see: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-analysis/sars-escaped-beijing-lab-twice-50137)

7) China sent in the Chinese military to take control of the situation [which they didn't do in response to the Swine flu outbreak] (see: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/26/coronavirus-link-to-china-biowarfare-program-possi/) Or will Wikipedia continue to express it's bias and scream 'conspiracy theory' at every theory it doesn't find palpable. There's no 'conspiracy theories' in science, only theories that either have substantiated evidence, or unsubstantiated evidence. Don't worry, I don't expect this page to be updated with the information in support, China's 50-cent army have been spreading false information about the virus origins as well (see: https://www.newsmax.com/us/conspiracy-wuhan-military-pandemic/2020/03/12/id/958129/) and it wouldn't surprise me if they suppressed that and other such knowledge on Wikipedia.

Impartial? The real conspiracy theory is why Wikipedia pretends it even is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.238.230 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories vs theories (resurrected from Archive 1)
See original discussion in the archive.

I believe this topic was archived before consensus was achieved. I'd like to offer my support to the topic OP. I'm not necessarily saying the conjecture is correct, but I wholeheartedly agree it's no "conspiracy." Data8504 (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 have been discussed at length: . Fringe theories that do not have significant support within the scientific community should be described as fringe. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Theories yes, conspiracy theories no because that is bias. If a Nobel prize winning virologist and prominent biologists like Bret Weinstein say that the theory is plausible then using the word “conspiracy” is a left wing bias. Until the Chinese government allow an independent inquiry to rule out beyond a reasonable doubt that Covid 19 did not accidentally leak from a lab, always a theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.2 (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * At this point, that's not really a conspiracy theory, but a plausible and likely theory. the scientific 'consensus' (which itself have been shattered recently by Luc Montagnier ) only concerns the genetic origin of the virus, ie, it tries to debunk the engineered bio weapon theory at best.
 * It cannot possibly exclude an accidental leak of a natural origin virus, stored or research on in the institute. Coupled with the other facts on the initial spread of SARS-COV2: that patient zero was never found, and that it has been established that the seafood market, was not the origin, but a superspeader event. The WIV leak theory becomes the most likely source. Shturmavik71 (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This page looks very biased towards chinese propoganda
There are important facts and connections being intentionally smothered in this article:

1.the physical proximity of the initial spread at wuhan seafood market, to the Chinese CDC, which collaborated with the WIV.

2.the fact that the institute did gain-of-function studies in 2015, engineering a bat coronavirus to be highly infectious on humans, something which they published in nature. (a type of research the US banned in it's own research in 2014), while the 2015 virus is not SARS-COV2, the fact is that research is being conducted there.

4.That multiple sources, including the diplomatic cables, form experts which visited the place in 2018, claim that the safety standards are not maintained, and that research conducted is very dangerous.

The rebuking paragraph is the 'conspiracy theory' (at this point it's a very valid theory) is laughable at best, citing 2 experts, both with ties to the institute, and personal interest. further, Peter Daszak argument is more of a personal opinion than a fact. the facts that the institute collected, stored and researched, a multitude of highly infectious to humans coronaviruses under improper safety conditions.

There are multiple experts in [|WaPo] Which openly say that an accidental release, is not only very possible but is quite probable. Shturmavik71 (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Chinese lab conducted extensive research on deadly bat viruses, but there is no evidence of accidental release" Koncorde (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take a look at the work of leading virologists such as Jonathan Latham and Yuri Deigin  (those ones are at the top of my head) and Milton Leitenberg a scureity researcher  that expose 2 possible routes how SARS-COV2 was formed and reached human population. both of these theories have far more supporting evidence (both genetic and factual) than the natural formation hypothesis. they are not addressed in Wikipedia, due to an obvious pro-ccp bias. -regarding your line about lab-release, you should be aware that SARS1 was accidently released no less than 6! times all well documented (2 of them with fatalities) from research labs.Shturmavik71 (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are not reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And keep in mind that medical subjects (such as CoVID-19) have stricter sourcing requirements than usual: WP:MEDRS. A Medium blog and independentsciencenews.org do not meet those requirements. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

BSL-4 dates and accerdiation and relation to research
I've corrected a number of errors on the page regarding the BSL-4 status and it's implications.

1.The 2015 opening date is imprecise and it's unclear what kind of milestone it represents, with the construction going on from 2003. But the Nature source reports the actual accerdiation date as Jan 2017 (with the article being from 2017).

2.Xinhua article dates the lab as "put into operation" in Jan 2018.

while the lab got it's BSL-4 accreditaion in 2017. the WIV also has lower safety labs. another important disinction I've made regarding the coronovirus research. and It has been confirmed by Shi Zhengli in the ScienceMag article that it was carried in BSL-2 and BSL-3 labs. Shturmavik71 (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Profoundly biased (toward no chance of lab escape) article
This article needs to be updated. The idea that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab is no longer a fringe "conspiracy theory". See this Washington Post article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-coronaviruss-origins-are-still-a-mystery-we-need-a-full-investigation/2020/11/13/cbf4390e-2450-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html

Peter Daszak, who is quoted on this wiki page, has a massive conflict of interest in this matter. He *did research* with the the WIV, and as such would be a prime subject of investigation:

https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1197631383470034951

The "leading virologists" who came out with a letter in opposition to the idea of a lab escape -- that letter was *written* by Peter Daszak and EcoHealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.199.8.56 (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The editorial pages of the Washington Post (or any other newspaper) are not WP:MEDRS. The Washington Post's opinion section previously published a now-discredited claim that American diplomats had raised alarm about the WIV. It turned out that the author of the opinion piece had selectively quoted from diplomatic cables in a way that misrepresented their meaning. We go by what the scientific community finds, rather than by what opinion columns or editorials in popular media claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Editorial Board of the Washington Post was discredited by whom? Source?  WP:V takes precedence over WP:MEDRS on this article anyway.


 * And what does this page have to do with Falun Gong?


 * --50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * And crickets! Apparently nothing.  Fixed.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Systematic bias and unfair ban
Yesterday, I made some edits to this article, addressing the controversy relating to the accidental lab leak theory that has been reported on by a number of reputable sources. Issues of bias in this article have been brought up by numerous users on this talk page, which can be found in all three archived talk pages, but armed with newly published sources, I took a crack at it. My edits were deleted, and when I reverted the deletion, I was met with a ban for "edit warring" from, despite explaining my position on this talk page before (directly above). When I contested for the ban to be lifted, declined, questioning New York Magazine as a reliable source, based on the fact that the author of the piece is also novelist (which does not contravene WP:RS), and he/she further threatened to topic ban me (not very nice). , a longstanding editor of this page has taken it upon himself to counter any claims of the possible accidental lab leak by invaliding the reliability of any sources provided, as per WP:MEDRS, which applies primarily to Biomedical information. And so, any proposals to include the controversy surrounding the Wuhan Institue of Virology relating to a possible accidental lab leak have been stifled with RP:MEDRS, over and over again.

So far, a number of reputable publications have reported on the accidental lab leak theory, including but not limited to The Boston Magazine, the BBC, Le Monde, Bloomberg The Washington Post, The Times 2 and the The New York Magazine. No Wikipedian would deny that these publications meet the criteria of Reliable sources, and those Wikipedians that have read the contents of these articles, will surely understand why some scientists consider an accidental lab leak to be a possible origin scenario of Covid-19 (not a conspiracy theory). Have users, and  read the contents of these publications? We can't know, because they discount them as sources, and aren't willing to discuss their inclusion here on the talk page. Any edits made to the article itself will result in a ban, apparently. This contravenes Neutral point of view.

Going forward, can we assume good faith and discuss my proposals for making changes to the current "conspiracy theory" section, renaming it to the "lab leak theory" or "controversy", and better reflecting the issues of bias that I and other users have complained of? If we are unable to reach a consensus through discussion, I will have to make a dispute resolution request. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You were not banned, you were blocked (which is different). Your block was for edit warring. Please read WP:EW and adhere to it. I will also remind you (again) that disruptive editing in the Covid-19 topic can lead to sanctions, including bans. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is a block ok, when I explained my reversion here on the talk page, and didn't contravene The three-revert rule? Who gets to decide what is disruptive, and being that you have blocked me once already, please can you indicate whether you will participate in the subject matter of this conversion, instead of blocking me based on rules and sanctions without any explanation? I have a genuine concern about the neutrality of this article and I am not the first user to bring up this matter on the talk page. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The block was not for WP:3RR, it was for WP:EW. You really should read it, especially the part that says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". Merely explaining your reversion does not justify edit warring. And no, I will not participate in the content discussion, and will only act in my admin capacity in upholding Wikipedia policy plus the special restrictions imposed by the community covering Covid-19 topics. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ScrupulousScribe After getting sucked into this topic and following it for the last day I think there are some real nuggets of good information you should heed if you want to make good edits. CowHouse has some excellent ones and there are others mixed in the other Talk page, along with the inappropriate remarks and policy violations of some other reviewers.  I would nail down those good suggestions by implementing them all exactly as requested, and then ask for another review.  For instance, there was a concern about copy violation that I don't know if you addressed.  Get rid of all the rifraff policy/wording issues so that other reviewers can focus on agreement/disagreement with your primary argument.


 * I think there are more than enough legitimate and authoritative references within many of the articles you referenced for the subsection here to be changed from "Conspiracy theories" to "Lab leak theory". Refer to them individually if necessary.  WP:FRINGE defines "Alternative theoretical formulations" as scientific process and not fringe/pseudoscience.  But let me support you in this effort by first alleviating the concerns of reviewers here that are providing you good feedback.  I know it's not easy but these pages have sanctions because they are under continual assault.  Maybe there are some reviewers that are a little quick on the trigger and time constrained in reading references, but I think you can get your edits in if you do this right, piece by piece if necessary.  I find it difficult to believe anyone would support suppressing the hypothesis of a lab leak scenario if scientists in the field say it can not be ruled out.  Dinglelingy (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am working on fixing the copyright issues in the draft on the lab leak theory, so that I can resubmit it again for review. I am concerned that there is a problem of systematic bias by editors of this article, and I am shaken by the unfair 24-hour block. I feel that if we cannot reach a consensus through a discussion on this talk page, then I must request a contest the neutrality of this article through a dispute resolution, as any edits I make will be reverted and my account continually blocked. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I just clicked on the BBC. The opening paragraph says: A Chinese scientist at the centre of unsubstantiated claims that the coronavirus leaked from her laboratory in the Chinese city of Wuhan. A bunch of RS' commenting that a conspiracy theory exists doesn't legitimise the conspiracy theory, especially when they say themselves that it's unsubstantiated.
 * So I clicked another name I like, The Times: From the start of the pandemic, they have been dismissed as conspiracy theorists. Dr Daszak has been prominent among those attacking the idea and those who promote it., plus Publicly, many extremely senior scientists have opposed this idea. “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin,” wrote one group in the Lancet, back in February.
 * I suspect the others are the same. Please read your own sources before sending links to them. This is currently not respectful to everyone else's time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are not willing to read the sources provided, then your input here is of little value. As for the Lancet Commission's letter, it at the center of the controversy and it does not qualify for WP:RS, as its author Peter Daszak has been questioned by the BBC and a number of other sources listed above (such as the Le Monde, New York and Boston Magazine pieces) on conflict of interest, and the sources also not this concern, given that his organization EcoHealth Alliance funded the WIV's gain of function research on coronaviruses. Even the US government, according to The Times article is concerned with his involvement with the WHO investigation, which has agreed to the Chinese government's terms. Concerns that the Lancet letter omits the WIV and any possibility of a lab leak occurring is the subject of further media reports, such as the US Right to Know article here. Given this controversy, the Lancet letter cannot be considered a reliable source to disprove the lab leak theory, as it does not represent a consensus by scientists (while I have provided a number of very reputable sources that do meet WP:RS). Ralph Baric, the foremost coronavirus experts in the world, withdrew his signature, and has said (in Presadiretta) that a lab leak theory cannot be ruled out. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless you cite high-quality scientific sources, you're not using anyone's time productively. Even the US government: US government officials' statements are noted in the article, but US government officials are not reliable sources for determining scientific opinion. About Ralph Baric, a lot of unlikely things cannot be ruled out with 100% certainty, but that's not how science works. Baric has consistently said that he believes the virus spilled over naturally. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are only two or three origin scenarios, which zoonosis or lab origin, or a mix of the two, and Baric saying that none of them can be ruled out is significant in that it cannot be considered a conspiracy theory, implausible or uncredible. Baric is not the only scientist on record as taking this position as reported in reliable sources meeting WP:RS, with some scientists saying that lab origin + accidental leak are more likely, and the issue we are discussing is whether we should factor that into this article, as per WP:NPOV. No one is claiming that an accidental leak happened, but this article is very much biased to the zoonosis origin scenario, without any evidence, other than a few articles which meet the criteria of WP:RS no less than the ones I provided. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Baric hasn't made any statements supporting this conspiracy theory or presenting it as plausible. Unless you actually present WP:MEDRS sources, there's nothing more to discuss. An essay by an erotic novelist in NY Magazine or by a food critic in Boston Magazine are not reliable sources about virology. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, the fact that Baric and other scientists won't rule out an accidental lab leak as a possibility means that it should not be considered as a conspiracy theory, and this is significant given the fact that there is no evidence for any alternative theory, and the origins of the virus remain unknown. WP:MEDRS applies to Biomedical information, and like other editors have pointed out above, the conspiracy section cites mostly non WP:MEDRS sources. Can you tell me which WP:MEDRS source in the conspiracy section specifically calls an accidental lab leak a conspiracy theory? The NPR one isn't WP:MEDR and is from back in April. Any? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Two WP:MEDRS sources that say that the lab leak hypothesis is heavily disfavored by the available scientific evidence:
 * Andersen et al. (2020), in Nature Medicine: We offer a perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome and discuss scenarios by which they could have arisen. Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.
 * Baric et al. (2020), in Immunity: In light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2, Andersen et al. theorize about the virus’ probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence.
 * If you want to claim that this is a theory that has real traction within virology, then present WP:MEDRS sources that support it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My question was "which WP:MEDRS source in the conspiracy section specifically calls an accidental lab leak a conspiracy theory?" Neither of the two WP:MEDRS sources you linked to call distinguish the accidental lab leak theory a conspiracy theory. Those papers were published before CoV/4991 was linked to RaTG13 and the addendum made by Shi Zhengli to her Nature article, clarifying that they found RaTG13 in the Mojiang mineshaft in 2012-2013. The articles that I provided were published in the past few weeks, refreshing the accidental lab leak theory with this information. Keeping this section named "conspiracy theory" is in violation of WP:NPOV. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself, If you want to claim that this is a theory that has real traction within virology, then present WP:MEDRS sources that support it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To repeat myself, you do not have any WP:MEDRS sources that allege that the lab leak theory can be considered a conspiracy theory and you are in violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, WP:MEDRS applies primarily to Biomedical information, which is more relevant for entries like Coronavirus disease 2019, not this article which is related to a laboratory, subject to a controversy covered by sources meeting WP:RS. I have repeated this point to you multiple times, and I am in the process of requesting a dispute resolution. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It comes under WP:FRINGE. The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that the "Lab Leak theory" has real traction in the scientific community, beyond a handful of cherry-picked papers. Your entire edit history on Wikipedia is dedicated to WP:ADVOCACY of this idea, suggesting that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to WP:POVPUSH your own beliefs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are literally dozens of reliable sources that have reported on a possible lab leak as an origin scenario, including the BBC, CNN, PBS, Bloomberg, The Washington Post 2, The Times, 2, the South China Morning Post, The Boston Magazine, the New York Magazine, Le Monde, RAI. Given the sheer volume of coverage from reliable sources, on what basis can you say a lab leak theory as an origin scenario of SARS-COV-2 constitutes WP:FRINGE? As I have repeatedly said to user:Thucydides411 directly above, there are no WP:MEDRS sources provided in this article that allege that lab leak theory can be considered a conspiracy theory, and the two provided say only that the scenario is unlikely (and even then they do not rule it out), so the title and contents of the conspiracy theory section of this article are misleading and is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Moreover, WP:MEDRS mainly applies Biomedical information, and should not apply to an article about a laboratory subject to a leak controversy. You have joined this conversation, immediately asserting that the lab leak theory is WP:FRINGE, without addressing any of my above two points in order to bring us to a consensus. The main topic of discussion here is whether the lab leak theory should be classed as a conspiracy theory or not, and I would appreciate if you can stay on that topic. I would like to ask you to scroll higher up in this talk page as well as the archives, and note that I am not the first user to bring up the matter of a plausible theory being labeled a conspiracy theory, yet no consensus has been reached on renaming and editing the section. I would also like to ask you to Assume good faith, as I am a relatively new user (I used to contribute a lot but I've been away for nearly ten years), as I still have a lot more to contribute to Wikipedia. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * People have been pushing to include the "lab leak theory" in this and related articles for many months. This isn't my first rodeo. Your entire contribution history to wikipedia so far is solely to advocate for the inclusion of this theory. Per WP:MEDPOP "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles". Whether or not the virus leaked from a lab is a scientific issue, and requires high quality sourcing. The Washington Post article doesn't even support the theory. It just states that "Trump officials", said that it is, but the veracity of anything said by the Trump administration is questionable. The piece states that a natural origin is the "apparent consensus" of virologists, and that there is "no evidence" to support the Lab Leak idea, ergo, it is fringe. The Washington Post article cites a "politicized and conspiratorial atmosphere" surrounding the viruses origins, which wikipedia should avoid furthering. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Things have changed since your last radio, with new information and sources that have been published. None of the sources provided in this article (including the two sources that qualify under WP:MEDRS) specifically say that the theory is a conspiracy theory, which is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and constitutes original research. There are numerous reliable sources that give air to the lab leak theory as plausible, including The Times piece quoting Mathew Pottinger (not Donald Trump), which should not be considered any less reliable than the dated Vox or NYT pieces provided. The Washington Post article, which you selectively borrowed a three word phrase from also says: "Even if the virus was not spread as a result of a “gain of function” experiment, its rapid spread raises questions about the risks involved in such experiments". ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to remove the ban on ScrupulousScribe so that we can restart the discussion on the points he is making? It seems like his inputs may be valuable.  Forich (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , What ban are you talking about? CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC) PM
 * Aside from being quite vocal, they have failed to show evidence of their claims despite multiple requests. Sourcing that doesn’t say what they are trying to say with it, and frankly comes across as if they just googled “Wuhan lab theory” and pasted links without reading them, does not count. The uninvolved editors who have commented here appear to not have bought in, but understandably do not have the time to reply to each and every comment. SS should build a convincing argument and then test it in a rfc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When looking at the currently used sources, the Vox and NYT do express that most scientists discredit the theory, with Vox citing a statement about an unwarranted related conspiracy theory of coverup. — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither Vox, nor the NYT pieces can be considered WP:MEDRS, and as user in a message on 02:59, 8 January 2021, and as a by, and , WP:MEDRS is being applied inconsistently here.  has suggested that I have just Googled "Wuhan lab theory" to furnish links, which is both untrue and irrelivent, as there are a number of news items on the topic that were published in the last few weeks, and more pieces keep getting published, such as this opinion piece from the Washington Post just yesterday (paywall), which was also syndicated to MSN (no paywall). The discussion is ongoing. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Opinion piece... The author isn't even close to an authority on the matter, either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's been stressed before that MEDRS is expected to make biomedical claims, not necessarily to remind of the mainstream view (there's even WP:PARITY IRT WP:FRINGE topics). — Paleo  Neonate  – 14:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is subject to a controversy relating to a possible lab leak is not a biomedical claim. No one is claiming that a lab leak definitely occurred, but a number of reliable sources have reported on the possibility being plausible and likely, and those sources need to only meet the criteria of WP:RS, not WP:MEDRS. Furthermore, neither of the two WP:MEDRS sources currently references on this page distinguish a lab leak theory to be a conspiracy theory, and the author of the second source (Ralph Baric) has been interviewed in a number of sources I provided, where he indicated clearly that a lab leak remains a possibility. As such, this is not WP:FRINGE. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All the best sources (WP:MEDRS too) call this a conspiracy theory, and won't be undercut by lesser sources. The two Bioessays articles are not WP:MEDRS - we want review articles (and we've got them). Yet again, you have got this entirely wrong. You have a POV and you're trying to find sources to fit it. Instead you should go to the top of the sourcing tree (see WP:MEDASSESS) and see what you find there. Alexbrn (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a false statement. There are not more than two WP:MEDRS sources (this and this) on this page which favor the theory of a zoonotic jump over that of an accidental lab leak, but they do not completely discount the possibility of an accidental lab leak, with Ralph Baric's paper saying lacking evidence for a zoonitic jump scenario, an "accidental laboratory escape", does in fact "remain reasonable" (they certainly do not call the theory misinformation or a conspiracy). Furthermore, one of the Bioessay articles provided by, is a peer-reviewed paper and does, in fact, meet WP:MEDRS, and makes the case for a possible lab leak (without seeking to "prove" it, because as we all know, unless the Chinese give the WHO unfettered and immediate access to the WIV, it is but a theory). Repeating your position over and over, without providing any WP:MEDRS is just making this discussion into a Wall of text, discouraging new editors passing by from weighing in and enabling us to reach a consensus. Unless you have WP:MEDRS sources clearly distinguishing the lab leak theory as misinformation or a conspiracy theory, you have nothing more to add to this conversation. As for the popular press, there are more recent articles from reliable sources proposing the theory than there are those discounting it, and most of them are focused on the WP:MEDDATE source relating to professor Shi Zhengli addendum to her Nature article. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is hopeless, . I have now told you several times that these sources you keep saying are MEDRS, are not MEDRS. Total WP:IDHT. You need to read and understand WP:MEDRS - maybe look at WP:WHYMEDRS and WP:MEDFAQ too for background tips. Alexbrn (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I find that has pretty much said what I was going to say here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What precisely are the MEDRS sources claiming to be a conspiracy; a non-natural origin of the virus, or a lab leak (the two are not the same)? Arcturus (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See . Alexbrn (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That involves a hell of a lot of reading, much of which will be as dull as ditchwater. Would the simple question be answered by doing so? Arcturus (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's all sorts. From PMID 32920565:
 * Alexbrn (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Restart
The discussions above are getting out of hand concerning their length and complexity. We are in danger of losing sight of the original issue. In the light of the discussions, and recent developments as reported in various sources, WP:MEDRS or just WP:RS, does anyone object to the removal of the word "Conspiracy" from the section heading? I can't see how it adds value. Arcturus (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion seem fine, but some effort of reading is required. Some chaff from WP:PROFRINGE types is cluttering the page up, but hopefully admin action will tamp that down from now on. I would certainly object to the removal of conspiracy because per the sources this now seems more than ever just an accepted, factual, characterisation. Per WP:PSCI Wikipedia has a requirement to call out nonsense as nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree w/ Alex ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the bio-engineered virus theory, or the accidental lab leak of a naturally-occurring virus? Arcturus (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What does that even mean? We are considering the concepts discussed in reliable sources. It is disappointing just when progress was being made focussing on actual sources, we've got a re-start of the POV-pushing. Please ensure any future contributions are grounded in strong RS (see above for some so identified). Alexbrn (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From the very start of this conversation, the concept of an accidental lab leak of a naturally-occurring virus has been proposed, as per reliable sources like the BBC. And from the very start of the conversation, you have deliberately conflated this theory, considered by many scientists to be plausible, with other theories, rightly classified as WP:FRINGE. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's getting old. I'm not sure if he's doing it on purpose or not, but it needs to stop. JustStalin (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Australian just published an piece confirming that the WHO will consider a lab leak as part of its investigations: Asked whether it was possible that the virus escaped from the lab, Professor Dwyer said: “I’ve got an open mind about this sort of thing. Historically we know that the most likely thing is from animals into humans. That happens all the time with viruses. But that doesn’t mean you discount the other alternatives.
 * ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please remember this page is under sanctions; I will not "stop" editing, on your instructions. Alexbrn (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again you are misrepresenting our argument. Nobody is instructing you to "stop editing"; you are being instructed to stop conflating the two ideas. I suggest you read up on WP:TALKNO. JustStalin (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the discussion is getting out of hand, we are making steady (although admitedly, slow) progress. It is important that we settle this comprehensively, at least until the next wave of results, which will probably come from the WHO mission sent to China to investigate the origin. Forich (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 20,700 words of discussion (from the start of 'Conspiracy theory or theory' section), multiple sections, disjointed, and a large number of external links leading to highly technical mateial. I'd call that "getting out of hand". Arcturus (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Accidental leak of a naturally occurring virus? Something along the lines of the Institute experimenting on cv in bats (or other hosts), and the virus escaping somehow or other. I don't see how WP:MEDRS would be exclusively applicable here. Arcturus (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The question is on the origin of the virus. That is a biomedical question. If a virus is "naturally-occurring" its origin is ipso facto "natural". We know from the best sources there is a range of conspiracy theories about the origin, and that is what the article can discuss. Not the woo found in poor sources or the stories in editors' heads. Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It can be natural and still leak from the lab. The problem is, we seem to be conflating 'bio-engineered' with 'lab leak'. I can see how a bio-engineered virus being the source of the pandemic would fall under the conspiracy banner, but not the accidental lab leak. An option would be to have two sections, one covering the bio-engineered hypothesis, and another one covering the lab leak hypothesis. Both scenarios are well sourced, and as I said, the latter is not really a WP:MEDRS issue. Arcturus (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Anything well-sourced will be in the 5-6 WP:BESTSOURCES so far identified. If something's already out there in nature, then its origin is known to be natural. Lab leak hypotheses are conspiracy theories, as per the sources. If you want to make a claim for a nonsensical concept against them you will need WP:EXCEPTIONAL sourcing, at least several countervailing WP:MEDRS. Since there is obviously no such RS, this is just editorial POV-pushing. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there's no point in promoting undue speculation unless strong evidence was found (which if happens, will precipitate other events and become notable, which a number of reliable mainstream sources will report about). — Paleo  Neonate  – 14:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify your opinion on what, in the current discussion, should be sourced from MEDRS as opposed to just RS? Arcturus (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole point of MEDRS sources is to encourage the use of the best quality sources for biomedical content. If MEDRS sources exist, then by definition they are higher quality than non-MEDRS sources and should by preferred regardless of whether the content is biomedical or not. That's simply a consequence of our general sourcing policies.
 * Nevertheless, if you want to suggest using non-MEDRS sources for content where higher quality sources do not exist, then I advise you not to attempt to use them for content that could reasonably be construed as biomedical. MOS:MED gives a reasonable survey of the sort of topics we would find in medical articles and for the most part, they would be expected to meet MEDRS, although I've seen some slack being given to the sourcing for sections such as History, Society and culture, and Research directions. I certainly would expect any epidemiological claims to be supported by MEDRS sources, if that is any help in this case. --RexxS (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * okay, thanks for the explanation and clarification. I'll add further to the discussion below. Arcturus (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you feel about the current status of the page and the ongoing discussion on lumping in the accidental lab leak theory, which some scientists have written peer-reviewed papers on, with other conspiracy theories, which are unsubstantiated sources? Forich gives an example above of content from a MEDRS source that has been taken out of context, to support a view conflating the accidental lab leak theory with conspiracy theories. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer not to impose my personal views about the content on the debate, in case I need to act in an administrative capacity. However, I'm happy to draw editors' attention to the policies that I think most relevant, namely WP:PSCI, WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. You will need to reach a consensus about whether the sources describing the theory as a conspiracy theory are reflective of a mainstream scientific view, and I'd advise against removing sourced content while the debate is open. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn, please provide quotes from the MEDRS sources that you believe call the hypothesis of an accidental lab leak of a naturally occurring virus a "conspiracy theory". JustStalin (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're trying to do. Our task is to find the best sources and summarize what they say. Not to try and hold them up against the weird pet theories that Wikipedia editors are interested in. Alexbrn (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you cannot provide sources, MEDRS or otherwise that support your POV that an accidental lab leak of a naturally occurring virus should be considered a conspiracy theory, such as those propagated by the likes of Li-Meng Yan and Luc Montagnier, then it should immediately be removed from this page. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't understand. If there are crazy ideas in unreliable sources, we ignore them unless they get some coverage in reliable sources. I don't know how many times I can say it: find the best sources (high-quality MEDRS) and summarize them. Removing content verifiably sourced to such high-quality MEDRS would be problematic, especially in the light of the sanctions for this topic area. Since there seems to be some doubt, here is some hard policy which is relevant:
 * &mdash;WP:GEVAL, my emphasis.
 * Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with that policy, which is why I think that until you furnish sources supporting your POV that an accidental lab leak of a naturally occurring virus should be considered a conspiracy theory, and a consensus has been reached, it should be removed from the page. Alternatively, distinguishment should be made between the accidental release of a naturally occurring virus, and the deliberate release of a pathogen as a bioweapon. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not making sense. If you want to propose an edit, please say what it is and what source (make sure it's a good one) verifies it. Alexbrn (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't say things like "you're not making sense", or "this is hopeless", as it shows you are not taking this conversation seriously and it is upsetting. If you would have taken care to communicate with me in a more collegial manner, especially considering that I am a new user, this conversation would not have become so contentious. I genuinely don't know if you are acting in good faith, as you have yet to acknowledge that you understand the difference between the accidental lab leak theory/hypothesis and other kooky conspiracy theories, as they are vastly different and I never proposed any of the latter. If you can make that acknowledgment, I would be willing to apologize for any harsh words I may have directed at you and continue this discussion in good spirits.
 * The edit I would propose is to rename the "conspiracy theories" section to "controversy", and trim it down only to make claims which are sourced in MEDRS, and which are summarised accurately. The first claim, is that there was a controversy in the scientific community surrounding the timing and sequencing of RaTG13, as detailed in a a paper that Shi Zhengli and her colleagues at the Institute sent to Nature on February 3 2020, as it was in fact sequenced in 2017-18 and not in 2020 as implied in her paper, which was admitted only in the Addendum published on 17 November 2020, and which gave rise to many further questions as to the provenance of the virus. If Shi's Nature article does not meet MEDRS, and there are no other MEDRs to tell of this saga, then we drop this section.
 * The second claim I would make, if the Deigin and Segreto paper (cited by these papers) and/or similar sources are accepted as MEDRS, would be that scientists have noted concerns that one of the Institute's laboratories working on coronaviruses could have been the site of an accidental leak. If the Deigin and Segreto paper does not meet MEDRS, and there are no other MEDRs to explain the accidental lab leak scenario, then we drop this section.
 * The third claim I would make, which I am sure you can help with, relates to allegations of bioweapons from Li-Meng Yan, and HIV inserts from Luc Montagnier, and any other such conspiracy theories there are allegations of, for which there are MEDRS sources, and summarised accurately. If the first two claims aren't accepted then, this section can remain named "conspiracy theories" but should not conflate any conspiracy theories with the theory of an accidental leak (unless you have an MEDRS that specifically rules out all accidental leak scenarios).
 * Have a great weekend!
 * ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources there (rather, the opposite); so no action to take. See above where editors have found 5-6 really good sources, and focus on those. Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your claim that the hypothesis (of an accidental lab leak of a naturally occurring virus) is a "conspiracy theory" is unfounded according to WP:MEDRS. The "Conspiracy Theories" section should be immediately renamed to "Controversy". JustStalin (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming any such thing. I want editors to move away from making claims for themselves (including about absurd idea that RS ignores), and focus instead on what the best sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the beginning of this discussion you have been (purposely?) conflating the two completely separate ideas as if they were the same thing and then calling it a "conspiracy theory". We can still refer to the ideas that the virus was genetically engineered or used as a bioweapon as "conspiracy theories", because the MEDRS sources support that assertion. But that section title has got to go, along with any other implication that the hypothesis (of a naturally occurring virus accidentally leaking) is a "conspiracy theory". JustStalin (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I am ignoring ideas not in reliable sources, as Wikipedia must, and as you should. Please stop talking about fringe notions and focus on what reliable sources are saying - WP:FOC. Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It hasn't yet been established that that hypothesis doesn't exist in reliable sources or is a "fringe notion". We haven't even finished compiling our list of sources, let alone discussed their content in depth. Please stop distorting the facts surrounding this discussion. Several of us are getting very tired of it. JustStalin (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Progress! Yes please do continue to work on expanding the list of top-quality MEDRS, and/or discussing their content "in depth". But please stop using this page to talk about notions which do not appear in such sources. This is WP:NOTAFORUM Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Messy Terminology
This is my attempt to disentangle the terminology used in this talk page:
 * Origin = Whether the Progenitor Virus comes either from:
 * Animals (as in SARS-CoV-1)
 * Humans (as in hepatitis B)
 * Laboratory construction from scratch (a.k.a Man-Made)
 * Evolution = This is either
 * Natural
 * Artificial recombination by gain of function
 * The two concepts above should always be mentioned in tandem:
 * Animal origin + natural evolution
 * Animal origin + artificial recombination
 * Initially constructed in a lab + natural evolution
 * Initially constructed in a lab + artificial recombination

The latest version of the lab leak theory (as in Segretto and Deigin 2020) refers to SARS-CoV-2 being of Animal origin + artificial recombination. The two parts need to be mentioned, and failing the first part to be artificial does not debunk the lab leak theory. Forich (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So there's no such things as the "natural virus leak" story? All the lab leak stories feature humans monkeying around with the virus? So far as I can see in RS the "lab leak" idea is written off as a conspiracy theory. Alexbrn (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If by natural you are referring to the combo "Animal origin + natural evolution" + leak, yes it is discussed here. Although in this case it would involve the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control in an alleged breach of biosafety protocols handling bats/bat samples. Forich (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Would that be a lab "leak"? Wouldn't that just be some unfortunate person happened to be patient zero from a bat in a lab (just as they would if the bat were in a cave, mine, or market)? Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not really the same. It is a reasonable expectation that extreme precautions would be taken in a lab experimenting with viruses, such that a "leak", or contamination if you like, would be virtually impossible. This, of course, is not the situation in the wild. Arcturus (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That specific event happens to elaborated in the website of lab-leak-theory guys,only because they are the ones trying to look after all plausible scenarios. It is a point of intersection with the mainstream experts of Daszak, Andersen et al, who consider all forests and Caves in China + Seafood markets - Wuhan Lab, as plausible places where the spillover happened. Forich (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, the "natural lab leak" first isn't a leak, and secondly isn't something that appears in RS. So why is such a large proportion of this page spent discussing it? Is there any relevant RS for this? Alexbrn (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because at the moment, anything to do with the lab being the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is branded as conspiracy. There are RSs available; here's one . Note the first sentence: "At first it was the stuff of conspiracy theorists". The article goes on to explain why it no longer is. It really is untenable to continue to have the heading proclaiming conspiracy. Arcturus (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * infectioncontrol.com is not RS - and in fact my browser blocks it (ransomware/malware site?) . All these lab-engineered virus conspiracy theories are refuted by the high-quality MEDRS, as collected on this page further up. Alexbrn (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC); amended 08:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you search Wikipedia for "Infection Control Today" (using the quotes) you'll see that it is used in many articles as a source. So how is not a RS? It's certainly not included in the list of deprecated sources. Given the articles in which it's used, maybe it's also MEDRS. Arcturus (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's lots of crappy sources in lots of articles. Are you seriously proposing this is a WP:MEDRS? As is clear, editors using poor sources here will likely face sanctions, so it's good to be certain. Alexbrn (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, given the type of article it's used in, I was just wondering if it would qualify as MEDRS. A quick look shows its use in articles edited by doctors, e.g. Xenco Medical, so it seems to stand up. Looking at the website itself it does look like a RS. Arcturus (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * MEDRS? Sounds delusional to me, unless it is peer-reviewed, secondary, appears in PUBMED, is MEDLINE indexed, has a decent impact factor and so on. Anyway: you can perhaps verify these things since the site is apparently not accessible. Alexbrn (talk); amended 08:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a different site. I was talking about this one . MEDRS or not, I don't know, but I'm pretty certain it's RS. Arcturus (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak theory discussion, revisited
The status of the lab leak theory as of mid 2020 was that mainstream science considered it as fringe; a conspiracy theory without evidence. This status was validated by wikipedians in this Rfc at the Covid 19 pandemic entry, from May 2020.

However, as part of the closing of the Rfc, an open door was left to revisit the topic:

"By number of votes and strength of argument, it is clear that the oppose votes have it, thus I affirm that consensus was reached to not mention the lab accident theory. This should not be read as a consensus to keep the theory out of other articles, merely this one. Obviously, should a MEDRS be published that supports the theory, this RfC would become moot."

The objective of this thread is to bring to the light a few new sources that allegedly support the lab leak theory. I propose that we scrutinize the new evidence to assess whether a mention of the lab leak theory in Wikipedia deserves a mention. Although the theory is already mentioned in Wikipedia, it is relegated to a section in the Covid 19 Misinformation entry. If the alleged mentions on MEDRS sufficiently support the theory, I think we should consider mentioning it in the Covid 19 pandemic entry, or removing the "conspiracy" adjective in the Covid 19 Misinformation entry, or both.

I propose that we present in this thread the specific claims cited by MEDRS since June 2020 that support the theory, and assess the usual stuff: due weight, verifiability, notability, etc. Forich (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS would only apply for biomedical claims (e.g. "the virus bears the hallmarks of being human-engineered") but not other types of claim (e.g. "the lab has a poor record for biosecurity"). I am wary of the approach of looking for source which "support" the "theory". Look and you shall find. The same would be true of sources that "support" that there is doubt about the events surrounding JFK's assassination. Better, would be to find the WP:BESTSOURCES on the topic, and summarize them.
 * With that in mind, these are the sort of sources we should be aspiring to (per-reviewed articles in reputable journals). It would be great to lose the reliance on news, lay-press and other lesser sources:
 * Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Alexbrn, thanks for bringing up the issue of allowing some RS into this thread. Some of the aspects of the theory may not be related to biomedicine, and only in such cases a non MEDRS should be accepted as reference.  However, I believe many of the statements used to understand the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 inevitably resort to genomic perspectives, which involve specialized molecular or cellular based arguments, and therefore demand the use of MEDRS.  I propose that, for purposes of organization, we deal with MEDRS and RS separately, perhaps as subthreads of the discussion.Forich (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS sources
To ensure high quality sources, I suggest searching for journal articles using the following criteria: Here are two sources meeting these criteria: Alexbrn (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The journal must be indexed by PUBMED and unambiguously classified there as a secondary source (Review, Meta-Analysis or Systematic review)
 * The journal must be MEDLINE-indexed as a quality control criterion
 * The journal must not be predatory/suspect (e.g. listed at WP:CRAPWATCH).
 * , please can you clarify why you think those two WP:MEDRS sources meet WP:BESTSOURCES over the two provided by above, namely the Anderson et al paper and Ralph Baric et al paper. Is it because they were returned in search results on Pubmed for the search query "Covid-19 + conspiracy", or were they widely cited and authored by authoritative experts on the topic? I recall you accusing me of having a POV and "casting around" to try to find sources to support said POV, but now it looks like kettle pot black.
 * If asked, anyone favoring the zoonitic jump theory, would consider the Anderson et al and Baric et al papers to be far better qualified as WP:BESTSOURCES, considering that they are the most widely cited and authored by the most authoritative experts on the subject (the only small issue with them being that they do not support your labeling of the Covid-19 lab leak theory as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory"). The two papers you hooked and the conspiracy excerpts you gleaned from them directly contradict Anderson's paper which clearly says that "Allthough the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin" and Ralph Baric's paper, which expressly says that until an "open scientific investigation" in undertaken and "forensic evidence" is found; "speculation about accidental laboratory escape will likely persist" and "remain reasonable". This leaves us in a difficult predicament, as we now have multiple papers from WP:MEDRS sources making contradictory claims, which we must now reconcile (in order to resolve the small etymological matter of how you want to label the Covid-19 lab leak theory), but as rightly says above, "Wikipedia is not the place to perform such investigations"  as per WP:NOTJOURNAL.
 * If we are to adhere to WP:MEDRS, we would reference Anderson and Baric's paper, and tell Wikipedia readers that despite it being over a year since the outbreak of Covid-19 in Wuhan, the origin of the virus remains unknown and that the scientific community has not reached a consensus, and different scientists favour different origin scenarios, as per different WP:MEDRS sources. However, for you to make false claims like "all the best sources (WP:MEDRS too) call this a conspiracy theory; and won't be undercut by lesser sources", and then "cast" up two papers which contradict each other, as well as others already referenced on this page (the Anderson and Baric papers), and then try to tell me to go read WP:MEDRS when I question you on, is a serious case of WP:CREEP. I have spent quite a bit of time reading WP:MEDRS, and from what I can tell, you have been working yourself further and further into a corner, as you do not have any WP:MEDRS sources to use without violating WP:NOR, and I don't think this discussion will come to an amicable close without a dispute resolution unless you are willing to concede my point. And this point is: You do not have any WP:MEDRS sources that can be considered WP:BESTSOURCES which support your position, which is that Covid-19 lab leak theory should be considered as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory", as per their definition in misinformation and conspiracy theory.
 * ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Either you haven't read the WP:MEDRS links I have given you, or you don't understand them in which case there is a WP:CIR problem. I will now support you being banned. Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Either you should explain what I missed in WP:MEDRS, or you should read WP:CREEP. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, none of the WP:MEDRS sources here support the claim that the lab leak hypothesis is misinformation or a conspiracy theory. They only refer to the claims that the virus was engineered or deployed as a bio-weapon as conspiracy theories and misinformation. In addition to your WP:MEDRS sources, even Alexbrn's WP:MEDRS sources support the assertion that the lab leak hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory or misinformation:
 * "Yet, the fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily excludes the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs, as will be discussed in the fourth section of this paper." *
 * "...so far no evidence from independent investigation is available to assure the world that SARS-Cov-2 was totally disconnected to the relatively new PSL-4 lab in Wuhan." * JustStalin (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The purpose here is just to gather the best WP:MEDRS sources, not to argue about what they say. Once we have some excellent sources, they can be summarized. PMID 32840850 is not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Forich (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be a little bit wary of that because it's out of China - see WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's in Nature Review Microbiology, which is a reputable journal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For sure, but it may have been bollixed up by politicians before it got there, so caution is advisable. Alexbrn (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a clear example of how you discount sources as WP:MEDRS merely because they don't suite your POV. It's almost pointless having any discussion with you on this topic. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What POV does the article have that I wouldn't agree with (I didn't read it)? Alexbrn (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Forich (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is good! Alexbrn (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This next three references I am unsure to be MEDRS, but I'll cite them anyway, please feel free to object to them: Now that we have a proposed list of 6 MEDRS (see list above), please vote on which ones we do not consider valid for citing purposes regarding biomedical claims and otherwise. Feel free to express any doubts on the authoritativeness of these sources, this is the place and moment to reach a consensus on this issue. Forich (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For these last three:
 * PMID 32860762 is a news piece, so not WP:MEDRS but maybe otherwise useful
 * PMID 33105685 is an editorial, in a MDPI journal - avoid, powerfully
 * https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6525/120.full does not appear to be on PUBMED yet; it's a "Perspective" piece and it's Chinese.
 * There are probably some more MEDRS out there ...
 * Alexbrn (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (Add) having said that, I've just spent a good hour searching and can't find anything more. I expect we're going to see a steady trickle of new viable sources over the coming months, but for now I think we've got what there is. Alexbrn (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * According to MEDRS, position statements published by major health organizations are also recommended. I suggest we use the WHO and CDC official statements about the origin of Covid.  Forich (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, good stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How do we feel about this source?: Andersen, K.G., Rambaut, A., Lipkin, W.I. et al., The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2, Nature Medicine, 26, 450–452 (2020). I no longer feel it is an appropiate MEDRS (it is not even a research article, it is a "correspondence", it has been criticized by later sources, and it was published way early in the pandemic). Forich (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a letter to the editor. So obviously not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Having read all of the sources suggested here, I must admit I'm impressed by Andersen 2020, for its depth of analysis and clarity, although as a letter-to-the-editor, it doesn't meet our standards for the highest quality MEDRS sources. It is important to make the point, however, that whatever sources we decide to use, we must summarise the entire source, and not just cherry-pick phrases that we empathise with. A very clear example exists in Andersen 2020, where we cannot simply quote without also including the next sentence,  I'm pretty certain that the mainstream view as represented by the other sources cited here is well-encapsulated in those conclusions, and I wouldn't spend much time trying to present a different view on the subject of a laboratory-based origin. There just aren't the serious sources to support that as anything more than a fringe theory. --RexxS (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please beware that Andersen et al (2020) was found to have an important flaw: for SARS-CoV-2 to transit from RATG13 to its current state, it had to naturally develop its Furin Cleavage Site. If it is natural, we should see ocurrences of this FCS naturally all over the place in other Sarbecovirus, but the one from SARS-CoV-2 is very rare, almost unique. This critique can be found in Seyran et al (2020) and I hope Andersen is planning on responding by writing an article, like all good scientists do. Forich (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, we see the problems of amateur analysis of reliable sources. Andersen 2020 has not been found to have "an important flaw". Seyran 2020 raises questions, but that is a finding of nothing, and their letter-to-the-editor concludes with "These unique features of SARS‐CoV‐2 raise several questions concerning the proximal origin of the virus that require further discussion." Please be careful about assigning strength of argument to sources that do not justify it. This is one of the reasons why we insist on MEDRS-sources. --RexxS (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * First, I am not an expert. Second, maybe you're right, it may not be a major problem to have a lineage B coronavirus with a Furin Cleavage Site; Andersen et al refer to this point as "puzzling", which is very different from my "important flaw" characterization. I apologize for my sloppy interpretation, good thing you spotted it at the Talk page, before anyone made an actual edit based on it.Forich (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

JustStalin (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PMID 32392464, classified a "comment". Not WP:MEDRS. (And it's from May?) Alexbrn (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Shortlist
So it seems there are three relevant good MEDRS: Alexbrn (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This next two references I am unsure to be MEDRS, please comment:


 * These last two are primary research and an editorial. So neither is WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * These last two are primary research and an editorial. So neither is WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * These last two are primary research and an editorial. So neither is WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Shortlist v.2
We found six relevant good MEDRS: Now we can quote any direct mention of the lab leak theory in these sources, and then summarize and discuss whether it is considered: a) conspiracy/fringe; b)legitimate but minor; c) legitimate and mainstream, or d) some other. Please proceed. Forich (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) WHO official position
 * 2) And CDC official position
 * 1) WHO official position
 * 2) And CDC official position
 * 1) WHO official position
 * 2) And CDC official position
 * They all seem pretty much aligned. Using the most recent (and on-point) source, PMID 32945405, I think we can simply say something like "in the early stages of the pandemic conspiracy theories spread that the virus make have originated in a laboratory, but these have been refuted by subsequent study". I can't see any need to dress it up much more. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest we first finish compiling the non MEDRS source on non-biomedical claims, and then draft the consensus paragraph to use. I know this may seen unproductive but it had to be done with attention to detail. Forich (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From the WHO official position published on March 2020:
 * From Salajegheh et al (2020):


 * This conclusion goes against the Furin Cleavage Site being too odd to be natural, a claim often cited by the lab leak theory proponents as evidence of artificial recombination in a lab. Forich (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From Bahr et al (2020):
 * This conclusion also contradicts the artificial recombination argument of the lab leak theory.15:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * More from Bahr et al (2020):
 * This part apparently opposes the hypothesis of some blogger called James Lyons, I am not aware of it in the first place.
 * I honestly don't know how to summarize this quote regarding Andersen, the two "howevers" lost me.Forich (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This part from Bahr et al (2020) worries me:
 * This seems outdated, a few new sources have appeared since April 30, 2020. Forich (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there's a danger of getting too into the weeds. This is an article on the Wuhan Institute of Virology, not on the virus. The only intersection is the conspiracy theories claiming that the virus was made in this lab. All we really need to say is that, and that it's not true. Deeper content about the viral origin, not specific to this lab, should be elsewhere. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, we can try to focus more on the subject matter, and later move the discussion elsewhere if it seems fit. By the way, in my mind the logical connection is: plausibility of artificial recombination in a lab -> plausibility of lab manipulation -> which one is the nearest lab? -> Wuhan Institute of Virology. Forich (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From the Ben et al (2020) review:
 * This tangentially concerns the artificial recombination possibility. They admit a plausible recombination origin, but do not specify whether natural or manipulated. The discovery of RATG13 was a huge push for the claim that SARS-CoV-2 is not that rare when compared to natural viruses.  Note that Shi Zheng-Li is a coauthor of his review, just for transparency. Overall, they have nothing to say on the lab leak theory.  Forich (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From the Zoumpourlis  et al. (2020) review:
 * This quote is out of context, it refers to a conspiracy theory that linked a SARS-CoV-1-derived chimeric virus (published in 2015) with SARS-CoV-2 (read the three paragraphs directly above this quote to get the context right). It does not refer to, for example, using RATG13 or some other sister strain as the starting point, as the lab leak theory proposes. Forich (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't think so: this is explicitly a reference to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue, not just one detail. Alexbrn (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I read it again. Although the conclusion concerns only the previous paragraphs, they did start by grouping together many hypothesis:
 * With this benevolent interpretation, its perfectly possible that the quoted conclusion does meant to include all the scenarios for a laboratory construction of the virus. In that case I would see this being a valid debunking of the lab leak theory. At least with respect to a version of it available before July 2020, the date of publication of this review (they don't cite a source for what exact version they are addresing, unfortunately a sloppy omission in my opinion). Forich (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me end by quoting the specific parts used to debunk the laboratory manipulation, for the record, because I suspect many editors will want to revisit this discussion (the comments in brackets are mine):
 * In my opinion this rebuttal does not aknowledge the plausibility of artificial recombination via gain of function procedures, and so fails to address the proper version of the lab leak theory, but we have to follow Wikipedia rules, and it looks like a strong MEDRS against the lab leak. Forich (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This quote is out of context, it refers to a conspiracy theory that linked a SARS-CoV-1-derived chimeric virus (published in 2015) with SARS-CoV-2 (read the three paragraphs directly above this quote to get the context right). It does not refer to, for example, using RATG13 or some other sister strain as the starting point, as the lab leak theory proposes. Forich (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't think so: this is explicitly a reference to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue, not just one detail. Alexbrn (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I read it again. Although the conclusion concerns only the previous paragraphs, they did start by grouping together many hypothesis:
 * With this benevolent interpretation, its perfectly possible that the quoted conclusion does meant to include all the scenarios for a laboratory construction of the virus. In that case I would see this being a valid debunking of the lab leak theory. At least with respect to a version of it available before July 2020, the date of publication of this review (they don't cite a source for what exact version they are addresing, unfortunately a sloppy omission in my opinion). Forich (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me end by quoting the specific parts used to debunk the laboratory manipulation, for the record, because I suspect many editors will want to revisit this discussion (the comments in brackets are mine):
 * In my opinion this rebuttal does not aknowledge the plausibility of artificial recombination via gain of function procedures, and so fails to address the proper version of the lab leak theory, but we have to follow Wikipedia rules, and it looks like a strong MEDRS against the lab leak. Forich (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this rebuttal does not aknowledge the plausibility of artificial recombination via gain of function procedures, and so fails to address the proper version of the lab leak theory, but we have to follow Wikipedia rules, and it looks like a strong MEDRS against the lab leak. Forich (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this rebuttal does not aknowledge the plausibility of artificial recombination via gain of function procedures, and so fails to address the proper version of the lab leak theory, but we have to follow Wikipedia rules, and it looks like a strong MEDRS against the lab leak. Forich (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Is WHO's official position on the lab leak theory inconsistent?
In this link the WHO provides its official statement regarding the origin of the virus, and they explicitely and unambiguosly deny a lab leak. This position is considered a MEDRS by wikipedia standards. But, in this interview, Peter Ben Embarek seems to have a different view. This is the transcript:

Interviewer:

Peter:

Please assess the credibility of this new source. We may also need to run a background check on Peter Ben Embarek's past to see if he has written any erotic novel, which seems to invalidate the arguments a person makes on virology. Forich (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see a big difference between "unambiguously denying a lab leak" and calling it "a remote possibility". In one position, the probability is zero, and in the other, it very close to zero. The only difference is one in taste and in one's willingness to waste time and money on wild goose chases, not in the factual foundation of the positions. Let me propose a Law:
 * For every epsilon greater than zero, there will be a person who thinks that an event with likelihood epsilon is worth considering.
 * Why is nobody talking about the possibility that the virus has been "signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters"? The likelihood is in the same vicinity. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Candidates summaries of MEDRS

 * Option 1: Give large weight to the virus being of animal origin and subsequent natural evolution, with scientific research deemed as to have reached consensus. This implies that any major deviation (e.g. a hypothesis positing that the virus, although of animal origin, mutated by artificial recombination in a lab) should be deemed fringe/conspiracy.
 * Option 2: Give large weight to most aspects of the origin of the virus being a mistery (i.e. reservoir, intermediate host, index case, circumstances of the spillover event), and a minority of aspects being well-understood (i.e. most plausible direct progenitor of the virus, most plausible method of acquiring its high infectious features via natural recombination and adaptation). This implies that the hypothesis underlying the lab leak is not a major deviation from the non existent scientific consensus, so that Wikipedia should not consider it fringe/conspiracy, even if the only weight it deserves in most entries ends up being very small.
 *  Option 3 : Any other that may have been left out at this point, please add it. Forich (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)