Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology/Archive 4

FV
"Leading virologists have disputed the idea that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the institute". A match to the sources would be "cast doubt on". Likewise "Leading virologists" doesn't match; 'Some leading virologists' would match. I think these changes are warranted.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:WEASEL for "some" and WP:FRINGE for "cast doubt". That idea was doubtful from the start. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, if you read the full text and not just the headlines, the sources cited there are actually stronger than 'disputed'; while most other sources (especially newer ones) are more direct. I've updated it to reflect the sources at the top of the section - 'disputed' isn't strong enough when even the most equivocal sources say things like "virtually no chance" and when the sources almost uniformly describe it as a fringe conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're wrong to assert I didn't read the full text after I indicated I had and you misrepresent the source flagged. Of course if you choose sources that ignore the bulk of the Gain of Function (GoF) research that was being done that is consistent with lab involvement and pretend the one type of GoF research that isn't consistent with the evidence is the only kind there is, and just set up and attack straw men like, "No human using a computer could do this," you get unbalanced contributions like yours.  It helps to leave out other appropriate sources, or sources that debunk claims in the ones you've used, and avoid even mentioning terms like GoF and "serial passage".
 * And crickets.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, "Leading" ( is synth ): NPR said that over 6 unidentified scientists concurred.  NPR said 10 leading scientists were consulted.  So actually "7/10 leading scientists" would be reasonable, and simply "Leading scientists" falsely implies consensus.  --50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "More than half-a-dozen scientists" means anything above six. Seven is only the bare minimum and, for all we know, it could have just been another way of saying ten. The article doesn't mention any dissenting opinions so there is no basis to assume three of them disagreed. CowHouse (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the sources provided say that the theory was "debunked", they say the theory has been disputed. A Washington Post fact-checking analysis concluded that no scientist has been willing to completely dimsiss the idea that the virus escaped from the WIV. The New York Times reported that Richard H. Ebright has argued that the probability of a lab accident was "substantial," pointing to the lab's lax safety standards and a history of such occurrences that have infected researchers. The Washington Post reported that Shi Zhengli thought it was possible that the virus leaked from the WIV, but she later denied that it did. All of this information should be included in the Conspiracy Theories section, because as it stands, this section clearly violates WP:NPOV. That sentence should be changed to say "Leading virologists have disputed the idea that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the institute, saying that there is "virtually no chance" that it could have happened." JustStalin (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The broad scientific consensus is that the virus most likely emerged in nature, and not as the result of lab experiments or escape. See, for example, Andersen, K.G., Rambaut, A., Lipkin, W.I. et al., The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2, Nature Medicine, 26, 450–452 (2020). With all due respect to Richard Ebright, he's not a virologist, and he's made his claims in the popular media - not in scientific journals. Any discussion of the theory that the virus escaped from a lab needs to also make it clear that this is a WP:FRINGE view in the scientific community. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But nobody here is arguing against the scientific consensus that the virus most likely emerged in nature. Your claim that there is a scientific consensus that the virus did not leak from the WIV is unsubstantiated, and according to Ebright "is not credible", so WP:FRINGE does not apply here. JustStalin (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the following information should be added to the Conspiracy Theory Section: Ebright said the claim that the Wuhan Institute of Virology could not have been involved in the virus’s release "is not credible." An assessment by the U.S. intelligence community declined to rule out the possibility that the virus had escaped from the complex of laboratories in Wuhan. An anonymous U.S. intelligence official said, "There’s been speculation: Did it come from a market? Did it come from a lab? We just don’t know." In a 2019 paper published in the Journal of Biosafety and Biosecurity, Wuhan chief scientist Yuan Zhiming described widespread systemic deficiencies with training and monitoring of high-security laboratories where disease-causing pathogens are studied. In addition, U.S experts and scientists who reviewed experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology said the precautions taken by scientists would not necessarily have protected them from harmful exposures. The experiments prompted Chinese scientists to issue repeated warnings about the possibility of a new SARS-like disease transmitting from bats to humans. In a 2019 article published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Lynn Klotz, a senior science fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, argued that incidents causing potential exposures to pathogens occur frequently in the high security BSL4 laboratories, mainly due to human error, and that releases of potential pandemic pathogens are fairly likely over time. In April 2020, she further elaborated, "Even if a lab is mechanically safe, you can’t rule out human error. Accidents happen, and more than 70 percent of the time it’s due to the humans involved." JustStalin (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Proven: there's no support for "debunked", in the context it's in in the article. So I second that request.  Urgent: REMOVE IT NOW; this is defamatory; restoring it surely warrants administrator sanctions.  And reiterate my initial ones.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How is it defamatory? Who is being defamed? CowHouse (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What part of None of the sources provided say that the theory was "debunked", they say the theory has been disputed. A Washington Post fact-checking analysis concluded that no scientist has been willing to completely dimsiss the idea that the virus escaped from the WIV. is unclear? WP:IDHT much? The WashPo isn't bloody fringe.  FS.  --50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not describing defamation. Please don't use legal terms without knowing their meaning. CowHouse (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am. I haven't.  Right back at you.  Read defamation.  When wikipedia falsely claims, "debunked[:] the idea that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the institute" wikipedia defames everyone who has argued that it may well have leaked from a Wuhan lab, especially when it directs readers to those arguments, especially when they are identified by name; they don't need to be quoted directly in the article.  If wikipedia doesn't falsely claim that, which is your (apparently fundamentalist) belief.  --50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article on defamation is a helpful start but I suggest you find other sources if you want to improve your understanding of the legal terminology you are trying to use. It would be more productive for you to suggest reasonably uncontroversial changes to that sentence rather than waste editors time talking about non-existent defamation, e.g. Leading virologists have said there is "virtually no chance" that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the institute. CowHouse (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead of sarcastic comments, you could suggest editing the page with my example wording and cite WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." CowHouse (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Aside: It's funny, you were Wikilawyering by writing . The page in a nutshell: Using the rules in a manner contrary to their principles in order to "win" editing disputes is highly frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. .  Are you saying you're hearing the


 * I've started a section below specifically escalating these defamation concerns. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This is obviously a far too complex discussion for an edit request: if and when consensus is achieved, one the editors involved in the discussion will probably make the agreed-to changes. If, of course, that discussion leads nowhere (likely since it has lasted over a month), then it would probably be better to let the debate die its natural death. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  19:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See also WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, which I'll repeat again despite the insistence of the IP that they are not engaging in such threats. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Repeated/republished defamation
The Times just wrote last month: "[B]razen political lies [by] Fox News Channel, Newsmax and OAN [that is, news media, which admittedly isn't exactly what wikipedia or the WMF are --.170] [resulted in] a planned defamation lawsuit [that is], legal experts say, an unusually strong case" . Wikipedia is legless with respect to "debunked", etc.

WP:NLT promises, "A polite report of a legal problem, such as defamation [such as this one], is not a threat and will be acted on quickly." I'm not going to file suit, but I'd strongly urge that a staff member take action on the defamatory bits identified in this page (not just including ) or being edit warred over. most recent example since admins are failing with respect to "will be acted on quickly"; I reiterate my request for admin help of the 3rd, above. Surely application of WP:DS are warranted. Act. Primarily because it's the right thing do. "[L]ots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right.-Jimbo.   Court ruling: "Internet service providers and users are exposed to liability if they republish a statement with notice of its defamatory character."  So, promises made...  Promises... ___________?

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is to use a legal term "nonsense". Utter and complete nonsense. There is no defamation. No person is harmed. And most importantly, Wikipedia has well-established policies on reliable sources including the now repeated several times WP:MEDRS. Slywriter (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Admin here, this is just silly. This is not defamation, and no admin action is needed here. Trying to insinuate that the current wording defames people who support a different wording?? Thats nuts. Defamation is a clear and serious issue, which occurs when we publish libelous information about specific real, living people. If folks continue to throw around legal terms without understanding them or in an attempt to Wikilawyer, I will absolutely apply DS to block them from editing this page. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory or Theory?
The possibility of an accidental lab leak has been the subject of controversy that has been reported on by a number of publications in the last few weeks, and has been described as "credible", "plausible" and even "likely". It is most certainly not a conspiracy theory, and should not be described as such. The section should be renamed to "lab leak theory", to avoid the conspiracy label, and cleaned up to reflect the latest reports on the topic. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources to support the change you wish to make - just saying "a number of publications" is not sufficient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless actual scientific sources take this theory seriously, it remains WP:FRINGE. An essay by a non-expert in the popular press does not make this scientific. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please can you discuss the contents of the references provided before you revert my edits. I cited a number of sources, including the BBC, National Review, and the Times, all of which satisfy WP:RS, as you must be aware. The New York Magazine too is a reputable source and the author is well qualified to write on the subject, and the article cites a number of reputed scientists, including an interview with Ralph Baric who said "Ralph Baric “Can you rule out a laboratory escape? The answer in this case is probably not.” ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When newly added content is disputed and removed, it stays out until there is a consensus to include it. The onus is on the person who wants it included to achieve consensus for inclusion, not on anyone who disputes it to justify its removal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When newly added content is well cited, then you can either discuss the contents and verifiability of the materials cited, or request a comment from an administrator to mediate in the matter. There have been numerous comments from other editors in this regard going, some of which have already been archived, without consensus. I am restoring the content I contributed to this page, as I believe that the sources I cite do indeed satisfy WP:RS and you haven't taken up the issue or countered that. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your addition and have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * New York Magazine, National Review and even BBC are not WP:MEDRS. They are popular sources, and where they make scientific claims that go against the scientific consensus, they are not reliable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the New York Magazine article was written by a novelist with no formal scientific training. Is that right? The scientific opinions of novelists, political commentators and other non-experts writing in non-peer-reviewed outlets should not be presented as a counter-weight to peer-reviewed scientific literature. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article and the specific section we are discussing does not class as Biomedical information, and therefore WP:MEDRS does not apply. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is the subject of a controversy that has been covered extensively in a number of reputable sources, including but not limited to The Boston Magazine, the The BBC, The Times, Le Monde, and the The Washington Post. You are not wrong to say that the author of the New York Magazine piece is a novelist, but you would be wrong to say that this disqualifies the piece as a reliable source as per WP:RS. According to the NY Post, Baker worked on the piece for over three months, interviewing tens of reputed scientists (including Ralph Baric), and cleared a pretty stringent editorial process in order to get published. Novelists can be journalists too. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussing the views of journalists is irrelevant since your paragraph specifically mentions scientists. In this discussion we need to keep in mind that the text that you added was this: Several scientists have hypothesized that the origin of the COVID-19 virus could have been as a result of an accidental leak from a laboratory in the Wuhan, such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology, rather than the more widely held view that the virus made a ononotic jump from animals to humans. A limited but increasing number of scientists have asserted that without concrete evidence of a zoonotic jump having occurred, an accidental lab leak cannot be ruled out as an origin scenario, while a third scenario involving laboratory manipulation and deliberate release as a bioweapon is considered to be very unlikely. There are a few problems with WP:WEASEL words in this paragraph. Firstly, in order to be verifiable it has to be based on the views of "several scientists" / "a limited but increasing number of scientists" (Who are these scientists? Are they virologists? Which source says they are increasing in number?). Secondly, "could have been" and "cannot be ruled out" only tells us that they believe it is not impossible, but says nothing about whether or not they consider it likely. For example, one of your talk page comments mentioned Ralph Baric, but you omitted this part: Baric said he still thought the virus came from bats in southern China, perhaps directly, or possibly via an intermediate host ... The disease evolved in humans over time without being noticed, he suspected, becoming gradually more infectious, and eventually a person carried it to Wuhan “and the pandemic took off.“. Since you mentioned WP:RS, there is consensus that the the New York Post is generally unreliable (see WP:RSP). CowHouse (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are numerous scientists cited in the sources who consider an accidental lab leak to be plausible. Whether the leak is likely or unlikely, is not the topic of discussion here, rather that it is considered plausible, and cannot be ruled out, and is not a conspiracy theory. The second Times article goes further than "plausible", saying that the theory is "credible", quoting US government officials Matthew Pottinger and UK MP Iain Duncan Smith, among others. If you've read all, or even only some of the articles from the sources I provided, which I hope you have, then you will have read comments from scientists interviewed, such as David Relman, Etienne Decroly, Alina Chan, Nikolai Petrovsky, Daniel Lucey, Botao Xiao, Lei Xiao, Fang Chi-tai, Rahul Bahulikar, Rahul Bahulikar, Filippa Lentzos, Richard Ebright, Jonathan Latham, Allison Wilson, Rossana Segreto and Yuri Deigin all of whom have varying backgrounds in virology and microbiology, and have only come out over the past few months and weeks (hence "increasing"). Baric said he "thought" the virus came from bats directly or via an intermediate host, but there is no evidence for the zoonotic jump theory, which is why he doesn't rule out the accidental lab leak theory (absence of proof is not proof of absence). Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a science journal, and it's not our job as Wikipedians to decide which theory is likely or unlikely, but only that the theory is considered plausible and credible by reliable sources, and should be reflected as such in this article. As for the New York Post article, I didn't provide it as a source to support changes to this for this article, but in response to comments about the author of the New York Magazine piece. According to the New York Post article, Baker worked on the piece for over three months, interviewing tens of reputed scientists, and cleared a pretty stringent editorial process (for which we don't need the NYPost as a source, as New York Magazine is considered a reliable source, but I thought you might like to know). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To make it easier for people in this discussion, it would be helpful for you to link to specific sources and then include the scientists mentioned per source. Otherwise it is citation WP:BOMBARDMENT, considering the number of lengthy articles you have mentioned. Whether the leak is likely or unlikely, is not the topic of discussion here, rather that it is considered plausible. Plausible means "seeming reasonable or probable". Do the sources use the word "plausible"? Regardless, the topic is about likelihood since your text contrasts the lab leak with the "very unlikely" laboratory manipulation / bioweapon scenario. Likelihood is mentioned for one scenario but not the other, giving readers the impression that the lab leak is not considered very unlikely. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a science journal, and it's not our job as Wikipedians to decide which theory is likely or unlikely. According to policy, likelihood is certainly relevant, as is whether or not it is a minority view. WP:FALSEBALANCE: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." The second Times article goes further than "plausible", saying that the theory is "credible", quoting US government officials Matthew Pottinger and UK MP Iain Duncan Smith, among others. You seem to be arguing in favour of a different paragraph than the one you originally added. Your original text was about scientists, not government officials. [S]cientists interviewed ... all of whom have varying backgrounds in virology and microbiology, and have only come out over the past few months and weeks (hence "increasing") You are acknowledging that "increasing" is original research and not contained in any of the sources. Baric said he "thought" the virus came from bats directly or via an intermediate host, but there is no evidence for the zoonotic jump theory. Baric never said there was no evidence for the zoonotic jump theory. Can you also clarify how there is a lab leak without a zoonotic jump? Your text says laboratory manipulation was a different scenario to a lab leak. As for the New York Post article, I didn't provide it as a source to support changes to this for this article, but in response to comments about the author. My point was that when another editor disputed the quality of a source you provided, you cited an unreliable source to justify the quality of the previous source. CowHouse (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take your advice on linking to specific sources and paraphrasing scientist quotes. I think the main topic of discussion in this section is whether the accidental lab leak theory should be considered a conspiracy theory or not. The sources I provided quote a number of scientists who propose that no origin theory can be ruled out, with the current dearth of evidence. Many of the sources I provided, source their information from scientific literature, like this article from David Relman (it also explains why deliberate engineering and lab release are unlikely), and all, or at least most of these articles, assume the reader already knows that there is currently no evidence for any origin scenario (as is the current consensus in the scientific community). The fact that Covid-19 has unknown origins is also mentioned in articles that I provided from mainstream sources, such as the Bloomberg article, and is explained at greater length in Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory. As such, that Baric didn't say there was no evidence for the zoonotic jump theory isn't relevant here, as it is common knowledge in scientific circles that no intermediatory host or virus has been found, and doesn't need to be further stated. To clarify on a lab leak without a zoonotic jump, the New York magazine cites the preprint by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson proposing a link between an obscure but deadly coronavirus collected from the Mojiang miners in 2012/2013, and the serial passaging in human cells at Wuhan Institute of Virology by Shi Zhengli and Ralph Baric who collaborated extensively, with funds from the NIH's PREDICT program and the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency, via EcoHealth Alliance (not that Baric is implicated in any way and is said to be advising the US government on its investigation). Baric himself, who is perhaps one of the world's foremost experts in viral engineering is on record as telling Presa diretta that using mordern assembly methods, one could build a synthetic virus that is completely indistinguishable from a natural one (a Swiss lab made the first synthetic clone of SARS-CoV-2 in just one month). So to clarify, laboratory manipulation with deliberate lab release is a different scenario to laboratory manipulation and an accidental lab leak. It's an important distinction. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also a distinction between a lab leak with laboratory manipulation and a leak without it. We should not conflate the views of scientists who are talking about the possibility of one and not the other. My understanding of the scientific consensus is that the available evidence suggests zoonotic origins. The available evidence means different origin scenarios are much more or less likely. Having incomplete evidence about the details of the virus' origins is not the same as having no evidence at all. I also don't think we should cite a preprint before it has been peer reviewed. CowHouse (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also a distinction between a lab leak with laboratory manipulation and a leak without it. This statement is untrue in the context of Covid-19 lab leak theory, and its really important for you and other editors with a contrarian view to understanding this, as it is the very crux of the issue we are discussing. Central to the Covid-19 lab-leak theory is that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was known to have collected deadly coronaviruses (such as the ones from the Mojiang mineshaft which a few miners fell ill with and some died from) and performed gain of function research on them to make them even more transmissible among humans, which is well documented not only in all the sources provided, and is well explained in the Boston Magazine and New York Magazine pieces. It is also well documented that Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric, who have been collaborating for a number of years, in once instance built a chimera with the spike of the bat virus attached to a mouse-adapted SARS virus (called MA1 virus]), obtained by Baric some years earlier (source) and tested it on human cells, showing effects similar to those of SARS, thus demonstrating that this spike too could potentially attack humans (source). This kind of research isn't nefarious in any way, but it does carry risks as were these chimeric pathogens to leak, they would be better adapted to spread, and this is why the US government yielded to the pressure of the Cambridge Working Group (a group of scientists especially concerned about lab leaks) and issued a Moratorium on such studies, though they didn't apply to research being carried out with partners abroad (such as the research being carried out between funded by US scientific organizations and the Wuhan Institute of Virology). It's important for you to understand that without gain of function research or "lab manipulatoin", a lab leak wouldn't be of huge concern, and if the original virus/es that was/were collected in the Mojiang mineshaft had leaked, it/they probably wouldn't have caused much of a pandemic, and like most of the hundred billion trillion pathagons in the natural world, they were likely not well suited for human transmission. This explains the statement of Richard H. Ebright in the New York Magazine piece that likens virus hunting and collecting to “looking for a gas leak with a lighted match,”, as most viruses in nature do not cross from one species to another without some help along the way (which he infers as gain of function studies). My understanding of the scientific consensus is that the available evidence suggests zoonotic origins. The available evidence means different origin scenarios are much more or less likely. Having incomplete evidence about the details of the virus' origins is not the same as having no evidence at all. No there is currently no "evidence" of a zoonitic jump having occurred and there is no scientific consensus on this at all, so it is but a theory, and perhaps a likely one, but a theory nonetheless. It is certainly possible for a virus to make a zootic jump from one species to another in a once in a century event, but to do so in the case of a bat virus, it would have to mutate in order to successfully transmit between humans, otherwise, it would just die out with the first few hosts it infects, and currently, there is no known intermediatory host or virus. Instead, what is known instead is that from the start of the virus spreading in Wuhan, as noted by the above-mentioned preprint from Alina Chan in biorxiv, that was quoted by all the reliable sources of above, is that the virus was well adapted for humans (indicating that underwent mutation in a human population for a number of months without any trace, or that it may have undergone this process in some other way, such as gain of function research in a lab). This is highly unusual, as with most other viruses that made the jump zoonotic, intermediate hosts were found, and observations were made of the mutations they underwent from the first few hosts they infected to later stages hosts. I also don't think we should cite a preprint before it has been peer reviewed. I agree that we cannot reference it in the article, but the preprint is of note, in that it was quoted by a number of reliable sources, and I am mainly referencing it in our discussion, and not in the article, where we should reference just the reliable sources that referenced it. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No there is currently no "evidence" of a zoonitic [sic] jump having occurred. The World Health Organization disagrees: "All available evidence for COVID-19 suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has a zoonotic source. Many researchers have been able to look at the genomic features of SARS-CoV-2 and have found that evidence does not support that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory construct. A constructed virus would show a mix of known elements within genomic sequences – this is not the case." (source) CowHouse (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I explained the distinction between a lab leak with laboratory manipulation and a leak without it, which I hope you have read, because the World Health Organisation Report is dated and isn't relevant. The particular excerpt from the World Health Organisation situation report you provided which is from back in April does appear to conflict with the more recent sources I have provided, but it doesn't negate my statement that there is currently no evidence of a zoonotic jump, demonstrating only that there is a controversy. The situation report states a "constructed virus would show a mix of known elements" which does not take into account modern methods, and which is in direct contradiction of what Ralph Baric (perhaps the foremost expert in the world on viral engineering and coronaviruses) told Presa diretta on Nov 11 2020, that when using assembly methods recently developed, one could "build a virus that is completely indistinguishable from a natural one". The methods that Baric is referring to are known as "seamless cloning", such as Gibson assembly, Golden Gate Cloning, which are now commonly sold in commercial kits available online. So to reiterate my point, there is currently no evidence of a zoonotic jump having occurred, and the lab leak theory which has received significant media coverage by a number of reliable sources, can be considered possible, and according to some sources, even quite credible. It certainly cannot be considered a conspiracy theory, and I hope our discussion has brought you to understand my position so that we can reach a consensus among ourselves as how to edit the relevant section in this article. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If there is a newer WHO report which contradicts the old one then feel free to provide a link. Otherwise, the report not being new doesn't help your case. It tells us that even at that time "all available evidence" suggested a zoonotic source, which refutes your point that "there is currently no "evidence"". Hand-waving and dismissing the WHO report as irrelevant, while citing the opinion of a single person (Baric) and continuing to incorrectly refer to the popular press as a reliable source on scientific information, is not productive. If you are representing Baric accurately, then his views are still undue unless you can provide reliable sources indicating his view is uncontroversial in the scientific community. CowHouse (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that we cannot reference it in the article, but the preprint is of note, in that it was quoted by a number of reliable sources, and I am mainly referencing it in our discussion, and not in the article, where we should reference just the reliable sources that referenced it. Your comment assumes the sources are reliable, contrary to policy. WP:MEDPOP: "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. ... Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters." CowHouse (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I don't plan to cite any sources that don't measure up to WP:MEDPOP, and I cited them only for our discussion here on this talk page as you asked me to explain you some of the finer points of the accidental lab leak theory. The case I am making here is for renaming the conspiracy to controversy or accidental lab leak, and reflecting the position of scientists on the theory based on reliable sources. Do you accept or reject the use of any of the reliable sources I have provided to support these changes so that we can reach a consensus on this matter? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you accept or reject the use of any of the reliable sources I have provided to support these changes so that we can reach a consensus on this matter? If you mean the preprints and popular press, then you are not talking about reliable sources. CowHouse (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your position is not consistent with WP:NPOV, and it seems we are unable to reach a consensus, so we must make a request for a dispute resolution. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A conspiracy theory and a scenario that cannot be ruled out are not mutually exclusive. It is not an endorsement of a theory to say it cannot be ruled out. Conspiracy theories don't have to be impossible, just without evidence. The text you added says nothing about whether there is evidence of a lab leak. CowHouse (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your general statement that a conspiracy theory and a scenario that cannot be ruled out are not mutually exclusive. However, I think you might be missing something here, as indicated from your previous post. The origin of the virus is still unknown. All that is known is that it that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a type of horseshoe bat, but no plausible virus intermediate nor a confirmed animal intermediate host has been found to date, and it's been over a year now. With SARS and MERS, the animal intermediate, namely the civet cat and camel, respectively, were identified within a few months. Moreover, there are many questions about why Covid-19 first emerged in Wuhan, which is over 1,400km away from where the horseshoe bats are found in Yunan, and how well adapted the virus was for human transmission (which is unlike SARS and MERS or any other virus first passing the species barrier). These questions and many others are the subject of numerous scientific preprints under review, such as this one. Can it really be a coincidence that the only Biosafety level 4 lab in China, completed only a few years prior, and which was collecting coronaviruses and performing gain of function studies on them, is in Wuhan, the epicenter of the virus outbreak? Is it really such a far stretch to think that an accidental leak may have occurred, perhaps through hazardous waste not being disposed of correctly, or a scratch from a humanized mouse? These questions and many others, made a number of publications like the BBC give air to the theory. If Covid-19 was an accidental leak, it would not even have been the first. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The paper you linked to says this: A reminder: these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information. We should wait for these preprints to be peer reviewed before even considering referencing them. CowHouse (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that is the standard disclaimer of biorxiv for any preprint undergoing peer-review, but that does not stop the news media from interviewing their authors and citing their studies, especially while a worldwide pandemic is raging and there is a dearth of evidence for any origin scenario. Given that paper's coverage by other publications, such as the Boston Magazine piece, they can be referenced together. There are other preprints, like this one which are awaiting review by Journals since June, but which haven't been picked up by any reliable sources and referenced as part of a story, so on those we can wait. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDPOP. We don't have to reference papers that haven't been peer reviewed just because they were mentioned in news articles, especially when the preprint's disclaimer actively discourages it. CowHouse (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As per WP:MEDPOP I agree we don't have to reference it in the article, but it is useful for conversation among editors on the topic, in establishing the veracity of the lab leak theory. It is especially relevant to this discussion for those editors unaware that the virus has been adept for human transmissibility from the start of the outbreak in Wuhan, as reported in the reliable sources provided. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you describing them as reliable sources when WP:MEDPOP specifically says they are generally unreliable in this context? CowHouse (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't describe them as reliable. I said they are useful for this conversation. I agree we should cite articles only the sources considered reliable according to WP:MEDPOP. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The opinion piece in The Washington Post (link) says Most likely, the virus was a zoonotic spillover, a leap from animals to humans. Relman is mentioned but he says nothing at all about a lab leak. He says “the ‘origin story’ is missing many key details,” including a recent detailed evolutionary history of the virus, identity of its most recent ancestors and “surprisingly, the place, time, and mechanism of transmission of the first human infection.” The portion about the Lancet Commission is the most relevant: The Lancet Commission, formed by the British medical journal in July, has made a primary goal identifying the origins of covid-19 and averting future zoonotic pandemics. The journal declared “the evidence to date supports the view” that covid-19 “is a naturally occurring virus rather than the result of laboratory creation and release.” But the commission says, “The possibility of laboratory involvement in the origins of the pandemic should be examined with scientific rigor and thoroughness, and with open scientific collaboration.” However, I'm not sure it belongs on this page since the commission never specifically mentions the WIV. CowHouse (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Washinton Post piece also says Beyond the blame game, there are troubling questions in China that must be examined, including whether the coronavirus was inadvertently spread in an accident or spill from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which had previously carried out research on bat coronaviruses. The institute collected samples from the Mojiang mine in Yunnan province in China in 2012 and 2013. Earlier in 2012, six miners at Mojiang exposed to bats and bat feces were hospitalized suffering from an illness similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and three died. The disease was similar if not identical to covid-19 and may have been a previously unrecognized parent virus. Conspiracy theorists have proposed more outlandish scenarios of a deliberately created pathogen, but they do not hold much water., which is very much relevant to the WIV. As for the Lancet Commission, and its now-famous letter attempting to discount a lab leak as a possible origin scenario, it been criticized by numerous scientists and was also mentioned in the BBC and other articles as a controversy. It is telling that both Ralph Baric and Linfa Wang's names had been taken off the list of co-signees. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The opinion piece mentions the WIV, but the Lancet Commission does not. Your earlier comment said this: So to clarify, laboratory manipulation with deliberate lab release is a different scenario to laboratory manipulation and an accidental lab leak. It's an important distinction. Is laboratory manipulation different to a "deliberately created pathogen"? If not, the piece describes that as an "outlandish scenario" proposed by conspiracy theorists. CowHouse (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The Lancet Commission's letter, is at the center of the controversy, as its author Peter Daszak as mentioned by the BBC article, has "previously called the lab-leak theory a "conspiracy theory" and "pure baloney" and has statedly absconded any duty he has to consider a lab leak scenario as a possible origin and investigate it accordingly. The BBC questioned Daszak on conflict of interest, and the sources also not this concern (such as the Le Monde, New York and Boston Magazine pieces), 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, and they have cut his funding for that particular project and asked him to help procure the original virus specifying which the WIV first sequenced SARS-CoV-2 from, along with genetic sequences of another eight samples of coronaviruses that were collected along with RaTG13 which have not been shared. 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 doesn't not represent a consensus by scientists and even Ralph Baric and Linfa Wang (the two foremost caronavirus experts in the world) withdraw their signatures, and have said that a lab leak theory cannot be ruled out. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The article in The Times says a "majority of scientists believe that the Covid-19 virus originated in nature." One American national security adviser, who is not a scientist, is quoted in the article supporting a lab leak. According to the article, Iain Duncan Smith told the Daily Mail that Mr Pottinger’s comments showed the US was doubling down on the theory that the virus came from a leak at the laboratory. It is therefore completely false to say The second Times article goes further than "plausible", saying that the theory is "credible", quoting US government officials Matthew Pottinger and UK MP Iain Duncan Smith. CowHouse (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement that the Covid-19 virus originated in nature does not contradict the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a lab. As I clarified above, the lab leak theory entails the virus being collected from a patient, who caught it from a horseshoe bat, underwent gain of function studies, and accidentally leaked, either through the sewer system, garbage disposal, a hole in the wall, or an infected human carrier. Other than that, I am unsure how the National Security official not being a scientist is a concern, as I didn't add it as a source. We should add it if we add government officials along with scientists, as they marshal a lot of scientific human resources. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You appear to be contradicting your own sources. The BBC article you cited says: "Those three deaths are now at the centre of a major scientific controversy about the origins of the virus and the question of whether it came from nature, or from a laboratory." CowHouse (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How is that a contradiction? As I explained, there is more than two scenarios. The BBC is but one of multiple sources I provided, and it didn't delve into the finder details of each scenario. I explained the scenarios above, and nature vs laboratory conundrum is better explained in the Boston Magazine, New York Magazine and Le Monde pieces. talk (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Your original text included a reference to the National Review ("There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review". See WP:RSP). The article presents the views of journalists rather than scientists. It only contains speculation that "many scientists" had suspicions/concerns but they "didn’t want to speak publicly about the possibility of a lab accident while the Trump administration was touting the same idea".  CowHouse (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I thought that the National Review was more respected than it is, apparently. I will leave it out as a source. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to make a very general point about this discussion: scientific sources are all that matter for determining the weight of scientific opinion. Regular news outlets are often not particularly good at reporting on scientific topics. The general standard that's been followed on Wikipedia for SARS-CoV-2-related material is WP:MEDRS. Arguing back and forth about what the Washington Post's editorial board thinks about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 or what a writer for The Times thinks about the illness that struck the Mojiang miners is not a productive use of anyone's time. Any discussion should focus on high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific literature. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have made your position quite clear many times before, but I countered your point, saying that WP:MEDRS applies primarily to Biomedical information, a point which was also brought up by another editor. The subject of this article is that of a laboratory in China which is subject to a controversy related to a possible accidental leak, that has been reported by numerous reliable sources, including but not limited to the Washington Post, the BBC, Bloomberg, The Times, Le Monde, RAI, the New York Magazine and the Boston Magazine, which quote numerous reputed scientists, including but not limited to David Relman, Etienne Decroly, Alina Chan, Nikolai Petrovsky, Daniel Lucey, Botao Xiao, Lei Xiao, Fang Chi-tai, Rahul Bahulikar, Rahul Bahulikar, Filippa Lentzos, Richard Ebright, Jonathan Latham, Allison Wilson, Rossana Segreto and Yuri Deigin all of whom have varying backgrounds in virology and microbiology. Notwithstanding, there are a number of scientific preprints that are undergoing review on the topic of an accidental lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, such as the piece from Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson here, and some which are already peer-reviewed, such as this one. With or without peer-reviewed scientific papers, WP:RS takes precedence over to WP:MEDRS to establish that there is indeed a controversy here over a possible accidental lab leak of one of the coronaviruses undergoing gain of function studies at one of the institute's labs. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thucydides411 I 100% agree with you. However, I think if you review the WIV subsection titled "Conspiracy theories" you will find that this methodology has never been applied, except for the one recent source identifying a Dec 2019 sample in Italy.  I think ScrupulousScribe has legitimate NPOV concerns about both entries he is trying to edit in that it's a one way street with respect to using non WP:MEDRS sources.  I don't agree with his approach but I sympathize with his frustration.  My suggestion for WIV is that the "Conspiracy theories" subsection be renamed to "Lab link theory" and the paper identifying the Dec 2019 sample in Italy be used as a possible counter factual source with NPOV wording.  Everything else should be tossed and any future updates should be held to the standard of 'high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific literature'/WP:MEDRS.  Let's get back to basics, and quit wasting everyone's time on politics.  Dinglelingy (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Regular news outlets account for almost all of the references in the conspiracy theories section at the moment. I agree with your point that if WP:MEDRS is going to be invoked we need to apply it consistently. CowHouse (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're both right. We should just mark WP:V as a guideline.  Will make it easier to use MEDRS iff it suits our agenda.  .  SMH.  WWJD? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * CowHouse Exactly. And they all need to come out, as does any reference to the term conspiracy theory under the topic of WIV, as it no longer applies, if it ever did.  Or, as 50.201.195.170 is suggesting, any other similarly sourced material such as that provided by ScrupulousScribe needs to be included, provided it has a NPOV.  Calling this topic a conspiracy theory is not a NPOV and serves no purpose other than political.  I think it meets the qualification of "Alternative theoretical formulations" under WP:Fringe and should be given appropriate but not undue weight, until the science prooves otherwise.  I support either approach if it is consistent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy (talk • contribs) 08:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The weight of scientific opinion has to be determined by WP:MEDRS sources. That's a consistent policy. I agree that we should quit wasting everyone's time on politics, which is why I do not think that conspiracy theories should be included on the basis of coverage in the popular press. Above, is arguing, for example, that we should use an essay written in New York Magazine by an erotic novelist with no scientific training. ScrupulousScribe has also repeatedly touted independentsciencenews.org. A recent title from that website: "Messengers of Gates’ Agenda: How the Cornell Alliance for Science Spreads Disinformation on behalf of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation". As for the out-of-context lists of names that ScrupulousScribe has been giving, I'll just make this point: If I wanted to introduce WP:FRINGE climate-change denialism into Wikipedia, I could also assemble an impressive-looking list of scientists from outside of climatology. Excuse me, but big claims, like a lab leak, require solid backing, and this isn't it. Peer-reviewed scientific literature, as laid out in WP:MEDRS, is what counts in determining where the weight of scientific opinion lies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the relevant topic of conversation is whether the "conspiracy theory" description comes from WP:MEDRS sources or only the popular press. CowHouse (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Skimmed, but too lazy to read all of the above. An opinion piece in WaPo is unconvincing. If this is a legitimate theory, you should be able to link a couple of reliable sources, and say no extra words, letting the sources speak for themselves. If nobody can do so, it's probably a conspiracy theory. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are too lazy to read the sources, then of what value is your input in this conversation? In addition to the WaPo piece, there are also articles from the Boston Magazine and the New York Magazine, both of which are over 1000 words, explaining why some reputable scientists think an accidental lab leak is a possible origin scenario of SARS-CoV-2. There is also the BBC and while it says the theory is unsubstantiated (which any theory is, until its proven), this is in light of the fact that the no origin scenario has full scientific consensus, including a natural zoonosis. Yes, there is no scientific consensus on the origins of the virus, and how it made a zoonitic jump from bats to humans, as you can see stated here in this Nature article and many others like it. There are also articles covering a possible lab leak as an origin scneario, from the The Times, Bloomberg, Presadiretta and Le Monde. Frankly, if you are not going to read these articles, your input is of little value and can't be factored into a consensus. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I replied to your sources in the below section. I am too lazy to read the WP:WALLOFTEXTs, which are a lot of words and very little substance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not the first user who has brought up this issue. If you made the time, you can find numerous other users and "walls of text", which have not resulted in consensus on this issue. What has changed in the lat few weeks, is that a number of sources meeting WP:RS have reported on an accidental lab leak as a possible origin scenario, and I am seeking to make changes to this article to better reflect that, and also spint it off as a new article. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What constitutes a reliable source varies by subject matter. For the origin of a novel coronavirus, an erotic novelist writing in a popular magazine is not a reliable source, even if he writes over 1000 words. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The New York Magazine is considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source, not just because of the quality of its writers, but because of its editorial process. Are you going to attempt to discredit the reporting capabilities of journalists from the other sources I provided? That is not based on Wikipedia policy. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to talk about policy, how many times do I need to link to WP:MEDPOP and quote it? "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles." Let me remind you of your own previous comment: I didn't describe them as reliable. I said they are useful for this conversation. I agree we should cite articles only the sources considered reliable according to WP:MEDPOP. For your information, this is what WP:RSP says about New York magazine: "There is consensus that New York magazine, including its subsidiary publication Vulture, is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements." CowHouse (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's talk about policy, and specifically WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDPOP. As another editor has pointed out, the conspiracy section of this article as it is now doesn't comply much with WP:MEDRS, and I don't see any WP:MEDRS sources provided indicating that the accidental lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory, and instead draw from the popular press, such as NPR from back in April (long before new studies and media reports of them surfaced). I see an article from sciencemag.org from back in Feb, which cites the Lancet letter from Peter Daszak which is of ambiguous credibility, based on the BBC, The Times and the Le Monde article I provided. All I see are a few popular press items to support your position that it's a conspiracy theory. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "On the basis of our analysis, an artificial origin of SARS‐CoV‐2 is not a baseless conspiracy theory that is to be condemned[66] and researchers have the responsibility to consider all possible causes for SARS‐CoV‐2 emergence." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000240#bies202000240-bib-0001 (17 November 2020)
 * "It seems ill‐advised to rule out the possibility that gain‐of‐function techniques such as serial passage may have played a role in the creation of SARS‐CoV‐2 until more definitive data are collected, and when the Center for Arms Control and Non‐Proliferation has calculated that the odds that any given potential pandemic pathogen might leak from a lab could be better than one in four" https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000091 (12 August 2020)
 * "Even though strong opinions abound, none of these scenarios can be confidently ruled in or ruled out with currently available facts. Just because there are no public reports of more immediate, proximal ancestors in natural hosts, doesn’t mean that these ancestors don’t exist in natural hosts or that COVID-19 didn’t began as a spillover event. Nor does it mean that they have not been recovered and studied, or deliberately recombined in a laboratory." https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246 (November 24, 2020)
 * CowHouse and Thucydides411 - Is there any disagreement that these 3 sources meet the criteria for WP:MEDRS? All three?  Again, no one is arguing for undue weight here.  The argument is for consistency in sourcing requirements and NPOV, until the scientific research says otherwise.  I don't have anymore time to add to this topic but I think CowHouse understands the problem, and I would support any solution that he and ScrupulousScribe both sign on to. Dinglelingy (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue with the conspiracy theories section at the moment is that almost every reference is to the popular press. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems WP:MEDRS sources don't specifically mention the WIV. At best they will talk about a hypothetical lab origin but don't specify a particular lab. The sources that do mention the WIV are from the popular press and are, according to WP:MEDPOP, generally unreliable for scientific information. So that leads me to wonder if the question should be whether the conspiracy theories section belongs on this page at all, instead of merely renaming it. It may be relevant on other pages but unless the WIV is mentioned by MEDRS sources it is WP:SYNTH to include in this page. CowHouse (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that is a totally valid approach too and it makes sense to me. Looks like Forich is going to re-open discussion on this RFC given the published thought in the science community over the last few months, so I think guidance will come out of that. Dinglelingy (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The first two sources do not appear to be WP:MEDRS. I'll start with the second source, Sirotkin & Sirotkin (2020), in the journal BioEssays. The first red flag is that the lead author, Karl Sirotkin, appears to be a bioinformatics person, rather than a virologist. Looking at his list of publications, it's mainly about database software for biology: . In other words, it's unclear what expertise he has in virology, much less coronaviruses. The second red flag is that the 2nd author on the paper, Dan Sirotkin, is Karl Sirotkin's son, and does not appear to have any expertise at all in biology. He appears to be a blogger with a bachelor's degree in political science. This led me to wonder about the journal that published this work, BioEssays. I don't know much about them, but they do appear to be publishing articles by non-experts. The actual argument being made in this paper is similar to one of the arguments made by Li Meng-Yan in her widely criticized document. You can read the peer reviews that MIT organized of that document here. Among other things, the reviewers criticized its claims about the furin cleavage site - arguments which are very similar to those made in Sirotkin & Sirotkin (2020).
 * The first source on your list is in the same journal, BioEssays. Again, the two authors do not appear to be virologists. Based on her publication record, the first author appears to be a botanist: . The 2nd author appears to be an entrepreneur who wants to cure aging:.
 * I don't think we should be using papers by people who don't appear to have much to do with virology to represent the scientific view of the origins of a novel coronavirus. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

break
None of the three proposed sources (PMID 33200842, PMID 32786014 and PMID 33144498) is WP:MEDRS. Whether MEDRS applies to this story depends on which aspect of it is being considered. A claim that a researcher accidently dropped a flask is not in the realm of WP:Biomedical information; a claim that a virus has telltale signs of being human-engineered, most certainly is. Alexbrn (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree, but I’d go further in saying that the strange lawyering over whether MEDRS applies seems to miss the point. If one can’t find high quality sources to make the claim, why should we be making it at all? Giving legitimacy to a conspiracy theory falls under the same tree; if it wouldn’t be accepted at COVID-19, the same content shouldn’t be accepted here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. There seems to be a problem here with a "I have the POV, now let's find the sources!" Instead, the approach should be first to find the WP:BESTSOURCES that are relevant, and then to summarize then. It seems to me, that way, that the response of science to the lab leak "theory" is kind of meh. Alexbrn (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On what basis are you claiming that none of them are WP:MEDRS? Each one and why, be specific. I think the claims in the medical journals are that there is not yet enough data for anyone to make the claim of nature or lab, and therefore both possibilities should be investigated. Do you have any current WP:MEDRS sources refuting that claim? If you were in charge of investigating the origin of a global pandemic, would you put any resources into inventorying lab viruses and verifying safety protocols or would you just call it a conspiracy theory and move on? Dinglelingy (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * None is a secondary source. The right sort of source for this in general would be something more in the realm of sociology/psychology/history - but we'll need to wait a while for that. In time a university textbook is likely to cover it in examining the conspiracism/panic/hysteria spawned by the pandemic. People need stories. Maybe for now something like this which frames the lab leak narrative as a manifestation of people's need to find an agent of blame. I suspect that's how RS is going to end up framing this. Alexbrn (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to perform such investigations (WP:NOTJOURNAL). If it becomes a concern for mainstream sources, then it may be WP:DUE for the encyclopedia.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the WP:BESTSOURCES be from virologists or another relevant scientific field, rather that sociologists/psychologists/historians? That paper's publication status is also under review which, unless I'm mistaken, means it is still undergoing peer review. CowHouse (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that paper is still under review which I why I suggested we might use "something like this". I don't expect the sourcing to settle for some time. As to WP:BESTSOURCES we'd need to see what's out there. So far as I know there is no WP:MEDRS on the virology aspects of this topic. There is however quite a bit of RS on the misinformation aspects. Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, tell us how you really feel Alexbrn :) So you are claiming all three are primary sources? I'm sorry, but that claim doesn't hold water. They are ALL secondary sources "summarizing one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies."  The scientists in these papers are aggregating primary and secondary sources to support their position.  I'd even suggest that they are each doing so to one of three different audiences, each with a different level of detail.  The goal in any of this research is not to assign blame but root cause analysis in order to prevent it from happening again in the future.  In case you or anyone else did not follow the discussion here, the consensus I think what most of us are aiming for is consistent requirements for sources and a NPOV on the subject but not any undue weight.  Right now it is a one way street with respect to non WP:MEDRS sources claiming 'conspiracy theory' and it does not reflect new thought in the scientific community reflected in the three more recent WP:MEDRS sources I mentioned.  My vote would be to throw them all out in favor of only WP:MEDRS sources and leave it up to the scientists to determine origin.  Or have two sections in a page somewhere appropriate, with one referencing media debate and the other referencing scientific debate. If everyone just chills and tries to implement a consistent policy approach to both past and future content on the matter I think everyone will be happy. No one is pushing anti-mask or anti-vax conspiracy type ideas here, we're talking about the current state of scientific inquiry.  My views are clear and have been consistent in that approach, but the goalpost keep moving. Dinglelingy (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:MEDRS (and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS) if you want to understand what a secondary medical source is. Essays and opinions piece aren't. In general we want reviews. For making any assertions about specific WP:Biomedical information we would need WP:MEDRS, however for the lab leak conspiracy theory in general the sourcing requirement is different, and indeed WP:PARITY may be necessary as sometimes such nonsenses are only debunked properly in niche skeptical sources. I think general lay/news sources are best avoided; using them one could easily do a web search and trawl up a bunch of "RS" that showed that questions remain over who shot JFK. A WP:REDFLAG surely flies over this topic, so claims entertaining the notion that a leak occurred require multiple super-strength sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn I understand WP:MEDRS. What are you claiming?  Are you claiming these are all 3 primary sources or are you claiming these are all 3 opinion pieces like the NY Times?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy (talk • contribs) 14:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not "claiming" anything, just pointing out that none of these three sources is WP:MEDRS, contrary to what has been claimed. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice logic. Basically they are not WP:MEDRS because, well, I don't know why, but I don't like what they say.Dinglelingy (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to read and understand MEDRS. A shortcut is to look at how the publisher classifies a paper. The first two papers (PMID 33200842, PMID 32786014) are published in the journal Bioessays. Now, this journal does publish some secondary material – they seem to call such papers "Review Essays" e.g.. Both these papers are by contrast categorized as "Problems &amp; paradigms" papers: the authors are proposing novel explanations based on material they have assembled to support their argument. To cross-check, it's also possible to look up how PUBMED classifies a paper. What we really want is "Review", "Systematic review" or "Meta-analysis". The third paper, PMID 33144498, is categorized by the publisher as "Opinion". These sources may have some use, but they are not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a real stretch. It's secondary research under WP:MEDRS. I'd reminder you we are talking about whether or not this is a conspiracy theory.  It's not two paper's in no man's land, it's not some pre-print, and it is not primary research. Papers classified as 'Problems & Paradigms' in Bioessays are peer reviewed and are "Essays presenting difficult/puzzling problems or open questions, current thinking in the field, existing and changing paradigms."  Exactly what we are discussing.Dinglelingy (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The question of whether or not something is a conspiracy theory is not a biomedical claim, so WP:MEDRS is irrelevant in that case; it would be better to use a source that habitually dealt with conspiracy theories. But for any kind of bold biomedical claim (e.g. that the virus is the result of human engineering) a proper review would be required, not a paper in which the authors are presenting a novel argument. It seems to me that much of this talk of WP:MEDRS is irrelevant in any case since no editor is proposing to include a biomedical claim are they? Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's the disconnect. Whether or not the lab leak scenario is a 'conspiracy theory' or a 'plausible scenario', seems best handled by the scientific community and not the 'media'/politics.  Right?  If WP:MEDRS sources say it is plausible and should be investigated, it's hard to argue it is still a conspiracy theory.  That's the point of the scientists in those papers, they claim a lab leak scenario should be investigated and not be considered a conspiracy theory.  Are you waiting for Time magazine to discuss the lab leak scenario before it is no longer considered 'conspiracy theory'?  Or does the fact that there are peer reviewed WP:MEDRS papers on the subject mean it is no longer a conspiracy theory? Dinglelingy (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a disconnect. We require WP:MEDRS for biomedical claims. For other types of claims MEDRS is irrelevant ... and in fact biomedical publications might be actively bad to consider topics outside the field of biomedicine, such as whether a particular idea is bunk or not. Remember there is a shed-load of evidence-based-medicine publication around (e.g.) homeopathy, which disregards the fact that it is a ludicrous pseudoscience at base. Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, the two BioEssays papers we're discussing appear to be written by a botanist, an entrepreneur, a bioinformatics person (specializing in database software) and a blogger with an undergraduate degree in political science. In other words, these papers aren't even written by virologists. In my mind, that raises questions about the journal BioEssays itself, and it certainly means that we should not be using these papers. What matters here is what the mainstream view in virology is, and a paper written by a botanist or a blogger does not tell us anything about that. I have a feeling that these papers were cherry-picked, out of the thousands of papers that have now been written about SARS-CoV-2, because they promote a particular point of view, and not because they represent any sort of mainstream view within the field of virology. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The lady you call a botanist, Rossana Segreto, is a molecular biologist at the University of Innsbruck, is eminently qualified to write an academic paper on the genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, BioEssays is a prestigious journal, and if she and her bioinformatics friend could get peer-reviewed and published there, then that absolutely qualifies it as WP:MEDRS, and is even obligatory to reference as per WP:MEDDATE. The paper is absolutely worth reading for those with a true interest in the origins of SARS-COV-2, and not just debating Wikipedia Policy. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've looked into this again, and I think it's accurate to call her a botanist. Her published works are primarily in journals like American Journal of Botany and The Bryologist (bryology being a subfield of botany). Her work does appear to involve microbiology. However, her discipline is very far from virology, let alone coronaviruses. This looks like an example of someone publishing a paper on something extremely far removed from their normal field of research. I don't know if BioEssays is prestigious, but the two papers that have been listed above from that journal are by people who don't normally publish on virology. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And why is her paper discounted under WP:MEDRS for the fact that she mostly writes on microbiology? She specialises in genetically modifying fungus, which is not "far" from the subject matter here, especially as this coronavirus is alleged to have been modified as part of gain of function research. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since no one responded to this earlier, first of all: "genetically modifying fungus" is extremely far-removed from viral bioengineering. Everyone in molecular biology disciplines "genetically modifies" organisms. It's a trivial task that is streamlined with commercial kits and software programs. Right now I am literally designing the CRISPR system I'll need to introduce a fluorophore-tagged auxin-inducible degron into a particular C. elegans gene. Neither I nor anyone on my PhD committee would have the faintest idea of how to engineer GoF mutations into a virus. Second, Rossana Segreto appears to be a technical assistant in the field of plant-fungus interaction whose second-most-recent publication was in 2013. She has an h-index of 4. This is not someone "eminently qualified" in any discipline outside of the very narrow field she works in, and she would not be considered an "expert" in that. BioEssays has an impact factor of ~4, so very far from "prestigious". Please stop misrepresenting the credentials of people to support your POV! JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed. The problem here is that we seem to have some WP:PROFRINGE types, and possible socks, who have a POV and are casting around to try to find sources to support that POV, rather than more disinterestedly looking for good sources as an initial step. Alexbrn (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn Unbelievable you are resorting to this tactic again after I spend all this time trying to walk you through an argument that's over your head. What a waste.  Thucydides411 It's peer reviewed and I have not seen anyone attack it's integrity.  If you want to attack their credibility, that's your prerogative.  What am I going to do, I got nothing.Dinglelingy (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn The complaint you linked to has been updated with your 2nd violation of wikipedia policy. Gooday. Dinglelingy (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not believe there is any point in engaging in further discussion with as he has nor demonstrated Goodfaith from the start of this discussion, and has instead made personal attacks. I also do not believe there is any point in engaging in further discussion with, as though he isn't as condescending as , he too has not demonstrated WP:GF and he is highly vacuous in respect to the use of WP:MEDRS relating to content that does not qualify as Biomedical information. Better would be to request a dispute resolution based on violations of WP:NPOV, for discounting reliable sources provided that offer a view different to their own, and WP:NOR for claiming that specific sources provided make claims that they do not, in order to suit their views. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:MEDRS says "if Wikipedians dislike the authors of a study and see them as lacking the requisite pedigree in their discipline, a publication in an otherwise reliable journal can be rejected" ? I'm afraid the discussion has veered a bit off the rails. Let's bring it back to topic. It's about whether certain studies published in a reputable publication are WP:DUE, not whether their authors are to anyone's liking. Fa suisse (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

break
"Conspiracy theory" is a loaded term. It's defined by Wikipedia thus; "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence." (see Conspiracy theory).

Two points from this definition. First, who are the "sinister and powerful groups with political motivations" in this case? Maybe Donald Trump and various clandestine agencies in the US State? Second point; "...when other explanations are more probable." (Occam's razor). What's more probable, that the virus emerged from a wet market in Wuhan, or it emerged (somehow) from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a place where bat coronaviruses are being investigated, and which is a stones-throw from the wet market. I'd call the latter a more plausible explanation. Going back to the first point, maybe the Chinese Government is the "sinister and powerful group". In this scenario the conspiracy theory is the one that maintains the virus originated in the wet market. Of course, we'd need a reputable source for this. There are plenty, but here's an interesting one (this might qualify as WP:MEDRS). Now I'm not suggesting the scenario of the wet market source is a conspiracy theory, but I don't think the lab leak theory in conspiratorial either.

Anther point to consider is that the virus may well be zoonotic in origin, but it could still have come from the Wuhan lab. In the fast-moving situation we have with Covid-19 we need up-to-date sources. Some of those used in the disputed section are old; they cannot now be relied upon. And incidentally, none of them seem to be WP:MEDRS-compliant. Conspiracy theories are things like 5G causing COVID. The origins of the coronavirus are under investigation and the lab origin has certainly not been ruled out, per the source I mention, so it's disingenuous to use the word "conspiracy" here. Actually, it's blatant POV. If agreement can't be reached to remove it - and I don't expect it will be - then we need to move to an RFC. Arcturus (talk)
 * I'd call the latter a more plausible explanation. And this puts your views in opposition to the mainstream view in the field of virology. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So? It doesn't make them conspiratorial; non-mainstream (at the moment) - maybe. Arcturus (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus among scientists or virologists on the origins of SARS-COV-2 and the two WP:MEDRS you cited do not attempt to establish a consensus and leave other possibilities open. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-MEDRS sources
I propose we post here the list of best RS sources regarding the aspects of the lab leak theory that are not biomedical claims. In order to keep these short and of high quality, follow these guidelines: Do not provide summaries or interpretation yet, just propose the references Forich (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Only 1 reference per news agency
 * Only these top news agencies: BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International, and Associated Press
 * Only references from the last 6 months (since July 2020)
 * (Optional) We can squeeze a report from the news branches of Science or Nature if it is relevant to the discussion
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55364445
 * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-who/china-doubles-down-on-covid-narrative-as-who-investigation-looms-idUSKBN29A0LU
 * https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-coronavirus-pandemic-china-only-on-ap-bats-24fbadc58cee3a40bca2ddf7a14d2955
 * ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Forich (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sciencemag, associated with Science, the journal: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/after-aborted-attempt-sensitive-who-mission-study-pandemic-origins-its-way-china

What is not biomedical information?
I propose that we use Non-MEDRS sources only for the following specific claims:

Please comment and discuss. Forich (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Which organization or laboratory is investigating the virus' origin
 * What laws regulate related biosafety protocols of labs
 * Names, dates, and economic figures on wildlife trade
 * Culinary habits of people involving the consumption of wild animal meat
 * Anti-chinese sentiment in the general public related to the investigation of the virus' origin
 * Evidence from Intelligence Agencies of secret bioweapons research programs related to SARS (satellite pictures, tapped or leaked communications, etc)
 * Names and dates of previous accidental lab leaks related to viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 or not similar but ocurring in Wuhan
 * Information on notable rogue scientists from secret bioweapon programs, (here we should follow BLP guidelines)
 * Names and dates of thefts of viruses samples related to SARS-CoV-2
 * Results of formal investigations conducted about proven cover ups of the pandemic origin. I repeat: proven cover ups, not speculations.
 * Results of journalist investigation from reputable international news agencies denouncing overwhelming evidence of apparent medical coincidences and viral structure anomalies (odd genetic sequences, no signs of previous infection on humans, absence of antibodies to the virus on people, etc).
 * I request:
 * You should not use non-MEDRS sources for any topic when MEDRS sources exist without exceptionally good reason.
 * You should not synthesise any claims not specifically stated in a reliable source. This is particularly pertinent to "Names and dates of previous accidental lab leaks related to viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 or not similar but occurring in Wuhan".
 * You should not accept investigative journalism as a reliable source for biomedical claims. These require the expertise of MEDRS sources. Journalist are not qualified to judge the appropriate weight that should be ascribed to "overwhelming evidence of apparent medical coincidences and viral structure anomalies (odd genetic sequences, no signs of previous infection on humans, absence of antibodies to the virus on people, etc)." for example.
 * I would consider breaches of our MEDRS guidelines to constitute a breach of the general sanctions applicable to all pages related to COVID-19 broadly construed. If any of the editors contributing here feel unaware of those requirements, please feel free to ping me and I'll drop some useful links on their talk page. --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , this page makes mention of the lab leak theory, making the claim that it is considered as misinformation and conspiracy theories, which is unsubstantiated by MEDR sources provided. A discussion has been ongoing with multiple editors with different POVs, without any consensus reached on the matter, and the neutrality of content in this article (and the Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic article) remains disputed. This requires input from editors with your level of experience and I would be keen to gauge your response on the matter. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not agree there is a lack of consensus here. Progress has been slow but there's apparently agreement on what the best sources are and (reading them) an evolving understanding of how to summarize. There has, on the other hand, been likely disruption, as is being discussed at the ongoing ANI filing. I think so long as we all stick to faithfully summarizing the best sources, all shall be well. That would represent a big advance over previous discussions with their morass of poor sources in play. Alexbrn (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Other than me, there are a number of editors here (like ), who do not agree with your characterization of the Covid-19 lab leak as a conspiracy theory, and the ANI was started after you insinuated that he may be a sockpuppet of mine (for the fault of sharing what you consider to be my "fringe" POV). There are editors like who go as far back as February, bringing up the same point that I do; that the possibility of a lab leak as an origin scenario of Covid-19 should not be labeled as a "conspiracy theory" on Wikipedia, and just yesterday one of the WHO investigation team members said he will keep an open mind to it. I would like to see how you answer to  below about conflating the lab leak theory with conspiracy theories. I would also like to see your reply to  about taking a particular source out of context. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus requires arguments rooted in the WP:PAGs, argument not so rooted are discounted and have little effect on shaping consensus. As to "conflation", it is not an editor's job to conflate (or separate) ideas found in the best sources, in any way which misrepresents them. To repeat: if we find the best sources and summarize them well, then our job is done. It is the wrong approach to come at this topic with a pre-held POV; instead the basis must be really good sources . Alexbrn (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim of a possible accidental leak of a naturally occurring virus is different from the claim that of a deliberate release of synthetic or chimeric virus created as a bioweapon. In summarising sources, these two separate claims should not be conflated in any way. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Source? Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is basic common sense. Must I also provide a source to explain the difference between an accidental lab leak of a naturally occurring virus and conspiracy theories about Jews spreading the virus? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What's this about Jews? It seems there is some kind of intricate lore among the conspiracy theorists: in the usual way for WP:FRINGE topics, the fringe view continually morphs into new variants to avoid refutation. Wikipedia really is not interested in topics unless there is coverage in RS. It is really very simple: if you want Wikipedia to say something, say what it is, and what the source is. And make sure the source is a good one. Everything else is beside the point. Alexbrn (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sorry,, are you and Admin? Is this an admin warning or a regular comment? In case it is a regular comment, I believe we can adjust the list of claims that are not biomedical and continue.  I or even other editors, can provide a new version later when we receive further feedback. Forich (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I am an admin, and it is both a reminder and a warning. I don't believe there is anything controversial about what I asked the editors here to observe, but everyone must be aware that the community has zero tolerance for sub-standard behaviour on pages subject to general sanctions. I have no intention of interfering in content debates, but I am prepared to step in if any behavioural issues arise. I hope that there will not be any need for me to do so. --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I am an admin, and it is both a reminder and a warning. I don't believe there is anything controversial about what I asked the editors here to observe, but everyone must be aware that the community has zero tolerance for sub-standard behaviour on pages subject to general sanctions. I have no intention of interfering in content debates, but I am prepared to step in if any behavioural issues arise. I hope that there will not be any need for me to do so. --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

AP reference
These are the main relevant claims I gathered from the RS AP, which we can use only to reference non-biomedical claims. If we need assistance to sort them into biomedical and non-biomedical, I prepared a useful list of items above based on WP:Biomedical information: The use of these statements should be attributed to AP, as in "According to AP, bla bla bla". Please comment and discuss these statements, or add new ones if needed. Forich (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) AP assigned its Global Investigative Team to launch an investigation on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 "based on dozens of interviews with Chinese and foreign scientists and officials, along with public notices, leaked emails, internal data and the documents from China’s cabinet and the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention"
 * 2) "Plaincloth police" obeying the chinese government restricted road access in November 2020 to a team of AP journalists in search of information on the virus origin.  Origin, in this case means the ecological habitat of bats hosting ancestor strains of SARS-CoV-2.
 * 3) Little has been made public from chinese-government-sponsored research into the origins of SARS-CoV-2
 * 4) There is a big gap in the chinese epidemiological research of the spillover event and the index case, specifically in the analysis of cases of early patients


 * Of these, claim 4 seems biomedical to me, it requires expert knowledge in epidemiology, IMHO. Forich (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Reuters reference
I picked the following claims out of the RS Reuters. The same caveats apply. Comments and additions are welcome. Forich (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Senior diplomatic Wang Yi said “more and more studies” show that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in multiple regions of the world.
 * 2) Chinese State Media used an Italian study which suggests that COVID-19 might have been in Europe several months before Wuhan's index case "to support theories that COVID-19 originated overseas and entered China via contaminated frozen food or foreign athletes competing at the World Military Games in Wuhan in October 2019."
 * Do the sources mention the Wuhan Institute of Virology? This is more about Chinese misinformation in general? Alexbrn (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No relevant mention to WIV (at least none that can not be derided as cherry-picked): they interviewed a biosecurity expert that in passing commented that China was unlikely to investigate tha lab leak hypothesis. Forich (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sciencemag reference
I extracted the following, read the caveats for the references above that continue applying here: Please comment and discuss these statements, or add new ones if needed. Forich (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The Chinese government has received criticism for not earlier allowing a transparent probe of SARS-CoV-2’s origin
 * 2) Scientists feel pretty confident that SARS-CoV-2 came from bats
 * 3) Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health said that the WHO mission investigating SARS-CoV-2 origin in China needs to consider the hypothesis that the virus was accidentally released from the lab, because "Otherwise, the report won’t have done its job."
 * 4) Chinese officials have promoted the theory that the virus did not originate in their country at all
 * Claim 2 of the list above from Sciencemag seems to me to be biomedical. Now, Claim 3 is an indirect support of the lab leak theory by a non-MEDRS source that implicitly gives it credibility instead of denying it as a conspiracy.  Under usual conditions this RS would be enough as a reference to an edit in Wikipedia; however, Thucydides411  that a RS does not count for an inclusion of a fringe idea, that only a MEDRS source counts.  What do you think of Thucydides position?, please type either "Support" or "Oppose" and follow it with a brief explanation. If the Admins overseeing this debate want to step in, please participate with your guidance, too. Forich (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To make it clear: "Oppose" = oppose requiring MEDRS = support using just RS; "Support = support requiring MEDRS = oppose using just RS. Forich (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is at least two more points that can be extracted from the Science Magazine article. First, team member Peter Daszak observed that the lab-leak speculations have been mingled with "anti-China rhetoric". And second, the idea that the virus was "concocted there" is underlined as being a conspiracy theory. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Daszak may be right that lab-leak speculations is being mingled with Sinophobia, but that should not bar legitimate scientific inquiry into the matter. Also, "concocted" is not a scientific term, and there are legitimate concerns here, given the extensive history of gain or function research that Wuhan Institute of Virology has been doing with coronaviruses for years, with US gov funds he funneled to them. He tweets about their achievements in creating novel coronaviruses here, and discussed it in this interview here (timestamped). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Forich. Claim 3 (what should be investigated by WHO) is not a medical claim, but opinions by experts, such as Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and even more importantly by Peter Daszak who was the NIH grant recipient for the collaborative project with Wuhan lab. Daszak argued that there is no way it could be leaked from Wuhan, but even he strongly agree this must be investigated by 3rd reliable parties to have some clarity. One could not find a better source about it than this article in Science. Claiming that Science is not a good RS here is absurd. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, at the risk of making absolutely everyone mad at me, I'm going to go with "require MEDRS" out of an abundance of caution, but other issues are more significant. I think that claim #3 is a medical claim — saying that something deserves investigation, even if only to eliminate a remote possibility, is a claim about what's medically possible. It's not like "the theory that X happened spread on social-media platform Y after being promoted by politician Z". I also have WP:DUE and WP:SIGCOV concerns: the story isn't really about any particular origin hypothesis, but rather the difficulty of organizing and investigating at all. Having to zoom in and stare closely at two short quotations out of a whole news story is a clue that it's not really a useful source for the particular topic in contention. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The question is of weight I think. We should be talking about this topic in the same way as the best sources, and these are WP:MEDRS sources. It's debatable whether claim 3 implies something biomedical. Alexbrn (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

BBC reference
Here are the excerpts, usual cautions apply: Please comment and discuss these statements, or add new ones if needed. Forich (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) "Plain-clothes police officers and other officials in unmarked cars "attempted to stop" the investigations of a team of BBC journalists travelling to a "copper mine in which, back in 2012, six workers succumbed to an illness that eventually claimed the lives of three of them" and to a "cave where Prof Shi carried out her ground-breaking research on Sars". BBC interprets this blocking attempt as a sign that "[Chinese authorities] are working to control the narrative [about the origin of SARS-CoV-2]" (brackets added by me)
 * 2) There is scientific controversy about the origins of the virus and the question of whether it came from nature or a laboratory.
 * 3) Prof Zheng-Li Shi has been in the vanguard of a project to try to predict outbreaks coming fron zoonotic diseases.
 * 4) Wuhan is home to the world's leading coronavirus research facility, the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
 * 5) Many scientists believe that by far the most likely scenario is that Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, jumped naturally from bats to humans, possibly via an intermediary species.
 * 6) The terms of reference for the WHO inquiry make no mention of the lab leak theory.
 * 7) Dr. Peter Daszak, a British zoologist, who is part of the WHO team because of his leading role in a multimillion dollar, international project to sample wild viruses, previously called the lab-leak theory a "conspiracy theory" and "pure baloney". Elaborating on this point, Daszak respondend to BBC saying: "I've yet to see any evidence at all of a lab leak or a lab involvement in this outbreak" and "I have seen substantial evidence that these are naturally occurring phenomena driven by human encroachment into wildlife habitat, which is clearly on display across south-east Asia."
 * 8) The Chinese authorities appear to have already discounted the Huanan Seafood market as a source of the virus. (Source here means location of the zoonotic event), parentheses mine
 * 9) The Wuhan Institute of Virology has sampled and tested bats in Yunnan to research avoiding future zoonotic risks (animal-to-human "spillovers"), parentheses mine
 * 10)  Little has been published about the viruses collected by the WIV on its trips to sample bats in a Tongguan mineshaft where, back in 2012, six workers succumbed to an illness that eventually claimed the lives of three of them.
 * 11)  RaTG13 is a hotly contested scientific subject.
 * 12) There have been well-documented cases of viruses leaking from labs.
 * 13) The first Sars virus leaked twice from the National Institute of Virology in Beijing in 2004, long after the outbreak had been brought under control.
 * 14) Sars-Cov-2 has a remarkable ability to infect humans.
 * 15) Andersen et al (2020) results suggest "that if there had been a leak, Prof Shi Zhengli would have found a much closer match in her database than RaTG13."
 * 16) Andersen et al (2020) found that RaTG13 " is still too distant to have been manipulated and changed into Sars-Cov-2."
 * 17) Sars-Cov-2, Andersen et al. concluded, "was likely to have gained its unique efficiency through a long, undetected period of circulation in humans or animals of a natural and milder precursor virus that eventually evolved into the potent, deadly form first detected in Wuhan in 2019."
 * 18) Daniel Lucey, a physician and infectious disease professor at the Georgetown Medical Centre in Washington DC, said that Chinese scientists "have the capability, they have the resources and they have the motivation, so of course they've done the studies [searching for evidence of precursor viruses] in animals and in humans," (brackets are mine)
 * 19) Lucey says that to investigate alternative explanations [with respect to the mainstream scientific view] is reasonable because "here we are, 12, 13 months out since the first recognised case of Covid-19 and we haven't found the animal source,", (brackets are mine)
 * 20) Dr. Peter Daszak, a British zoologist, who is part of the WHO team researching SARS-CoV-2 origin in China, has "never seen the slightest hint of something untoward" in "over 15 years" working closely with WIV.
 * 21) Chinese state propaganda has many stories suggesting the virus didn't start in China at all.
 * 22) Prof Zheng-Li Shi told the BBC that the WIV's website and the staff's work emails and personal emails had been attacked, leading them to take their online public database, offline, for security reasons, and that WIV's work remains transparent because "All our research results are published in English journals in the form of papers," she said. "Virus sequences are saved in the [US-run] GenBank database too."
 * 23) In 2013, RATG13, the closest known ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 was discovered, yet the WIV, according to the published information, did little with it.
 * 24) The Chinese government, the WIV, and Prof Shi have all angrily dismissed the allegation of a virus leak from the Wuhan lab.


 * Claims #2, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23 seem biomedical to me. Forich (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Candidates summaries of Non-MEDRS

 *  Option 1 : Speculations mostly from social media, non-reliable sources such as blogs and websites, and a few reliable news agencies (at least four) give plausibility to the otherwise pseudocientific claim that the virus was manipulated in a laboratory before escaping into the Wuhan population. The reasons behind the existence of these sources are most likely political motivation or plain ignorance of the science that explains the virus origin.
 * Option 2: Speculations mostly from social media, non-reliable sources such as blogs and websites, and a few reliable news agencies (at least four) give plausibility to the lab leak hypothesis. Most of these sources are politically motivated or ignorant of the science that explains the virus origin, except for a few of them (at least four) that have neutral editorial rules and journalistic protocols that bind them to consult expert opinion when discussing scientific matters. It would be beyond the scope of editors of Wikipedia to settle any contradictions in scientific matters that may arise between the experts that provide comment on these news agencies and the rest of the scientific community, but this does not preclude them to cite both positions if preceded by careful attribution.
 * Option 3: Any other that I may have left out, please add it. Forich (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Peer-review of the lab leak theory
Just found that the lab leak theory (in its Li-Meng Yan et al. 2020 version) received a kinda scientific peer review at this website. The overall conclusion was: "This manuscript does not demonstrate sufficient scientific evidence to support its claims. Claims are at times baseless and are not supported by the data and methods used. Decision-makers should consider the author's claims in this study misleading." Please comment. Forich (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't expect this new source to result in meaningful change to the article or the tone and quantity of discussion here. Jdphenix (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)