:Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

The first sentence of this article establishes the existence of a lab leak theory or hypothesis. The second sentence says "this claim...". The definition of theory or hypothesis is not the same as the definition of claim. Therefore claim must be replaced with "theory" or "hypothesis" or the second sentence must be deleted. 2603:6011:1C00:C14:2594:E12D:24B1:2EB1 (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{notdone}} The first sentence establishes LL as an "idea". Bon courage (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your swift response and commitment to making this article informative and accurate.

::The first sentence establishes the LL as a theory, not an idea. The definition of theory/hypothesis is not the same as claim. 2603:6011:1C00:C14:2594:E12D:24B1:2EB1 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::They're synonyms. Using the same word over and over is bad writing. MrOllie (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Our tone, especially when it comes to things that are scientifically WP:FRINGE, has to reflect the position taken in the sources; they generally treat it with skepticism (including, yes, describing it as a "claim"), so we have to reflect that skepticism. Constantly describing it as a theory or hypothesis wouldn't accurately summarize the skepticism in the best available sources. --Aquillion (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Wrong. This article is about the theory not the claim. Huge difference and you know it. The claim may or may not be fringe but the theory is not. 2603:6011:1C00:C14:49A5:B19C:53E9:9339 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::@2603:6011:1C00:C14:49A5:B19C:53E9:9339 I don't think you are reading the article correctly. The COMMONNAME of the article's topic is "lab leak theory", but the actual scope of its topic includes various allegations as well as hypothesis that are all based on various lab leak claims. It isnt at all limited formulations that rose to the level of a "theory".. Newimpartial (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:@2603:6011:1C00:C14:2594:E12D:24B1:2EB1 {{tq|the idea that SARS CoV-2 ... came from a laboratory}} is most certainly a "claim". What else would it be? It isn't, actually, a theory or hypothesis, though theories and hypothesis have been proposed to support the "claim". Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::The idea is or could be a claim but the theory is not. 2603:6011:1C00:C14:49A5:B19C:53E9:9339 (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@2603:6011:1C00:C14:49A5:B19C:53E9:9339 But the second sentence is about the claim in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:MOS:CLAIM discourages the use of "claim" - Palpable (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Palpable Does it discourage the use of "claim" as a noun, though? I haven't seen MOS:CLAIM interpreted that way. Sometimes an article is discussing a claim, and I don't think that's an MOS problem. Newimpartial (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::No, it does not. It says {{tq|Extra care is needed}} and {{tq|To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question}}. Some statements' credibility needs to be called into question because of WP:NPOV. We applied extra care and found that this case is about such a statement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Those in favor of omitting believed the claim did not have the required WP:Exceptional sourcing. As the discussion progressed, the claim was picked up by several mainstream WP:ReliableSources, which a mounting amount of supporters cited as sufficient for Exceptional. Editors disagreed over whether Exceptional can be satisfied by the breadth of mainstream media coverage. Since neither argument had a stronger basis in Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines, the supermajority here indicates consensus to include in the article a mention of German intelligence not publishing a report in favor of the lab leak theory in 2020. Note that this is not consensus that the lab leak theory is as probable as the report states.{{pb}}However, the mention to be included is not necessarily the text proposed at the start of this discussion, to which a substantial amount of supporters registered opposition, supporting Suriname0's wording instead. Many supporters also recommended the mention be placed next to the German government's later findings and with attribution to the intelligence agency, though this aspect was not discussed much and might need further discussion. (non-admin closure) Aaron Liu (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

}}

We should add this:" According to research by the SZ and NZZ in March 2025, the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) considers it 2020 very likely that a laboratory accident in Wuhan, China, was the cause of the global coronavirus pandemic. As part of the BND project “Saaremaa”, the laboratory thesis was assessed with a probability of “80-95” percent in 2020. The files were kept under lock and key.Welt: [https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article255671964/Corona-Ausbruch-BND-geht-von-Laborunfall-aus-Kanzleramt-hielt-Akten-unter-Verschluss.html BND geht bei Corona-Ausbruch von Laborunfall aus] – Kanzleramt hielt Akten unter Verschluss

Is already in included.--Empiricus (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:Though I doubt it will move the moderators even a smidge, here is the source:

:[https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/german-spy-agency-concluded-covid-virus-likely-leaked-lab-papers-say-2025-03-12/ ]

• Any allegation of 'conspiracy theory' should be removed unless clearly qualified as opinion. Jibolba (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Omit. It seems premature to cite a report that has not been made public nor independently reviewed. Google translation of part of the [https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article255671964/Corona-Ausbruch-BND-geht-von-Laborunfall-aus-Kubicki-spricht-von-Vertuschung.html Welt article]:

:{{tq2 |1=At the end of last year, the German government decided to commission external experts to review the BND's findings. The review has been underway since last December. The group includes the president of the Robert Koch Institute, Lars Schade, and the Berlin virologist Christian Drosten. A final result is not yet available. In response to a detailed list of questions, a government spokesperson stated: "As a matter of principle, we do not comment publicly on intelligence matters." The BND also did not comment.}} ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::I agree. We shouldn't be covering reports the information from which can't be verified. It's entirely UNDUE. TarnishedPath^talk 03:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::Do the secondary sources suggest their own (secondary) assessments to be premature? We need reasonable cause if we are to distance our articles from secondary material. SmolBrane (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree with @SmolBrane. Don't think we have a reason to ignore this secondary material from WP:RS. It is relevant and a significant development. It should be included in the article with due weight of course. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 05:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::::We have every reason. It's reporting on an unreleased/unconfirmed report. It's entirely WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPath^talk 05:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::This has never been the standard and is just made up as far as I can tell. We go off of what RS says, that's it. If we had this standard, then numerous whistleblower or exposé accounts could never be discussed, because there wouldn't be access to the official classified government documents. Obviously that's not the case. We go off of RS, in proportion to it's notability. End of analysis. Just10A (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I edited and moved the text after its initial inclusion here. Because this article is about the "COVID-19 lab leak theory," it seems to me that we need a lower threshold of information certainty to discuss various topics here, including ideas that border on conspiracy theories, or even conspiracy theories themselves. But, given the above comments by other editors, and the apparent fact that we have nearly no information about this report, I am happy to agree that we refrain from relaying it until further information is available. -Darouet (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Leaning omit unless we get some sensible/scholarly secondary sources commenting on these kid of clickbait primary news stories. If it is included, it should certainly be put alongside what appears to be the agency's later position, that the idea of a lab leak was calculated US disinformation, designed as cover for their bungled pandemic reponse.[https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3083607/us-claims-china-coronavirus-lab-leak-attempt-distract-trumps-own Germany casts doubt on US claims that Covid-19 originated in Chinese lab] Bon courage (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Interesting observation about the source. Usually news sources are secondary sources, but in this case, it could fairly be considered a primary source. ScienceFlyer (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The BND’s earlier dismissal of the lab leak theory only strengthens the case for inclusion of what looks like a shift in position. If we have any secondary sources mentioning that, it should be included too. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::@103.156.74.129 From the Reuters story, this is a 2020 report, not a recent shift. Jojalozzo (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::The SCMP article cited by Bon courage (which is actually an Agence France-Presse piece you can read in full [https://www.courthousenews.com/germany-doubts-us-claim-of-wuhan-virus-lab-leak/ here]) doesn't even quote the BND in specific as casting any doubts. It doesn't contradict the Zeit story, which does also say that the BND convened experts as recently as December 2024. There is no clear indication what their position was then and now. 222.165.205.162 (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Contentious topic. We explicitly dont consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources - unless some validated scientific source, you assume it is based upon, has been published first? This is not about the theory beeing true or not. The findings were labeled as "press research", they are meant to contribute to understand the propagation of a "lab leak theory" among leaders. WP:UNDUE doesnt apply.Alexpl (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Might need rewording, but with full attribution this is only an allegation no issue with inclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :What's rum here, is that for years the sources have been there stating that BND called lab leak a fabrication, and this page has ignored them. But the moment there's a rumour some earlier document leant the other way BND becomes "an incredibly siginificant source". This sudden switch is what is known as POV-pushing, and as clue-in for newer editors Wikipedia leans on sources because of their reputation and weight, not because they happen to contain a POV one wishes to amplify. Bon courage (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::I have never argued that, in fact the opposite. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::It was just a general comment. By and large rumours about spy agencies haven't risen to attention here ... Bon courage (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I have known this discussion here from the beginning and some of our rules or filters (which exclude everything that confirms the probability of the laboratory hypothesis) are outdated. We ourselves run the risk of spreading a conspiracy theory here, a theory with a very weak scientific basis. There is no universally valid scientific evidence for zoonosis, not a single piece of evidence. Now there is a finding (with a scientific project !) by a government agency (the BND) that the laboratory thesis is highly probable. The secret report, a fundamental siginificant source for the German Goverment (and german corona policy) will probably never be published. Is that important ? No, only the result is relevant - which has not been contradicted by any german public representative. Empiricus (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::There is no 'finding' and no 'report' to reference. So you'd also support including news stories saying that BND classified the lab leak a a fabrication? Having one but not the other would seem like blatant POV-pushng. Bon courage (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I wasn't present if BND was brought up earlier, but this is pretty handily addressed by WP:AGEMATTERS. We now have more up-to-date RS that indicates BND's posture, so that certainly takes precedent. I agree that it should have been included earlier, but we can't change the past. Just10A (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Rubbish. We have two news stories about what the position might have been in 2020, with no hint one supersedes the other. Bon courage (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Are they reliable sources? Is one (significantly) more recent that the other? Just10A (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::It's all in weak WP:PRIMARYNEWS. One applies to May 2020, the other to some unspecified time presumably (?) earlier in the pandemic. But if Wikipedia is going to say something about what happened in Germany in 2020, it's can't interpret sequencing and suppress sources based on that guess. It is best all left out as silly tittle-tattle that isn't moving the dial in weighty sources (although the whackier bits of social media seem to be aflame). If good sources pick it up then we can revisit. Bon courage (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Agreed, including material about what an unreleased report might have said in 2020 fails hard. If anything AGEMATTERS would count against that. TarnishedPath^talk 02:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::WP:AGEMATTERS refers to the age of the source itself, not the subject matter of the source. Otherwise, most history articles would be outdated. The relevant sources here came out this month. Just10A (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::The original source would be the unreleased, unverified report from 2020 which reported on POSSIBLE (my emphasis) gain-of-function research and potentially related lab-leak. That newsdesks have decided to report on it well after the fact does not give it any more weight. Especially not when there is a weight of published papers from subject matter experts that say that zoonotic original was mostly likely. There is well and truly WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPath^talk 03:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::We're not citing the original source, that would be likely WP:OR. We're citing the clearly recent RS. Just10A (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::The recent source wouldn't exist without the unreleased, unverified original source which reports on possibilities which the consensus of subject matter experts disagrees with. TarnishedPath^talk 03:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Of course the NZZ is a reliable source. All the major media in Germany are reporting on this, and China has already reacted. The NZZ reporterded that" a group of specialized researchers initiated by the Federal Chancellery met several times at the Federal Intelligence Service. After extensive investigations, there are numerous indications of a laboratory origin. The German government has detailed information that suggests with some probability that the Sars-CoV-2 virus was created by humans by manipulating an existing virus and that it originates from a Chinese biolaboratory, the Wuhan Institute of Virology." Empiricus (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Lean include - (Pinged by Yapperbot) I favor inclusion, although the proposed form is both too verbose and non-encyclopedic. I would suggest that perhaps a sentence be inserted in the #Political and government opinion section, which is currently excessively US-centric. Perhaps: {{tq2|1=A 2020 report by Germany's Federal Intelligence Service indicated possible gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and rated the probability of a lab leak as source of the pandemic between 80 and 90%.{{Cite web |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/german-spy-agency-concluded-covid-virus-likely-leaked-lab-papers-say-2025-03-12/ |title=German spy agency concluded COVID virus likely leaked from lab, papers say |website=Reuters |date=12 March 2025}} At the end of 2024, the German government requested an external review of the unpublished report.{{Cite web |title=Corona-Ausbruch: BND geht von Laborunfall aus – Kubicki spricht von "Vertuschung" |url=https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article255671964/Corona-Ausbruch-BND-geht-von-Laborunfall-aus-Kubicki-spricht-von-Vertuschung.html |access-date=2025-03-13 |website=Die Welt |language=de}}}} Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Here is a fresh [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7vypq31z7o BBC report] as a source, with more details. Of course there are only indikations no proof. See also the Deutsches Ärzteblatt ...(Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, launched in 2008, is published weekly in German and English, and is a peer-reviewed open access medical journal indexed in MEDLINE, PubMed and other citation indices)[https://www.aerzteblatt.de/news/coronapandemie-bundesnachrichtendienst-sah-laut-berichten-indizien-fur-laborthese-eaff82c1-2aaa-4f67-92ff-ae86a7ce6328 report] Empiricus (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Refer to all the sources at WP:NOLABLEAK which favour a zoonotic origin. That makes reporting on what intelligence agencies possible thought about possible gain-of-function research, and therefore related possible lab leaks, in 2020 WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPath^talk 02:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::The WP:NOLABLEAK essay frames the issue as purely a matter for scientific study when it is just as much an intelligence investigation. Intelligence agencies like the CIA and BND provide relevant insights that should be considered, not dismissed as WP:UNDUE. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::WP:NOLABLEAK present the very best sources. Articles from Peer-reviewed scientific journals are obviously superior to the opinions of law enforcement agencies from nations which are competitors which China. TarnishedPath^talk 02:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Agree with this.
• :192.76.8.185 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree, this wording is much less problematic. Went ahead and made the change. Just10A (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :This wording is good. Neutral, factual and concise. Original wording is too long-winded. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Pinging (part 1) @Jayen466, @Horse Eye's Back, @Objective3000, @Senorangel, @Arkon, @Generalrelative, @Masem, @TrangaBellam, @LokiTheLiar, @PieLover3141592654, @WulfTheSaxon, @Novem Linguae, @CapnJackSp, @Ortizesp, @Googleguy007, @NightHeron, @FormalDude, @Slatersteven, @David A, @ActivelyDisinterested, @The void century, @AndreJustAndre and @InfiniteNexus as editors involved in the related discussion at Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_30#Include_FBI_and_Department_of_Energy_findings_in_the_lead?. TarnishedPath^talk 02:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Pinging (part 2) @Alaexis, @Rreagan007, @Sm8900, @JArthur1984, @JML1148, @Moxy, @Xxanthippe, @David Eppstein, @Ozzie10aaaa, @Chatul, @Bonewah, @The Gnome, @DFlhb, @JzG, @Darouet, @XOR'easter, @Fiveby, @Jojalozzo, @Thryduulf, @Aquillion, @Professor Penguino, @Robert McClenon, @OrewaTel, @NoonIcarus and @Fabrickator as editors involved in the related discussion at Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_30#Include_FBI_and_Department_of_Energy_findings_in_the_lead? TarnishedPath^talk 02:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Pinging (part 3) @Prcc27, @Gtoffoletto, @Fermiboson, @Firefangledfeathers, @Red Fiona, @Hob Gadling and @Shibbolethink as editors involved in the related discussion at Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_30#Include_FBI_and_Department_of_Energy_findings_in_the_lead? TarnishedPath^talk 02:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Omit - For multiple reasons:

:* This is secondhand knowledge reported by two German newspapers, not officially disclosed by the BND.

:* Peer-reviewed scientific research is much more reliable than an intelligence agency when it comes to the origins of a virus.

:* The quality of this information is unverifiable because they aren't sharing any of their evidence. It's basically an appeal to authority.

:* This conclusion hasn't been reported enough by reliable sources to justify WP:PROMINENCE, especially when compared to the prominence of zoonotic origins in reliable sources.

:* WP:UNDUE, in a nutshell.

:The void century 02:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:*- Second-hand knowledge reported by several RS and so far not denied by the German government.

::- You are ignoring the fact that, if indeed a lab leak occurred, peer-reviewed scientific research will be much more susceptible to bias and jumping to unproven conclusions to counter reprimands (cutting of funding, loss of prestige, loss of belief in science, criminal pursuit, etc.) and embarrassment, whereas scientific assessments conducted by intelligence agencies, whose authors are outside of academia/research, are much less prone to suffer from conflicts of interest. Such reasoning is especially valid at a stage when no convincing proof for either natural spillover or lab leak has yet been found.

::- What about scientists, especially virologists, pushing the view that a lab leak is “extremely unlikely” without any kind of mildly convincing proof? Isn’t that an appeal to authority as well? We basically decide to believe them because their papers were published in respected scientific journals and peer reviewed by other scientists, while ignoring the fact that scientists, who in general are looking for the truth, are faced here with something more important for their own survival: keeping away the humiliation and embarrassment of having their work and their unsustainable publishing expectations, which they so proudly defend, associated with a pandemic that killed millions of people. Let alone the negative impact this would have on people’s views of science, which has been suffering many unfair blows in recent times. Let us at least be honest and face that natural spillover and lab leak are on the same level regarding appeal to authority at this point. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::*{{tq|not denied by the German government}}

:::I don't deny that I'm Superman either. TarnishedPath^talk 03:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::* {{tq | scientific assessments conducted by intelligence agencies, whose authors are outside of academia/research, are much less prone to suffer from conflicts of interest }}. This is laughable nonsense. WP:FORUM speculative bullshit. This is a speculative WP:FORUM comment.

:::* {{ tq | What about scientists, especially virologists, pushing the view that a lab leak is “extremely unlikely” without any kind of mildly convincing proof }}. Except for the troves of convincing data indicating a zoonotic origin.

:::* {{ tq | Isn’t that an appeal to authority as well? We basically decide to believe them because their papers were published in respected scientific journals and peer reviewed by other scientists }}. The reason those journals are respected is because they publish verifiable research that follows the scientific method. That's the opposite of an appeal to authority.

:::* {{ tq | Let alone the negative impact this would have on people’s views of science, which has been suffering many unfair blows in recent times. }}. The conspiracy theories are what have a negative impact on people's views of science. This is the {{tq | unfair blow }}.

:::The void century 03:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:*Regarding the last point that the story hasn't been reported prominently, I disagree. The story has been reported in The Times, BBC, Telegraph, Reuters, Die Zeit and DW, among others. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:*:The Times, where? The void century 16:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:*::[https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/germany-covid-wuhan-lab-leak-qcn5rpc9x https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/germany-covid-wuhan-lab-leak-qcn5rpc9x] PieLover3141592654 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:*::Not trying to be blunt but come on guys. I literally googled "the times german intelligence covid" and this was the very first result: [https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/germany-covid-wuhan-lab-leak-qcn5rpc9x Germany ‘buried’ spy report that Covid started in Wuhan lab] Just10A (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:*:::Oh that Times! I thought you meant the New York Times, as in the newspaper of record. Sorry as an insufferable New Yorker, The Times and The City both refer to New York. The void century 17:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:*::::That Times is the British newspaper of record, equal standing to the NYT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:*:When the CIA said they favored the lab leak hypothesis, it was reported in practically every major reliable news source worldwide. The report on the German spy agency is receiving very little coverage so far and it wasn't officially disclosed. Yes, there are some RS reporting on it, but much fewer. That's where we as editors have to assess policies like WP:PROMINENCE, WP:DUEWEIGHT, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL to decide whether information deserves coverage in the wikipedia article. I don't think it meets the threshold for inclusion. The void century 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• User:TarnishedPath - I see that you are pinging everyone who took part in a contentious RFC. I see that this appears to be in a section about the BND opinion, but is then followed by a malformed RFC that has been deactivated. I would sort of like to know what we (all of us) are being asked to comment on or be aware of. Robert McClenon

::Summary of Issue for Newcomers: There is a section in the article related to various intelligence agency findings. Recently (2 days ago), several RS news outlets have now published articles relating to an unreleased 2020 report from the BND (German intelligence agency) that states that their intelligence agency had given the lab leak an 80%-90% probability. [https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/german-spy-agency-concluded-covid-virus-likely-leaked-lab-papers-say-2025-03-12/ ] The issue is whether that is worthy of mention in the section related to intelligence agency findings/opinions. Just10A (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Readers should disregard this partisan summary and read above for themselves, since the issue is also whether to include some news stories about German intelligence in 2020, but omit others in (what I would call) a WP:PROFRINGE manner. Bon courage (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::What is partisan about this? That "additional issue" was only brought up by a single person (you) one time in a reply. I'm obviously speaking broadly. The other summary provided by another editor (immediately below this one) largely aligns with mine and also does not include your "additional issue." I would strike your accusations. Just10A (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Much of WP:NOSUMMARIES is relevant. Bon courage (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::That's an essay about summarizing arguments and consensus, not the issues. Further, the user explicitly asked for a summary. The fact that you're not equally raising this issue with the summary produced by a user on your "side" is the epitome of WP:POV pushing and hypocrisy. Just say you weren't thinking, strike it, and move on. Just10A (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::This is not the place to be making accusations about behavioural issues. Please take it to user talk, WP:ANI or WP:AE. TarnishedPath^talk 06:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Robert McClenon, thanks for your request for clarification. In the RFC a large part of the discussion was about whether the inclussion of the opinions of a few US intelligence agencies was DUE for the lead. While we are not discussing the leads this time, there is discussion about whether reporting on a unreleased, unverified 2020 report from a German intelligence agency is DUE for inclusion in the article at all. TarnishedPath^talk 04:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Omit: I agree with user, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACOVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=1280352956&oldid=1280352536 The void century], the suggested wording and attempts to add attribution and improve it fall flat. Appears UNDUE at this time. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Include: Absolutely 0 reason not to include. Die Zeit, Sueddeutscher Zeitung and Reuters are all good sources and this is clearly DUE given the prominent worldwide coverage. Arguing that we can't mention subjects on Wikipedia that haven't been officially confirmed in government reports despite being widely discussed in RS is an absurd position. Just echo the language and tone of the Reuters article as closely as possible. Some editors have long complained that giving prominence to US intelligence agency assessments makes the article too US centric. This is a great opportunity to address this. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::A better way to reduce prominence of US intelligence would be to reduce the amount of coverage we give to what is obviously WP:UNDUE, not to increase it with coverage of more UNDUE possible opinions from non subject matter experts. TarnishedPath^talk 06:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::The CIA assessment was reported in almost every major new source worldwide, vs just a few RS for the German one. That's why we include the CIA and not the German agency. The void century 17:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Include: this article's view count didn't triple in the last 48 hours because this material is undue. Omission will reflect poorly on wiki's handling of this contentious subject. Sourcing is strong, it's not us-centric, and whether the report is ever directly released is mostly inconsequential for the secondary coverage as it currently exists. Adjustments can be made later in that event. Consider thoroughly the impact in excluding this substantive development. SmolBrane (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Include: Reliable secondary sources have covered this. It is a notable event, even if the report is from an intelligence agency and not a group of scientists. Professor Penguino (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Omit. Coverage is marginal and brief relative to the massive amount of coverage for the topic as a whole, and isn't from the highest-quality sources for medical questions like these. The claim here is WP:EXCEPTIONAL due to contradicting the best available sources, and therefore requires more than just brief flash-in-the-pan news coverage. Inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. EDIT: Some people have erroniously asserted that there is a consensus to treat the lab leak as "historical" information instead (a term with no clearly-defined meaning); but even if their misapprehension about the prior RFC were correct, the sources here are also not historians. No matter how you cut it this is a low-quality flash-in-the-pan when compared to the extremely in-depth high-quality sourcing available, and therefore not due for inclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC).

::{{smalldiv|(Extended discussion in response moved to below.)}}{{anchor|aquillion-discussion-source}}

• Omit pretty much per the reasoning of Aquillion. I knew there was a policy I was thinking of and they've spelled it out. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL {{tq|Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include: ... Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.}}

:Newspapers are not high-quality sources, especially not when they are contradict the peer-reviewed articles in academic journals which are written by subject matter experts (refer to WP:NOLABLEAK for details). Coverage of this would be wildly WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::Following such reasoning and the adopted policy to consider peer-reviewed scientific journals as the only possible kind of valid source regarding this matter, we may as well delete this article altogether. Especially if we are to continue ignoring the conflict of interest these sources may have with pushing for a natural spillover cause. And if we still have no consistent proof of where SARS-Cov-2 came from, we do have proof that such [https://theintercept.com/2023/07/12/covid-documents-house-republicans/ conflict of interest was playing a role] in the peer-reviewed published material since day 1. After the damage done by such, in my opinion, irresponsible treatment by scientists of a completely valid and solid scientific hypothesis, and the role politics played in this, I think we should seriously consider the prominence we give to these kinds of references. If anything, they are plagued by political influence as much as intelligence agencies are believed, by some, to be. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Arguing against the very best sources is a non-starter. No one is claiming that they ought to be the only sources used in the article, however when there is news media reporting on unverified/unreleased documents which contradicts what peer reviewed articles from scientific journals has to say about the subject then we need to consider WP:WEIGHT and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. TarnishedPath^talk 02:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:I have no more to add, we can include this as an attributed (to the media) allegation, not as a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Include Reliable secondary sources are reporting on this. All of the essays and/or consensus being referred to by the omit side were made before this new information was reported on. A previous consensus or an essay like WP:NOLABLEAK which was made before reliable sources reported on this cannot be used to exclude more recent reliable sources. Ratgomery (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :2020 is new information? TarnishedPath^talk 11:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::what? Ratgomery (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Can you please clarify what this means? The source of the edition we are discussing is from this week. Ratgomery (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::The unverified/unreleased report that is being reported on is from 2020. That's a while ago, considering that there are numerous peer reviewed articles from academic journals listed in WP:NOLABLEAK which state the exact opposite and which are more recent. TarnishedPath^talk 12:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The age of the report doesn't matter, as wikipedia goes primarily by secondary sources. There is nothing in Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK that is more recent than the source we are discussion. Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK cannot be used to rule out new information that comes in after it was last reviewed. Ratgomery (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::My read of WP:EXCEPTIONAL would suggest that it does matter, especially when the reporting is based of a report written by non-experts. TarnishedPath^talk 12:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::How do you know ? The lead of the report was an virologist.... Empiricus (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::So their work has been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal then? Please provide source. TarnishedPath^talk 12:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Reliable sources are reporting on it, we don't start selectively excluding relevant reliable sources when an editor judges they're not experts on the subject. This report was previously unreleased, it's now released to the public and we have reliable sources reporting on it. From the point of view of what's usable and reliable for Wikipedia this is brand new information, and it's not accurate at all to try to frame this as old news from 2020. I'll note it looks like you had nearly this exact same discussion already with another editor further up on the page so I'm not sure it's productive to rehash it again. Ratgomery (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::{{tq|we don't start selectively excluding relevant reliable sources when an editor judges they're not experts on the subject}}
• :::::::Having a reliable source does not necessitate inclusion per WP:ONUS. While some reliable sources may be reporting on an unreleased, unverified report from 2020, we don't have to cover it per WP:UNDUE as the claims are WP:EXCEPTIONAL. TarnishedPath^talk 12:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Regarding onus, the reason for inclusion is so obvious I genuinely didn't think it need to be stated. This is the article for the covid lab leak theory and this is new information regarding the covid lab leak theory, originating from the German government and reported on by reliable sources. I disagree that the claim is exceptional, this has been one of the possible theories for a long time. Although not the prevelant theory, it's never been ruled out, and now we have new information for it. It's always been a possible explanation never completely ruled out, and now we have a reliable source reporting on a government report with new (from what's usable on Wikipedia's pov) information. I don't believe anyone suggested we definitively stating this is the prevalent theory now, only add this new reliable information into the article. It's not exceptional at all to add recently released information into an article of a theory that was never ruled out in the first place, but you're free to disagree with that. Ratgomery (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::I'm not aware of any sense in which a German intelligence report from 2020 that guessed about Covid origins based on limited evidence can be considered "new information" in any meaningful sense. If, for example, it came out tomorrow that North Korean intelligence or Indian intelligence believed in 2020 that Covid originated in a lab leak with 80 or 90 percent certainty, that would not affect the plausibility of the lab leak hypothesis in 2025 or its evidence base even to a miniscule extent, as far as I can tell. Newimpartial (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::I believe I've adequately explained it twice. Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources and reliable secondary sources reporting on this have only come out 2 days ago. This is new information in terms of what's used on wikipedia. This information was not used when writing the article, forming previous concensus, or writing the aforementioned essay, therefore it's new information for wikipedia and we now have several new sources of it. The plasubilty of the hypothesis doesn't really matter for us, we're just here to present what reliable sources report. The reason I brought up the is in response to the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. There is already a section in the article for responses by governments and intelligence agencies, so inserting another response by an intelligence agency isn't WP:EXCEPTIONAL and the fact the subject is a not ruled out and considered a plausible theory means we're not making a wild exception claim. We're just putting something an intelligence agency is reported to have said in the section of things intelligence agencies have said. Ratgomery (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Include: We can also use [https://www.aerzteblatt.de/news/coronapandemie-bundesnachrichtendienst-sah-laut-berichten-indizien-fur-laborthese-eaff82c1-2aaa-4f67-92ff-ae86a7ce6328 the article] of the Deutsche Ärzteblatt which is reveiwed as a source. Regarding the laboratory hypothesis, this is more of a technical problem of biosafety, whereas the zoonosis hypothesis is a scientific problem. There will never be a scientific study or publication on the biosafety of Wuhan, partly because China has blocked everything here. Chinese scientists or journalists who have investigated this hypothesis have spent years in prison.WP:NOLABLEAK ist not applicale here - time changesEmpiricus (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::The very best sources aren't applicable for determining what has WP:WEIGHT? Interesting argument. TarnishedPath^talk 11:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The very best sources for scientific matters may not be the very best sources for historical or political subjects. The scientific investigation of a lab leak theory was hindered by the Chinese government. We are left with other kinds of sources, that in many contexts are considered reliable, and you argue that we ignore them. There is no absolute best source for every single subject in the world, especially when not enough time or opportunity is given for a full-on scientific study. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Include, Wikipedians are embarassingly slow at admitting that they can be wrong.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::That could have been more civil. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::A trifecta of missteps, Ortizesp, to put it kindly: You are assuming your fellow editors act in bad faith, you engaged in an WP:NPA on the issue of the provenance of the virus. The latter is not of the slightest interest and, moreover, invites distracting and irrelevant discussion. I suggest we focus on the issue. So far, you are the only contributor to the discussion who has not offered a substantive argument. -The Gnome (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::Also, the idea that an intelligence report from 2020, recently exhumed, might lend to support to the assertion that "Wikipedia is wrong" about Covid origins seems, well, under-explained at the very least. Newimpartial (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedians claiming this subject is purely scientific and that intelligence reports do not carry weight are indeed wrong. Also, it appears that you haven't read any of the articles about the report as it isn't only about the 2020 version. Experts have been engaged and high level discussions continued, with the BND's findings reviewed by intelligence agencies, including the CIA, in 2024 and 2025, possibly influencing their recent report. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Include Guys, we don't judge if a report is accurate or not, we judge if it's sourced. Fnordware (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The source is reporting from an unverified report. DN (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• I am confused, can someone provide a link to the official statement? Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::No official statement Steven. This is basically the news cycle getting excited about an unverified/unconfirmed report from 2020. TarnishedPath^talk 13:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::So (and until) the German government makes an official statement, the German government has not said anything, an anonymous person with a government organization has just made an allegation. Itm os not an official (or scientific) report, it is media speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Is there a policy that says something about "media speculation" and that we can't use something reported by a reliable source if it's "media speculation"? Asking in good faith. Ratgomery (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have not argued for exclusion, only that we can't say this is an official German government statement, or a scientific report, (or imply that it is), we have to say it is media speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I have never seen another article on wikipedia present something from a reliable source as "media speculation" before, do you have examples? Ratgomery (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Here we do (well "media traction "). Yes we do not state as fact media speculation, we in fact do it all the time. I have had my say, this is just media speculation, not an official statement, so we can't imply it is. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The right wording would be media report, specifically a joint report by publications Die Zeit and Sueddeutscher Zeitung [https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/german-spy-agency-concluded-covid-virus-likely-leaked-lab-papers-say-2025-03-12/ ], followed by a description of what was reported and its significance. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It's unverified. DN (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::That isn't what WP:V says/means at all. Arkon (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::The term unverified as common meaning and when I and other have used it, at least for me, that's what has been meant. The only part of WP:V that has been referenced during this discussion has been WP:EXCEPTIONAL (I believe). TarnishedPath^talk 02:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Not EXCEPTIONAL at all at this point. Nothing in this area is 'verified' in the way you are attempting to use it. Arkon (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Peer reviewed articles from scientific journals after the report contradict it. That is a black letter reading of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. TarnishedPath^talk 04:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::This does not seem convincing to me. The peer reviewed articles do not contradict that, in early days, it seemed plausible to an intelligence agency, the BND, that the COVID-19 pandemic had originated via a lab leak. That is the primary claim at issue here. This kind of information, however little it provides evidence for the lab leak hypothesis itself today, still seems crucial for what readers will be looking for in an article titled "COVID-19 lab leak theory." RowanElder (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The peer reviewed articles from around that date to present state that natural spill over is the most likely genesis. So yes, they do contradict it. TarnishedPath^talk 01:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Please read what I said again. RowanElder (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Include. [https://archive.md/osJiQ#selection-2359.238-2367.98 Zeit article] for reference. (I speak German, if DeepL or Google Translate leaves anyone unsure as to the meaning of any passage.) More data will be released in due course, says Zeit. --Andreas JN466 13:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Include. For reasons already stated by others. There is abundant RS supporting it. There is no policy rule whatsoever that states something like: "The original primary source report must be released for reliable secondary sources to be WP:DUE." If we had this standard, then numerous whistleblower or exposé accounts could never be discussed, because there wouldn't be access to the official classified government documents. Obviously that's not the case. We go off of up-to-date RS, in proportion to its notability. Just10A (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Even if the primary source were made public, it is the analysis and reporting from reliable secondary sources that carry the weight of the argument, not the mere availability of the original classified report. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Correct. If anything, to mandate it would essentially just be making an WP:OR requirement. Just10A (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Include. Given that there exists an article about the lab leak theory on en-wiki, I see no other option but to include. Arguments on the contrary boil down to dismissing the reliable sources reporting on the intelligence assessment by either claiming the assessment is non-scientific or focusing on the fact that the intelligence report has not been released. If the intelligence report were fully disclosed, it would still be discredited by many here as non-scientific or authored by non-experts and it would therefore not be considered proper for inclusion. All in all, such approach would lead us to only be able to write on this article based on peer-reviewed scientific publications, which would in turn imply the deletion of this article and the inclusion of a mere sentence about the “lab leak” being extremely unlikely in the Origins of SARS-CoV-2 article, as per basically every peer-reviewed scientific publication considered relevant so far. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|All in all, such approach would lead us to only be able to write on this article based on peer-reviewed scientific publications, which would in turn imply the deletion of this article and the inclusion of a mere sentence about the “lab leak” being extremely unlikely in the Origins of SARS-CoV-2 article, as per basically every peer-reviewed scientific publication considered relevant so far.}}
• :I think this part is extremely well put. Nearly the entirety of this article is written from sources which are, for all intents and purposes, identical in type to the source which is proposed to be added; that is, secondary reporting from major news outlets. Very little of this article is actually sourced directly to scientific journals. Some arguments against this new source's inclusion seem to imply that all information about this topic has to come directly from peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. If that's the case, we would have to effectively delete this article, or reduce it to a single sentence which says "The current scientific consensus is that there was no lab leak for COVID-19" followed by a few hundred citations. For what else could be said? I don't think that is helpful, or ideal. BabbleOnto (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::No it's not well put. Peer reviewed articles from scientific journals are without question far superior sources than news media stories. There is no suggestion in this discussion by anyone that only scientific sources should be used in the article. So the argument that if we only used them, then the article would be deleted is a strawman.
• ::What myself and others are arguing is that we have news media making reports on the basis of an unverified/unreleased document from 2020, which contradicts peer reviewed articles from scientific journals, therefore the claims by the news media are WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Given that, inclusion would be WP:UNDUE TarnishedPath^talk 08:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::First, WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not say "exceptional claims are WP:UNDUE." Simply categorizing the claim as exceptional, even if true, does not automatically justify its exclusion. I remind you of what WP:EXCEPTIONAL actually says, which is, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Multiple high-quality sources have been provided this claim. Therefore any additional burden for sourcing if the claim is Exceptional has already been met.
• :::Second, the idea that no source can be added if it contradicts the current scientific consensus might be true if Wikipedia could only publish the Truth(tm) about any given topic. That is, of course, not true and, again, if that were true then the article would just be one sentence saying, "The current scientific consensus is that Covid-19 did not come from a lab leak." Wikipedia is not just a citation repository for peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals. The lab leak theory is a real, notable phenomenon which, even if untrue, even if you personally do not believe it, even if it goes against the scientific consensus, exists and is frequently reported in by reliable sources. The litmus test for inclusion of materials is not "Is this true" or "Does this appear in peer-reviewed journals," it is "Is this consistently reported in reliable sources."
• :::Just to reiterate, I am in full agreeance with you that if Wikipedia could only include information that appears in peer-reviewed scientific journals, then this source would not be included and in fact most of the article should be removed. However, this is not the policy, which is why I support its inclusion. BabbleOnto (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Per the policy:
• ::::{{tq|Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include ... Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.}}
• ::::Reports from new media about unverified/unreleased documents from 2020 do not constitute "high-quality sources".
• ::::So yes it is WP:UNDUE TarnishedPath^talk 16:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Reuters, the BBC, Deustche-Welle, and various other major media outlets are high quality sources. Just because you don't like how they reported on this issue does not mean they are no longer high-quality sources.
• :::::The quality of a source refers to the quality of the institution to whom the information is cited to. These are extremely well-respected news agencies. You seem to be mistaking it to mean "quality of the information that the news agencies are basing their story on." That would be an entirely subjective standard, and indeed is not what it means. We don't get to second-guess the news stories and only include the ones we personally think were handled well.
• :::::If you'd like to start an RfC to have the BBC, Reuters, and DW blacklisted as low-quality sources, then by all means go ahead. Until that happens, they are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources known high-quality sources ], and therefore the burden of WP:EXCEPTION has been met. BabbleOnto (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@BabbleOnto you're confusing 'high quality source' with a community consensus of general reliability. TarnishedPath^talk 16:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::This does not seem like a warranted reading of @BabbleOnto, to me. There are good arguments that these sources (BBC, D-W, etc) are high quality sources for, specifically, the question of whether or not there was a BND report and whether it said what these sources claim it did. They are certainly not the highest quality sources for epidemiological authority and nor would be the BND, but that's not what is at issue here. The issue is the existence of and content of the report. RowanElder (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Include. I liked the short summary from Suriname0. Most arguments to omit suggest that the article should minimize anything but scientific opinion on the subject, which is contrary to longstanding consensus that the origin of COVID is not considered biomedical information. - Palpable (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Include, it is due based on the coverage it has received. Note that a significant portion of that coverage has been received while this discussion was open meaning that the ground has shifted beneath our feet and the early arguments that it didn't have enough coverage while plausible at the time are now moot. It also isn't extraordinary, it matches the opinions of other parties. Coverage since the discussion opened includes [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7vypq31z7o German spy agency 'believed Covid likely started in lab'][https://www.nzz.ch/english/german-intelligence-supports-covid-19-lab-leak-theory-ld.1875253 German intelligence supports COVID-19 lab-leak theory][https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/report-in-2020-german-government-concluded-lab-leak-odds-were-80-to-95-percent/ Report: In 2020, German Government Concluded Lab Leak Odds Were 80 to 95 Percent][https://slguardian.org/germany-accused-of-burying-intelligence-report-on-covids-wuhan-lab-origin/#google_vignette Germany Accused of Burying Intelligence Report on Covid’s Wuhan Lab Origin]. I think the time has passed for a yes/no due weight discussion, now its time to talk about how much is due... IMO no more than a line or two, if there is more coverage it can be expanded at that time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Time has passed indeed. Five years to be more specific. I noticed one of those sources appears to be WP:NATIONALREVIEW. The BBC is better, still, it's unclear why an alleged "estimate" by the BND is DUE as opposed to possibly just WP:RECENT. If more sources pick this up and it continues to gain coverage I'll be more inclined to consider changing my vote. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• Conditional omit. As a report from early in the pandemic I think this could be useful in an historical overview, if such a section were added. I don't think it offers evidence for or against a lab leak without secondary sources with an analysis of the report's content. All we know now is an early report exists leaning heavily towards a lab leak. I don't think that these summary revelations in the press are influencing anyone with domain knowledge one way or the other. So, WP:UNDUE for now. Jojalozzo (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :In Germany, the report procuded a very big debate, not only because the parliamentary control committee for secret services was not informed. Of course, there are only indications - but recent chinese studies with explicit reference to COVID-19 also show that such accidents in laboratories are possible in principle: Gao, H., Liu, J., Qiu, L. et al. Infection risk assessment due to contaminant leakage in biological laboratories in different scenarios - the case of COVID-19 virus. ARIN 3, 8 (2024). [https://doi.org/10.1007/s44223-024-00050-7 Infection risk assessment due to contaminant leakage in biological laboratories in different scenarios - the case of COVID-19 virus] We should integrate the article as well. Empiricus (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::We shouldn't include an article about possibilities of lab leaks as it would be inviting readers to draw conclusions which aren't supported in the very best sourcing. TarnishedPath^talk 02:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• Leaning include. This has been published in a reliable source and originates from a well-known organisation. The WP:EXCEPTIONAL isn't relevant, at this time this theory is anythin but. I'm sympathetic to the argument that this is just one 5-years old report that only has historical value, but there are plenty of *other* sources in the article from the same period, so per WP:NPOV we should include it. Alaexis_¿question? 21:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Include. The subject-matter is from a reliable source, the German foreign intelligence bureau. The finding has been widely published in multiple major perennially-reliable news outlets including, but not limited to, the BBC, Reuters, US News, Deustche-Welle, Yahoo news, and others. Thus, claims that this its inclusion would be WP:UNDUE are puzzling. The arguments I've read so far for this are "more news agencies could have covered this," and "The news agencies should have waited for more information before publishing the stories." Both of those statements are irrelevant when determining if something is WP:DUE or not. It's important to remember that, "...in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." That many editors may believe the bureau's finding is silly, unscientific, or ridiculous is irrelevant. That many editors wish the German media would take more precautionary measures when publishing big stories is irrelevant. It is prominently reported in the reliable sources, regardless of whether we like that fact, and is clearly notable. Therefore it is WP:DUE. Allegations of the fact that this article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_40 is seriously outdated by refusing to include any new sources which represent the lab leak theory as plausible] have been raised before, and heated debate about the neutrality of this article has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_37 broiling for months now]. I remind everyone that we are seeking for verifiability, not truth. Reliable sources prominently report on this; it should be included. BabbleOnto (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The notion that German foreign intelligence is {{tq|a reliable source}} in this context is asserted here but not proven, or even supported with evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::If it was only sourced to German Foreign intelligence, that could be valid. Should probably still be included in some manner even if so, but that's not what this is. It's not a press release and hasn't been reported on as such from what I've seen. Arkon (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Regardless of your personal opinion on whether German foreign intelligence is reliable or not, our [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources perennially reliable sources] chose to report on it and treat it as such. Because no one is suggesting we cite directly the Bundesnachrichtendienst, and indeed we could not, your point is moot. They key issue is whether the sources which will actually be cited to are reliable. And unless the BBC, Reuters, Yahoo, and Deustche-Welle were recently deprecated and I hadn't heard about it, they are. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::"Not supported with evidence" is a fact, not a "personal opinion". And you just switched horses in mid-race, first claiming that a spy organization (one of secret services' methods is disinformation, and there is no way to find out how they came to their conclusion) is "reliable", then shifting to the outlets. It would have been good form to acknowledge that you were on the wrong track at first, instead of trying to obscure the situation. Still, journalistic sources are inferior to scientific ones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{tq|"Not supported with evidence" is a fact, not a "personal opinion". }}
• ::::Where is your source that the BND report is not supported by any evidence?
• ::::{{tq|And you just switched horses in mid-race, first claiming that a spy organization (one of secret services' methods is disinformation, and there is no way to find out how they came to their conclusion) is "reliable", then shifting to the outlets. It would have been good form to acknowledge that you were on the wrong track at first, instead of trying to obscure the situation.}}
• ::::What I said in my original post:
• ::::{{tq|The subject-matter is from a reliable source, the German foreign intelligence bureau. The finding has been widely published in multiple major perennially-reliable news outlets including, but not limited to, the BBC, Reuters, US News, Deustche-Welle, Yahoo news, and others.}}
• ::::The reply only mentioned the BND, which is why I began on it. Take up your issue with Newimpartial. BabbleOnto (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Because this is not an official, report by the BND, but rather a media report say they made one. There is no evidence it exists, only an allegation it does. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Testimony that it exists is evidence that it exists.
• ::::::And I don't mean legal testimony, to head off that possible misreading: I mean ordinary-sense testimony as one would discuss in sociology or philosophy. Ordinary testimony is a classical and paradigmatic form of evidence. RowanElder (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Since I introduced the phrase "not supported with evidence" into this particular conversation, I wanted to clarify the context in which I used it. Namely, the assertion that the BND is any kind of authority about viral origins is what I said is "not supported with evidence". News outlets saying "a confidential 2020 BND report gave X assessment" is not evidence that the BND is an authority on epidemiology in this sense. Not unless, of course, the outlet actually goes on to such an assertion - and no report making such claims has been presented in this discussion, at least not that I've seen.
• :::::What I was responding to here was the assertion that the BND is {{tq|a reliable source}} in this context - it is a reliable source for its own opinions (when such a primary source becomes available), but it isn't a reliable source about epidemiology. Newimpartial (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I guess I'm unclear what your point is. This is not a WP:MEDRS issue, as set forth in Consensus point 2. So even if you think the BND isn't a reliable source for the topic of epidemiology, why do you think that matters, since we aren't citing to the BND? We're citing to perennially reliable sources who chose to, and you might disagree with that, but reliable sources chose to report on the BND's alleged report. Whether or not you think the BBC and Reuters should have reported on the BND's findings is a normative question and not one that has anything to do with whether or not the secondary news coverage is from reliable sources.
• ::::::Or in other words, even if I agree with you that the BND is not a reliable source on COVID-19, that doesn't change anything, because we are not citing to the BND. We're citing to the secondary news coverage of the BND, because it's notable and is featured prominently in reliable sources. Therefore, the source would still be acceptable and your point is moot for purposes of this discussion. BabbleOnto (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::To answer your question, Wikipedia is not a mechanical aggregator of published text (something an LLM can do better, anyway). So human editors here apply standards of relevance to the sources available on a topic (on this case, the lab leak hypothesis), and are obligated to do so. In making such assessments, we must privilege sources about the lab leak hypothesis that use better evidence and are more authoritative, above the churn of the daily news cycle and speculations by those without relevant expertise. Lots of sources are "acceptable", but that does not mean they should (or can) all be included - clearly they cannot (and should not) all fit into this article even though when they address its topic.
• :::::::It seems to me that at present we are seeing a news cycle about an old German intelligence report, which has received traction because (1) there are currently very few new, or even novel, developments to report in relation to Covid origins; and (2) these particular reports receive an enthusiastic reception from those convinced in a shift in the consensus view of Covid origins in favor of a lab leak (even though, short of actual time travel, no confidential report from 2020 can be evidence for any such shift in consensus). I trust that eventually we will see high-quality, communications-theoretical, properly secondary accounts of the media coverage of the lab leak hypothesis in the context of the political and cultural currents of our time. (We have the beginnings of this, dealing with 2020 speculations, but I haven't seen more robust or up to date studies.) When we have such accounts, we may have reasons to include and elaborate on the BND reporting if the secondary sources do so. But in the mean time, what we must not do (per WP:NOTNEWS) is to try to follow lavishly everything that is published on the topic no matter how shallow. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::It seems we both agree that this source could be added (as in, it would not be against wikipedia rules to do so), our point of dispute now is whether it should be added, as a matter of policy. That is of course a subjective question and boils down to our own opinion on the issue which, at this point, it seems neither of us are going to convince each other. I believe I've made my points clear and I don't think they've been challenged in their legitimacy, only that you disagree with them (which is fine, and pretty much how this all boils down to, anyway).
• ::::::::I think this whole quasi-RFC/discussion should be submitted to dispute resolution or arbcom, I don't think there will be a voluntary end to this. BabbleOnto (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Some evidence here, which was not explicit and is not ironclad but is not absent, is that the BND (apparently, if we trust the news sources) compiled the report for the German government and the German government has a reputation for respect for expertise. This is evidence of a weak sort of authority on the epidemiology: an officially delegated authority to compile the report on an epidemiological matter.
• ::::::This is possibly a weak authority, weaker than later authority, but calling it "no evidence of any kind of authority" goes much too far. I do not support presenting this BND report as meaningful support for the lab leak hypothesis, but the argument above is incorrect as an argument why not. RowanElder (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Since the German government neither published this assessment nor acted on the basis of its conclusions (according to all available information), it seems that whatever authority the report might have based on the German government's {{tq|reputation for respect for expertise}} must be pretty strictly limited, in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Absolutely. I fully agree. I was only criticizing the overstatement. RowanElder (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::I wanted to criticize it specifically because the overstatement seemed to be incensing BabbleOnto, who was descending into incivility as defined in the Wikipedia community and who has now been banned as in the pattern in WP:BAIT.
• :::::::::I don't find the BND report to be convincing evidence in favor of a lab leak. I want the argument against it as evidence for the lab leak to be clean because messy argumentation undermines the authority of Wikipedia and of the academic consensus that it represents.
• :::::::::The heat in this discussion has been absurd for years, and I am being mindful of the recent outcome of ARBPIA 5 in which a huge slew of regulars received topic bans. RowanElder (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Just to be (perhaps painfully) clear, I don't see any overstatement in saying that the BND lacks any kind of authority as a source about viral origins. I understand that editors have differing opinions about this, but I have consistently maintained the view that intelligence agencies never have any reliability in this area except (at best) as an authority about their own opinion - and I am certainly not alone in holding this view. Newimpartial (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Thank you for clarifying. Our disagreement seems to hinge on whether "weak, unreliable authority" is still "a kind of authority." This may be just a terminological issue, but terminological issues are crucial for clean argumentation. One cannot assume that your interlocutors share your terminological assumptions and hope to be persuasive in the formation of consensus. One can still form a consensus by being unpleasant enough to argue with that no one persists and mistake that for persuasion, and online that's very common but it produces brittle communities that lose their authority.
• :::::::::::I do not want the article to cite this intelligence agency as a reliable source about whether there was a lab leak.
• :::::::::::"Intelligence agencies never have any reliability in this area" is another thing I would consider an overstatement. Intelligence agencies engage in disinformation and are not reliable sources, but "never have any reliability" is something I again consider an inflammatory overstatement. I'm not ignorant of the utter nonsense that sometimes prevails in intelligence agencies. I just read Kinzer's recent biography of Sidney Gottlieb. Even so, as I see it "never have any reliability" just plays into the hands of the disinformation operatives. The real problem is exactly that they are known to deliberately mix reliable and unreliable information. RowanElder (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::: The article is not "cite this intelligence agency as a reliable source about whether there was a lab leak", its simply reporting the fact they did. This intelligence agency is both notable and its report it cited to a reliable secondary source. That's the bar for inclusion. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::Where is this report? Have even the sources seen it? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::Wikipedia covers what reliable sources say. Its not our job to check their sources. 222.165.205.162 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::But the reliable sources never saw the report either. How do we know the motivation of the person behind this claim? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::This has NEVER been of any concern on Wikipedia. If you want to forbid anonymous source reports that may or may not serve very apparent special interests, you are doing away with the entirety of journalism in the modern era. Jibolba (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::::Don't you think that's a bit overstated? Besides, where did I say anything like this? When the Pentagon Papers were leaked from an anonymous source, the WP actually had them. WP:EXCEPTIONAL comes into play. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::::It does seem overstated to me as well (though not so overstated that it would imply bad faith). I really wish the temperature could come down here, but I'm going to go away before I become a bludgeoner of all sides myself. RowanElder (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::: You should stop typing when you got to the words "reliable sources". As for "How do we know the motivation of the person behind this claim" .. do you have a reliable source about their motivations? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::::No. That's my point. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::::You seem to be, quite conveniently, calling into question the concept of 'anonymous sources' as a whole.
• ::::::::::::::::::Frankly, I too am very much in favor of a referendum on WP:RS. Until then, anonymous sourcing is entirely and unambiguously permitted if it is reported in a reliable source. Jibolba (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::"Reliable" is something you can rely on. If a source is sometimes "reliable" regarding a subject and sometimes not, you cannot rely on it. How can "Intelligence agencies never have any reliability in this area" be an overstatement? The only case where you can rely on them is when they quote experts - then the experts are the actual original source, and we should cite them instead of filtering the info though the spies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::We do not refer directly to primary sources, e.g. from [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14503159/Labour-Wuhan-lab-leak-pandemic-Boris-johnson.html this secret briefing]. This discussion is unnecessary. After 5 years, it is clear that the secret services had more reliable informations, indices, perhaps even empirical evidence, about the origin than the scientific community of virologists (who initially only have opinions - until now !). There are also highly specialized services for viruses, such as the National Center for Medical Intelligence, and the Western services share their information with other services (this will probably also be one source for the BND 2020). We have no proof of the zoonosis orgin after 5 years - it will probably never exist ! This implies that we have maybe to weigh the sources differently and more open, after 5 years. If you read the M[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14503159/Labour-Wuhan-lab-leak-pandemic-Boris-johnson.html ail-Online article], you have to ask the question who has created the conspiracy theory, which is still advocated as strict dogma in the English Wikipedia. Empiricus (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::You've linked that article in a few places now, can I check you're aware of WP:DAILYMAIL? More broadly, you should really WP:AGF and not cast aspersions about other editors motivations/actions like "you have to ask the question who has created the conspiracy theory, which is still advocated as strict dogma in the English Wikipedia" or "Oh almost like in China, where other COVID 19 narratives are banned". JaggedHamster (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::My reasoning was that "are never reliable sources" and "never have any reliability" are different claims. The first seems warranted as a statement about Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. The second is only equivalent to the first if the only kind of reliability that mattered were reliability as a reliable source on Wikipedia, which does not seem worth assuming to me and is not going to make sense to newcomers.
• :::::::::::::Most overstatements are defensible given some assumptions that collapse fine distinctions, but collapsing the fine distinctions makes the consensus brittle and weak. It feeds trolls. RowanElder (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::@RowanElder Once again, I was using standard Wikipedia talk page terminology when I referenced "reliability in this area". A reliable source is a source one can rely on to provide accurate statements without "asking to see their homework" - namely, the evidence on which their statement was based.
• ::::::::::::On Wikipedia, we generally understand that when an RS newspaper publishes that its source says it has seen a leaked report, then we accept that its source says they've seen a leaked report - we don't second-guess that statement (though that doesn't imply the veracity of the underlying report). If a non-RS newspaper makes an equivalent statement, we *don't* accept the supposed statement by the source at face value - they may or may not have seen a report. And similarly for an underlying source - if an RS reports the opinion of a credentialed virologist, then (barring contrary evidence) we trust that the virologist is offering their sincere and relevant opinion. But with an intelligence agency, we wouldn't extend the same assumption: there is reason to lend credence to the virologist's statement, but there is no reason to lend equivalent credence to the intelligence agency's statement.
• ::::::::::::So all of this is a very, very long way of paraphrasing what I meant initially by "no reliability in this area" - at the very best, an intelligence agency is reliable for its own opinions about epidemiology, and not epidemiological claims themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::Thank you for the clarification. I think this was worthwhile to spell out for the sake of actually building the consensus here.
• :::::::::::::Others in the discussion seemed to be talking about other kinds of reliability. This should hopefully stop them from feeling merely talked over rather than convinced. RowanElder (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::Mr. Impartial, I appreciate this clarification. Good faith. However, I still fail to see your rationale for dismissing the statements of German intelligence, even under the working assumption that the Reuters report is credible.
• :::::::::::::It is not in any way absurd to assume that national intelligence agencies have access to a much wider depth of pertinent information that is inaccessible to rank and file researchers. This is, after all, their explicit purpose.
• :::::::::::::Further, it is assumed that the intelligence agencies have access to the highest pedigree scientists available when making assessments like these. The historical literature on the collusion of scientists and national intelligence is vast enough to make this a foregone conclusion.
• :::::::::::::Am I missing something? Why are we suddenly of the mind that world class national intelligence agencies are bumbling philistines?
• ::::::::::::: Jibolba (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::@Jibolba To answer your question, I don't think Wikipedia editors were ever inclined to accept the word of intelligence agencies about "facts on the ground" - we are much more likely, for example, to accept the conclusions of historians about what intelligence agencies knew and how they interpreted it than we are to trust statements made by those agencies contemporaneously. According to the prevailing view here, the latter types of statements are subject not only to limited "intelligence" but also to audience considerations - some such statements are intended to mislead, to conceal, or to curry favor.
• ::::::::::::::So this is far from being an idiosyncracy specific to the topic of Covid-19, and from what I've seen on-wiki, skepticism about intelligence agency statements (whether or not it is well-founded) is widespread among editors. I suspect that a minimum condition for overcoming that skepticism in this instance would be reliable sources explicitly staying that intelligence agency judgments about Covid were of high quality; to my knowledge, no such sources have been provided on this Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::I don't believe the 'historical vs. contemporaneous' argument follows here. The RSs state that the intelligence assessment was made in 2020 and the Reuters article points out that the CIA's recent releases were in keeping with that 2020 assessment by the Germans. So it would seem to me we have precisely the information necessary to satisfy that particular concern.
• :::::::::::::::As for your second concern, this is a bit more understandable. Personally, I am of no illusion that national intelligence agencies keep things on the up and up at all times - I am often inclined to assume the opposite. But this is not the Wikipedia standard. The Wiki page reflects what the RSs say, and the reader may then draw his own conclusions based on whatever prejudices he might hold - this is not the editors prerogative. Jibolba (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::@Jibolba To perhaps cut to the chase a little: I don't think there are many editors here who would disagree either with the statement that multiple intelligence agencies stated that Covid-19 originated in a lab leak, or with the statement that many peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2022 reached the conclusion that zoonosis was the most likely origin and that the lab leak hypothesis was not necessary as an explanation and was not supported by evidence.
• ::::::::::::::::The main issue dividing editors on this page seems to be how to weigh those two reliably sourced assertions. Some editors employ Wikipedia's usual hierarchy of sources and assert that this article should defer to the peer-reviewed epidemiological sources. (The status quo article version follows this approach.) Other editors prefer to discount such sources while emphasizing intelligence agency and non-expert conclusions about pandemic origins. Additionally, a certain kind of recentism prefers to follow the news cycles of the last few months, and relies on conclusions made years ago by intelligence agencies that have recently been published or publicized, as if those captured an emerging consensus that had previously been obscured (or, in some versions, suppressed). Frankly, I find that last form of argument odd and at odds with enwiki policies and guidelines, which is why I have primarily raised objection to arguments of this kind. Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::::With all due respect, and I've seen it expressed several times by others to very little acknowledgement, I think the primacy of scientific journals makes little to no basic sense in this context.
• :::::::::::::::::The topic at hand is 'whether or not a specific virus originated in a specific lab'. At a fundamental level this is a question that cannot be and has not been definitively proven solely through experimentation. At best, experimentation may inform a conclusion in a supplemental way ('viruses tend to follow X path' etc.), but to draw a conclusion based on solely that data is just an irresponsible assertion. Nobody finds it convincing in part because it doesn't even answer the essential question.
• ::::::::::::::::: Jibolba (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::::@Jibolba To elaborate slightly on a point I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACOVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=1281502523&oldid=1281382185&variant=en elsewhere on this page] - I don't think we have evidence of {{tq|'whether or not a specific virus originated in a specific lab'}}, not meaningful evidence of any kind. I think all we have is evidence-based assertions about whether a specific virus could have been released from a specific lab, and if it was, assertions about how the virus might have acquired its relevant properties.
• ::::::::::::::::::As far as we know, no evidence is available to answer the {{tq|essential question}} - and what we can say with even more assurance is that no intelligence agency in Europe, the UK, or the US had any especially relevant evidence that would allow the agency to answer the "essential question", which is why (1) intelligence assessments of this question since 2020 have fluctuated widely and unpredictably and (2) intelligence agencies in Europe and America have expressed their conclusions on this question with very little confidence. Newimpartial (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::::::None of what you've said gives any reason to omit the recent publishings. The article is titled 'COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory' and we now have both official statements and second-hand RS testimony that national intelligence agencies favor the theory. This is relevant information – it is not debatable.
• :::::::::::::::::::There is no assertion of 'truth' inherent in just acknowledging the bloody articles' existence. It is pure NPOV documentarian practice.
• :::::::::::::::::::Refusing to include the articles lest the curious Wikipedia reader, having heard rumblings in Reuters and the NYT opinion piece, might get the wrong impression as to the theory's scientific merit reeks of Orwellian Malinformation ethos. Let the reader draw his own conclusions for God's sake. Jibolba (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::::I don't mean to hijack this thread, so please disregard this if it's distracting, but I'm concerned here that when you say {{tq|the main issue dividing editors on this page seems to be how to weigh those two reliably sourced assertions}} that that doesn't represent my own main issue well and may not represent others' either.
• :::::::::::::::::I'm not as concerned about how much to weigh this BND evidence in the article as I am concerned about whether it gets included at all. I have been in favor of including reliable source coverage of the existence of the weaker authorities, but not because I think that the weaker authorities should have greater weight in the issue of the plausibility of the lab leak scenario. I don't. Nonetheless, I see strong public interest in these reports that seems to motivate including them in this encyclopedia entry (ie they seem DUE).
• :::::::::::::::::It doesn't make sense to me to include the intelligence agency sources with any weight in deciding whether to say a lab leak happened or not or is plausible or not on this page, but it does seem right to me to include those sources as facts about what positions have been taken by different notable groups regarding lab leak theories. RowanElder (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:Include obviously. What are we even talking about here? I've seen several editors argue that these reports are 'speculative' and not official press releases by German intelligence and therefore irrelevant. Well, we had the godforsaken CIA put out an official release a month ago and that was struck down because 'they aren't scientists'. There is no standard to be found here.

:If you want to pretend like WP:RS applies, it is one or the other. Either include the reports or remove any source that does not come from a peer reviewed journal. You'll end up with a 3-4 sentence long article that provides the common reader with no valuable insight and doesn't even address the question being asked. Jibolba (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Include. An option: "According to research journalism by Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) and Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ, the New Journal of Zürich) in March 2025, a 2020 project report that is kept under lock and key, “Saaremaa”, by the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND), assessed a lab leak probability of “80-95%”, possibly from gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology."

:Because Wikipedia:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE and Wikipedia:Due are still policy and should get more respect; currently being flouted.

:(Point of order: Is there no way to add an unindented comment to the bottom with the visual editor?) RememberOrwell (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::Varied indent styles can break the Visual Editor's Reply functionality. I believe there's no way to fix this without manual edits to the indentation in the discussion to indent other top-level comments to the same indent level. On substance, your proposal seems fine for me except that "kept under lock and key" is needlessly dramatic and implies some form of subterfuge. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks. Fair point. Would 'Confidential' be closest to what BND uses? I've no idea whether "kept under lock and key" was a literal translation or not. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::IMHO if the existence and content of the BND report is not disputed, the sourcing details (newspaper titles and article dates) belong in a footnote. Apokrif (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:Omit. The German BND and the American CIA are the only ones still pushing the lab leak theory, and even the CIA says they have "low confidence" in their conclusion.{{Cite magazine|url=https://time.com/7210348/covid-19-cia-lab-leak-conclusion/|title=What to Know About the CIA's Conclusion that COVID-19 Came From a Lab|first=Jeffrey|last=Kluger|date=27 January 2025|magazine=TIME|accessdate=18 March 2025}}{{Cite web|url=https://apnews.com/article/covid-cia-trump-china-pandemic-lab-leak-9ab7e84c626fed68ca13c8d2e453dde1|title=The CIA believes COVID most likely originated from a lab but has low confidence in its own finding|date=25 January 2025|website=AP News|accessdate=18 March 2025}}

:And if it is to be mentioned, it needs proper attribution and an indicator that it is a minority view, WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Strong include. Blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:N to exclude such information. One could discuss the length or how this info is included but that so long after the publications and the many WP:RS this is still not in the article and discussed like this here are disturbing. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

[https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article255705600/Coronavirus-Ex-RKI-Chef-Wieler-haelt-Laborthese-fuer-wahrscheinlicher.html Important News]: The former president of the Robert Koch Institute Lother Wieler who was responsible for the corona virus, considers the labotthesis to be more likely. Empiricus (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:Now do a peer-reviewed article from a scientific journal. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::As we have discussed before, peer-reviewed papers are not the single valid source for the matters discussed in this article. If several experts in virology and people with reputable careers and recognized knowledge, or intelligence agencies whose members are qualified people and experts on the subject they analyze, claim to believe the lab leak origin to be much more likely than, considerably more likely than, or as likely as a natural spillover, and we have good reliable sources reporting on that, we are to just ignore it and keep the current tone of the article, still treating the lab leak as basically a conspiracy and undermining its relevance at every possible opportunity in the text? That doesn’t seem at all adequate. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq | peer-reviewed papers are not the single valid source for the matters discussed in this article }}. That's true, but it doesn't mean a reliable news source reporting on the lab leak should be treated equally to a scholarly source. In this case, we're not talking about new historical information or evidence-- such as {{tq | Ibuprofen was discovered in 1961 by Stewart Adams and John Nicholson while working at Boots UK Limited and initially marketed as Brufen }} (see ibuprofin). We haven't suddenly been provided with information such as {{tq| new evidence has emerged indicating that Covid-19 likely leaked from ___ on ___ as a result of ___ }}. That's the type of historical information that the RfC gave as an example. No, we're talking about an unreleased, unverified intelligent assessment reported by two German newspapers, and then re-reported by others. The only new information is that German intelligence thought a lab leak scenario was likely in 2020. That's not equivalent to a peer-reviewed scholarly study that has gathered, analyzed and published data and can be verified by other scientists. The void century 15:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Up to now we only have comments and opinions on the origin, no strong evidence based on rigorous research. As mentioned above, this BND laboratory thesis has also appeared in the (reviewed Deutsches Ärzteblatt. We can take this as source. Empiricus (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|peer-reviewed papers are not the single valid source for the matters discussed in this article}}

:::Not one editor has claimed that in this entire discussion. Please cease raising that point as if editor have claimed that. TarnishedPath^talk 16:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|Not one editor has claimed that in this entire discussion}}

::::Empiricus linked a source from a perennially reliable source at 13:09 for potential inclusion.

::::Your response at 13:21 was, "Now do a peer-reviewed article from a scientific journal."

::::Do you understand why your comment implies that only peer-reviewed articles from a scientific journal can be a valid source? You raised no other reason this source should be omitted other than the fact it wasn't a peer-reviewed article from a scientific journal. BabbleOnto (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::This does appear to be a self-contradiction by Tarnished. RowanElder (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|Do you understand why your comment implies that only peer-reviewed articles from a scientific journal can be a valid source?}}

:::::Only on a backwards reading. TarnishedPath^talk 04:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|"If several experts in virology and people with reputable careers and recognized knowledge, or intelligence agencies whose members are qualified people and experts on the subject they analyze"}}

:::And what did they analyse in this case? What do they base their conclusion on? Vibes? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::At this point, we have reliable sources reporting on intelligence agency reports and opinions of very respected scientists who consider a lab leak anything but an “extremely unlikely” event. We still don’t know the contents of the reports, or the precise reasoning of some of these scientists, but it has been reliably reported. The peer-reviewed papers (PRP) that claim a lab-leak origin is extremely unlikely, on the other hand, do have their methodology set out and published; however, they have been far from convincing in connecting their reasoning to their categorical conclusions. Otherwise, we would not be even having such controversial discussions in the first place, let alone many competent specialists speaking up with standings opposite from the current scientific status quo. Not to mention the conflicts of interest that plagued many of PRP from the start (i.e., the political stance many took to suppress a fair treatment of the lab leak theory so as not to encourage discredit of scientific activities and anti-science sentiments). We need to weigh all of these shortcomings of PRP with our lack of exact knowledge of what is in these intelligence reports/opinions of scientists. This is just my opinion. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:1C55:F5AC:8F33:5C76 (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:This can be relevant, but let's stick to the BND inclusion issue for now. Although this does mention it and seemingly supports it. Just10A (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Omit There is no report. By the very definition of what we're discussing, there is no finding to report. The BND was compiling information in 2020 and never actually released a report on said findings (and later German research determined that a zoonotic origin was more plausible and that determination was actually reported and published). So we wouldn't be including something that's actual information, but just speculation from newspapers of the information in this unreleased paper. The wording above, especially, is inappropriate because it's giving legitimacy to reporter allegations of a report with no evidence of said report and no backing from even the BND for the claimed report. Because they never published it, because they don't stand by it. Don't give stances to the organization that they themselves don't have. Silverseren^C 16:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thats simply not true. The sources state that the BND ran their own investigation, combining intel and science, then presented a report to people under NDA (like Christian Drosten) - but did not provide the scientific sources they used for the report to those people.{{Cite web|url=https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ursprung-von-corona-parlamentarier-fordern-veroeffentlichung-von-bnd-erkenntnissen-110356002.html|title=Ursprung von Corona: Parlamentarier fordern Veröffentlichung von BND-Erkenntnissen|date=14 March 2025|website=FAZ.NET|accessdate=18 March 2025}} And no idea what you mean by "later German research". "A" later research from some people in Germany maybe ? With no access to the intelligence sources I assume. The BND event needs to be included. Alexpl (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• I would say include this, in the body of the article, but make sure it's in context of any later (post 2020) sources on the German governments position. Also just like the reports from US governmental institutions this is a report form a govermental institution and not a scientific article. It needs to be attributed, and as I've said put in it's proper context. Maybe a section of goverment reactions broken down by country would be an appropriate way of including such reports. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :To be clear I wouldn't support inclusion of unless it is put in it's correct context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• Omit. It’s not a scientific finding, and it’s contradicted by later science The article is already too long and too inclined to credulity. --Guy (help! - typo?) 23:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The article is not purely concerned with scientific findings. People coming to this page are not looking for a compiled list of scientific findings. It has always been an essentially political issue and now we have journalists whose job it is to report on political bodies publishing their findings. Jibolba (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• Include Suriname0's version. Alenoach (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• Include Suriname0's version. I've read many of the threads of argument above and I found none of the arguments for omission convincing. RowanElder (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• Include Widely reported by multiple reliable sources. Meets all the criteria for inclusion. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• Include Looks good to me as well. The final sentence is a bit imprecise however. According to the source [https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article255671964/Corona-Ausbruch-BND-geht-von-Laborunfall-aus-Kubicki-spricht-von-Vertuschung.html Corona-Ausbruch: BND geht von Laborunfall aus – Kubicki spricht von „Vertuschung“ - WELT] the German government has initiated a review in December (not just requested) and it is being conducted by a group that includes the president of the Robert Koch Institute, Lars Schade, and the Berlin virologist Christian Drosten (should we maybe mention them?). Widely reported and clearly notable. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• Include This has been widely reported and that's enough to justify inclusion into the article. The arguments to omit aren't very convincing. Nemov (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Note this reporting from May 8, 2020 which states:

:{{tq2|Germany’s defense ministry and Federal Intelligence Service (BND) have privately cast doubt on U.S. claims that the coronavirus pandemic originated in a Chinese lab, media reported Friday.{{Cite web |title=Germany Doubts US Claim of Wuhan Virus Lab Leak |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/germany-doubts-us-claim-of-wuhan-virus-lab-leak/ |access-date=2025-03-18 |website=www.courthousenews.com |language=en-US}}}}

:This castes into doubt the current reporting being reliable. At the very least if anything is included about this current reporting it should also be covered that German intelligence has cast doubt over the idea that the pandemic originated from a lab leak. TarnishedPath^talk 06:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::A report from 2020, a few months after the pandemic started, casts doubt over current reporting almost five years later? Huh? I'd recommend stepping away from this discussion. You've said quite enough already in this discussion. Nemov (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think it's as clear cut as that, the current reporting is about a report from even earlier in 2020. I think details for the current news articles should be included, but it needs to be put in the context of later German government reports. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::If you read the Agence France-Presse article you referenced properly, it doesn't state what you claim. It doesn't quote the BND taking any stance, except denying the existence of a Five Eyes report unrelated to this story. You need to engage in some pretty serious WP:SYNTHESIS to arrive at the conclusion that it "castes into doubt the current reporting being reliable." 222.165.205.162 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• I don't really get why people are calling investigative reports and breaking news secondary, but whipping up a furor over a early 2020 report is certainly a choice. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::It´s less about the report, more about why it is kept a secret and has been kept a secret by the chancellors Merkel/Scholz. If they try to protect high value assets, the service BND may have in the chinese government, the findings could be interesting. It is top story in one of the leading newspapers today again [https://www.zeit.de/gesundheit/2025-03/bnd-bericht-corona-ursprung-labor-pandemie], so I doubt this will go away. Alexpl (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, those newspapers should let us know when they find out, but until then, this should go to one of our sister projects, unless I missed a merger. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Include Sourcing is fine and it is obviously relevant. Arguments against are based largely on imagined rules. There is no requirement that the subject of a reliably sourced article confirm the reporting. There is no requirement that any and all information about covid come from a medrs. Bonewah (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: we should exclude until such time as a proposal is put forward for the whole section which is policy compliant. If anything is to be included from this the whole COVID-19 lab leak theory#Political, academic and media attention section should be revised so that any updated material does not lead to a net increase in the section size. It's not in accordance with WP:NPOV to expand the section whenever there is low quality sourcing making statements about the goings on in the facilities of competitor nations. The only condition under which there should be a net increase to the size of the section is if, and only if, there is a WP:WEIGHT of coverage from review articles from MEDLINE-indexed scientific journals which support the assessments. TarnishedPath^talk 10:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :You already voted to omit in this discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1280394598]. This should probably be a comment. (Or is just an unwise post altogether, given the past bludgeoning issues.) Just10A (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{tq|Or is just an unwise post altogether, given the past bludgeoning issues.}}
• ::You worry about yourself mate. TarnishedPath^talk 23:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• Omit as currently proposed by Suriname0. I've read the report published in Die Zeit. The proposed text does not convey the speculative nature of the report itself: its existence and contents are attested by unnamed officials. Any concrete details, for instance secret experiments or unpublished theses, are not available for review and not commented upon by any published scientific journal article.

:It should be furthermore noted that the BND is not a reliable source. It's a spy agency that was created from the Gehlen Organization, itself adapted from the Nazi military intelligence Foreign Armies East.

:If any text were included, and I think it could be, something like this would be appropriate:

:{{talk quote|In March 2025 Die Zeit and the Süddeutsche Zeitung published a report, based on interviews with unnamed officials, stating that a secret 2020 investigation by the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) had concluded that a laboratory leak was likely.[https://archive.md/osJiQ#selection-2471.0-2491.106 (Die Zeit)] German officials did not comment. In 2020, according to Der Spiegel, the BND and German Defense Ministry wrote an internal memo assessing that lab leak theories promoted by American politicians were a "calculated attempt to distract" from pandemic policy failures in the United States.[https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3083607/us-claims-china-coronavirus-lab-leak-attempt-distract-trumps-own (SCMP)].}}

:This text would more fully convey this story. -Darouet (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't believe BND is being proposed here as a reliable source. Whether you agree or not with Covid-19 origins being an intelligence question, the BND is a very notable subject for inclusion in the article in scope of relevant authorities' position on the matter. The evolution of the BND from what was once a Nazi era organisation is entirely irrelevant to how we include their position on the subject matter of this article. 67.68.181.148 (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::IP, I'm glad to read that you don't consider the BND to be a reliable source. Your opinion that its historical origins in a Nazi intelligence unit is "irrelevant" is noted. -Darouet (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::FYI that reads as a completely unacceptable ASPERSION. I have now passed it by a few others and they didn't think it was explicit enough to cross the line, but maybe you could tone it down a bit. - Palpable (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Pure Wikipedian brilliance here. Jibolba (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The BND is being proposed as a viewpoint as per WP:DUE, not a reliable source as per WP:RS. This looks similar to the discussion above where editors conflate the two. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:8C20:CC1E:1C42:30AC (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well, please note that in my comment above I don't vote to exclude, rather, I vote to Omit as currently proposed, and I suggest alternative text, based on sources, that captures the full context:

:::::{{talk quote|In March 2025 Die Zeit and the Süddeutsche Zeitung published a report, based on interviews with unnamed officials, stating that a secret 2020 investigation by the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) had concluded that a laboratory leak was likely.[https://archive.md/osJiQ#selection-2471.0-2491.106 (Die Zeit)] German officials did not comment. In 2020, according to Der Spiegel, the BND and German Defense Ministry wrote an internal memo assessing that lab leak theories promoted by American politicians were a "calculated attempt to distract" from pandemic policy failures in the United States.[https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3083607/us-claims-china-coronavirus-lab-leak-attempt-distract-trumps-own (SCMP)].}}

:::::So it's not clear if you and I are disagreeing. I think my text accurately captures the substance of what we know about both BND analyses. -Darouet (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I could get behind that (or behind no mention). Just having one of the "rumours" without the over would savour rather obviously of POV-pushing, and this version solves that. However this German stuff all amounts to a big fat nothingburger so I'm not sure how adding anything advances our mission to summarise knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::That version is fine to begin with. The second sentence looks like OR because the memo mentioned in the SCPMP was from the BMVg not BND. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:B532:448C:982D:24A7 (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{smalldiv|Extended discussion below moved from comment above.}}{{anchor|aquillion-discussion-moved}}

• :Just FYI, the disease origin and it's events are considered a historical question, not a medical/MEDRS question, per consensus #2. Just10A (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::That's not what consensus #2 says. It says that disease origins are not exclusively a medical/MEDRS question, but also not exclusively a historical question. They can be both in different cases. To quote the RfC: {{tq | Sources for information of any kind should be reliable, and due weight should be given in all cases. A minority viewpoint or theory should not be presented as an absolute truth, swamp scientific consensus or drown out leading scientific theories. This is already covered by WP:RS. }} The void century 17:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::You are mistaken. The quote you just cited is normal procedure. The Rfc closing explictly says: who created something or where it was created is historical information. The only aspects that are classified as biomed information are the issues that already fit into that category such as genome sequences, symptom descriptions, or phylogenetic trees. That is not the issue here for this discussion, we're talking about the historical facts of what happened. Just10A (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::That is a quote from the RfC decision, but your interpretation is wrong here. This article's topic is focused on many different hypotheses and speculations claiming that Covid-19 was created. As the lead of the article states, many of these hypotheses are characteristic of conspiracy theories. The scientific community largely concludes that the origin was zoonosis, and there is no scientific evidence that Covid was "created" in the first place. That's not the same context as someone creating/discovering ibuprofin, the example used in the RfC decision. Therefore, the {{tq | who created something or where it was created }} part of that sentence is not a premise that we can establish anything on. In this case, it may be historical in the sense that an intelligence agency concluding anything is historical, but it's not historical in the sense of Covid's "creation". The void century 20:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::The fabrication of a virus in a lab is not a necessary condition for the virus to have leaked from it. The virus may have already existed there previously, as the WIV has many samples of bat coronaviruses. How the virus came to be and how it started infecting people and originating a pandemic are two different things and this article is about a theory to explain the latter. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::{{tq | How the virus came to be and how it started infecting people and originating a pandemic are two different things and this article is about a theory to explain the latter }}. Wrong again. Read the article. The article covers speculation on both lab creation and lab leak scenarios (plural). The void century 20:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::The article covering many things does not mean they are equivalent. The article is entitled COVID-19 lab leak theory (nothing indicating creation there) and in the lede the only part mentioning creation is:
• :::::::{{ tq | Scientists from WIV had previously collected virus samples from bats in the wild, and allegations that they also performed undisclosed work on such viruses are central to some versions of the idea. Some versions, particularly those alleging genome engineering, are based on misinformation or misrepresentations of scientific evidence. }}
• :::::::Precisely because of what is stated here, the creation/manipulation of the virus is discussed in certain parts of the article. As quoted, the creation is central to some leak theories. They are not one and the same. 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:F4EA:9EB2:2273:8862 (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::The possible manipulation of a natural virus in a lab that subsequently leaked does indeed converge on biomedical science, but several scientists including David Baltimore have said that the origin of the virus cannot be determined from the genome alone, which is a valid and qualified scientific opinion. Ever since DRASTIC leaked the DEFUSE proposal, possible manipulation is not conspiracy theory anymore, and hasn't been for a while. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Also, and I think this goes without saying, please do not unilaterally edit established consensus templates, especially just to try to reinforce your position in a talk page debate. That’s obviously a no-no. Just10A (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Please strike your accusation. The void century 20:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Why do you want it struck? Is there something inaccurate about it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@Horse Eye's Back WP:CIVIL is a core policy of wikipedia and WP:ASPERSIONS are highly frowned upon. I wrote in my edit summary why I made the edit. The template edit doesn't reinforce my position any more than the RfC outcome itself. Just10A reverting my edit equally reinforces their position and makes it easier to misconstrue the outcome of the RfC, which they did in the comment I replied to above. The void century 16:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Its not an aspersion as its properly supported and it isn't uncivil. You should not have made the edit, period. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::This is inappropriate for an article talk page. Take it up in WP:AN if you feel this way. The void century 17:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::You're deflecting. You asked for the accusation to be struck, we're now discussing your request... If the comment was inappropriate you should not have made it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::I still think the aspersion should be struck. Usually, an editor doesn't have to ask twice. I was not deflecting at all, just not engaging here because it's a distraction from the topic being discussed. The void century 20:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::@Horse Eye's Back I don't want to edit it, lest I get in an edit war, but I invite you to since it's so clearly contrary to policy. ANI will sort it out soon enough. Just10A (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I reverted your edit per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BEBOLD #Template namespace guidelines, not to support my position. Just10A (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::It was clear that void wasn't attempting to make new consensus. It is clear that they were updating the template to more accurately reflect the closing statement of the RFC. Given I provided you with advise on your talk page yesterday about COVID-19, broadly construed, being a contentious topic area I would expect you to be cognizant of that and to follow editorial and behavioural best practice.
• ::::As stated by void, you should strike the accusation you've made towards them. TarnishedPath^talk 02:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I'm not trying to accuse him, he objectively changed the template unilaterally during a debate, and that is objectively frowned upon by guidelines. Just10A (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I've already pointed out a way forward if you believe the update to the current consensus template does not accurately reflect the consensus that occurred during the RFC, then I would suggest taking it to WP:AN. Otherwise accursing editors of updating the template to merely push their POV is not something that should be occurring unless you are going to be doing so at a behaviour noticeboard. TarnishedPath^talk 16:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::The accusation appears accurate, the edits were made and are problematic whether or not the intention was the change consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Not one person opposed to the update has made any argument that it doesn't reflect the consensus of the RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 16:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::That appears to be entirely non-sequeter. I would also ask you to stop bludgeoning this discussion, you've made your points and now you need to stop dominating the discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I'll go: void's edit flatly contradicts the RFC consensus, which says the origins of a virus isn't MEDRS. Void changed wording to say it's not "exclusively" MEDRS, meaning it is in part, the opposite of what the RFC says. When called out on this, he changes the topic away from policy to the object-level topic of this one specific virus. Hi! (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:* For the record, I simply said that it was a medical question, not biomedical information, and did not assert that MEDRS applies; it is still a question of a medical nature, for which the best sources are of course medical experts. MEDRS is much more specific than WP:BESTSOURCES and has a higher standard; but BESTSOURCES still applies, and the source presented here (as an opinion from people who lack the relevant expertise to weigh in authoritatively on the origins of a disease) is low-quality, especially given that it's also an exceptional claim. In any case, even if your misunderstanding about the prior RFC were correct, the highest-quality sourcing for a question that touches on medical history would be historians of medicine, which are not what people are attempting to use here. --Aquillion (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:*:Is it solely a medical question though? There is a lot of evidence presented in [https://archive.today/2025.03.16-224755/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html reliable sources] (not MEDRS, because a conflict of interest is not a medical issue) regarding the attempt to mislead the scientific community into regarding the lab leak as merely a conspiracy of far-right radicals or people with anti-Chinese sentiment, coming from top-notch scientists who were also leading efforts to study SARS-CoV-2 from day 1, many of which authored peer-reviewed scientific papers (MEDRS) under clear conflict of interest, which in turn the current editorial stance of this article still regards as “the best references” for this subject. What I am trying to say is, given the in my opinion undeniable influence of politics into what could be regarded as a merely medical/biomedical question with some minor political undertones, should we give that much prominence to MEDRS? 2804:7F4:323D:BF48:1C55:F5AC:8F33:5C76 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:*::{{tq|"regarding the lab leak as merely a conspiracy of far-right radicals or people with anti-Chinese sentiment"}}

:*::That is exactly what it is, WP:FRINGE. And we're under no obligation to give "equal weight" to conspiracy theories, WP:FALSEBALANCE. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:*:::[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14503159/Labour-Wuhan-lab-leak-pandemic-Boris-johnson.html This briefing] for MP Johnson from the former head of MI6 is also a conspiracy theory ? Of course we can delete all the many non MEDRES sources, i.e. newspaper sources in the article - but then nothing remains. Empiricus (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:*::::Anything from the WP:DAILYMAIL will get removed as there is a very strong consensus that it is very unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:*:"Biomedical" and "medical" are essentially synonymous in this instance. Look no further than the actual WP:MEDRS page, where the terms seem to be used interchangeably multiple times in the lead alone. Regardless, that's the interpretation that the discussion ended up having, and I don't think a semantic breakdown after the fact would do anyone much good. Just10A (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:*::@Just10A this whole section seems to me to be misconceived. What consensus #2 tries to document is that the origins of Covid-19 as a general topic is not one to which WP:MEDRS as a guideline applies - there are only certain aspects of the topic to which the specific, higher standards of MEDRS continue to apply.

:*::What Consensus #2 does not say- and it never has, and neither does the discussion preceding it - is that the origins of Covid-19 is a topic in which peer-reviewed medical and biomedical sources cannot be used - that would be bizarre, and contrary to enwiki policies, guidelines, and community-wide consensus.

:*::Also, there seems to be confusion here about what Consensus #2 says concerning historical information. What I take it to mean is that a historical account of the origin and spread of Covid, like the historical debates that have taken place over the reality of Typhoid Mary - based on evidence like all historical scholarship - would be the best kind of source to use concerning how Covid-19 actually began.

:*::To date, to the best of my knowledge, we have no such accounts by relevant experts (historians of medicine). What is more, there is no reason to think that the evidence needed to write such an account currently exists. Under such circumstances, and given the topic, this article must rely primarily on scientists to assess the range of possibility (what could have happened) and probability (what is most likely to have happened).

:*::The argument made by some editors on this page - that guesses made by intelligence agencies without access to relevant evidence are more likely to be accurate than statements by scientists about possibility and likelihood - seems unproven and somewhat odd. Meanwhile, Consensus # 2, along with the discussion that produced it, should not be twisted into a rationale for downplaying biomedical sources and amplifying intelligence agencies and other non-experts. That just isn't what the discussion in question decided, as far as I can tell. Newimpartial (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:*:::No one is arguing the content of the second paragraph. Or at least I’m not. Again, this issue’s pretty much been resolved. The original closer testified and fixed it and void’s taken a break. Just10A (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admin closure requested (lab leak). –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

{{abot}}

To be explicit, I did not find consensus for Surinaem0's version, because its merits on its own operating under the assumption that the claim (BND made a 2020 report finding lab leak most likely, a report that was withheld and is now under review as of 2024) had to be included were not discussed. It simply went unopposed, just like the idea that the claim should be included next to any (relevant) context, all abiding by our content policy guidelines such as WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH.

Now, independent of discussing arbitration enforcement, word meanings, and other WP:NOTBURO bureaucracies to your advantage (this goes for everyone here), please discuss Suriname0's proposal or any other proposal on its own merits. Obviously, please take the above consensus into account, and I would strongly encourage discussing Suriname0's version first before any other version. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Per the BBC "Two German newspapers say they have uncovered details of an assessment carried out by spy agency BND in 2020 but never published.", so no, this is not an official claim by a German intelligence agency; it is a media claim. Any addition must make that clear. I am sure I made just this point before. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::↑ This. It is incredibly disappointing that editors who have apparently immersed themselves in this matter to have missed fundamental things like this. It won't do to misrepresent sources to turn Wikipedia into some kind of fringey spin machine. Bon courage (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The more recent article {{u|Alexpl}} [https://archive.is/x1vx1 pointed to] seems to confirm something, i think only that Schmidt Schmidt was talking to reporters, but it just links to what seems to be a court [https://www.bverwg.de/de/140525B10VR4.25.0 judgement]. There's also something about selective release and manipulation i believe, but need a German speaker here and not some crappy auto-translate.

:::Think we should chalk this up to a failure of WP:NOTNEWS, a horrid policy which forces articles to contain a bunch of journalism, while other P&G's and practice ensure it will be piss-poor journalism. fiveby(zero) 15:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::Attribution is probably ok but 1.) It would have to be way less weasel-ly, something more like "In March 2025 Die Zeit and the Süddeutsche Zeitung released a report..." and 2.) Are Die Zeit and the Süddeutsche Zeitung not RS's in and of themselves? Also, here is the actual base report btw. [https://www.zeit.de/2025/11/coronavirus-ursprung-wuhan-labor-china-bnd] Just10A (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the close and the clarification. As other editors workshop an appropriate wording based on the sources, it may be helpful to keep in mind WP:WIKIVOICE, which says: {{tq|Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example {{xt|the sky is blue}} not {{!xt|[name of source] believes the sky is blue}}. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.}} Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::This, however, is not sky blue, as I quoted RS are saying this was a media claim, and the wider issue (lab leak) is very much contested. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::Agree. The "German media/German newspaper" language used by some English RS is more indicative of the fact the issue is crossing international oceans and language borders, not reliability issues. Similarly, if articles in German said "American media has reported XYZ about the CIA" and by "American media" they mean The New York Times and The Washington Post, that's just indicating it's an American issue being covered by American sources, not reliability concerns.

::Also to address Slater: Yes, lab leak broadly is a contested issue, but tmk, we have no valid RS disputing the specific assertions of the Die Zeit/Süddeutsche Zeitung articles. Their article about the BND, since release and broad coverage, seems to be uncontested. Just10A (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::BBC "Two German newspapers say they have uncovered details of an assessment carried out by spy agency BND in 2020 but never published." That is saying this is a media claim, made by two German newspapers, it's not a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Why are you starting at the BBC though? The appropriate place to start is at the original RS. They reported something, and it has not been contested. The BBC stating they reported it does not contest them. Just10A (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::wp:primary vs secondary, this is a secondary source reporting on their claims. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::The issue is I'm not sure the Die Zeit/Süddeutsche Zeitung is completely primary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, though. It could conceivably be a historical report, and also has elements of analysis akin to WP:SECONDARY. Although I would agree with you that it is probably most correctly classified as an investigative report, which is primary by policy. Beyond that however, the passage at issue would likely fall under a "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access." So it's kind of moot anyway. Regardless, we have multiple RS's saying X and tmk 0 RS's contesting, that's kind of the scope of the analysis for me. But the community seems to be somewhat split, so it'll be sorted. Just10A (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Just10A what is the proposed article text that you regard as "descriptive statements of fact that can be verified by any educated person with access"? please place your proposal all in one place so it can be discussed without confusion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The same text we’ve been discussing this whole time, Suriname’s. (Broadly speaking.) Just10A (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Just10A So, you mean this:

:::::::::{{Tq|A 2020 report by Germany's Federal Intelligence Service indicated possible gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and rated the probability of a lab leak as source of the pandemic between 80 and 90%.}}?

:::::::::As was made clear in an immediate reply by {{u|Darouet}} in the discussion: {{Tq|The proposed text does not convey the speculative nature of the report itself: its existence and contents are attested by unnamed officials.}}

:::::::::In particular, what we are presented with is RS reports (from WP:PRIMARY investigative journalism in 2025) that a report existed in 2020. We are not (as readers) able to verify the report's contents or even its existence, apart from investigative journalist/witnesses.

:::::::::Suriname's text presents the report as fact and its contents as fact, without noting either its provenance or the dismissal of the report by the government that commisioned it. Without adding this additional context, the meaning and signifance of the reporting in the German press is shifted nearly out of recognition, leaving our readers with an entirely misleading impression of what actually happened.

:::::::::(Suriname's proposal, like many other suggestions to add intelligence community content to this article, seems primarily directed at increasing the "head count" of sources that, at different times in different situations, have said that a lab leak was the likely origin of Covid. I can see how this approach might serve certain agendas, but I don't see how it serves our readers.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Hi User:Newimpartial, on your user page you write "this editor is committed to changing their long-term, often argumentative approach to discussions on Wikipedia. This is a work in progress, and this editor encourages you to let them know if you feel that they may be treating a discussion as a dispute or interacting with other editors in a way that personalizes a potential conflict." I wanted to let you know that your parenthetical aside reads{{snd}} to me{{snd}} as both "argumentative" and inconsistent with assuming good faith. If you're confused about why editors disagree on this topic, you can either read their own explanations for their positions in the RFC above or ask directly. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::This has mostly already been addressed-- we're not rehashing the discussion that was closed. You already know the procedure if you have an issue with the close. Also, your analysis has some fundamental mistakes of fact (for instance, the government, or anyone else for that matter, never {{tq|"dismissed"}} the report), so that's the explanation for why maybe there's a disconnect. Lastly, I would probably heed the advice of Suriname. Just10A (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Just10A if you are interpreting the close as stating that additional context should not be provided with the 2025 reporting of the leaked report, then I don't think you are reading the close the way Aaron intended.

:::::::::::Also, if you'd prefer that I strike "dismissed" in my previous post, and replace it with "set aside, declined to publish, and proceeded to declare the lab leak hypothesis as a distraction", then I would be happy to do that. But that is pretty clearly what actually happened, according to the RS on the topic published to date - I don't think it's reasonable to say I've made any {{tq|mistakes of fact}} on this topic, fundamental or otherwise. Newimpartial (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I am not. And no, that is not clear, as pointed out by the closer. Just10A (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Just10A if you are under the impression that Aaron evaluated the historiography of the 2025 report in his close, in a way that invalidates what I understand to be the plain sequence of events, (1) I fail to see where the close does that - and I've read it several times, and (2) even if it had done that, it wouldn't be a shillelagh you could use to silence editors who offer the same, source-based interpretation of the sequence of events that I am offering here.

:::::::::::::You simply can't use an RfC result to argue that views with which you, personally, disagree are no longer relevant for reaching consensus on article content. That's not even what an RfC close does, and this wasn't an RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Well 1.) yes, he clarified exactly that later on this talk page; and 2.) He is correct, we don't specifically know the exact order, and pretending we do is speculation. Just10A (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Indeed (bar copy right issues), that is what we should be saying. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:(For posterity: there is a now a proposal at #c-TarnishedPath-20250613100600-Proposal, the section below.) Aaron Liu (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Following the closure of the above RfC, {{u|Just10A}} has taken it upon themselves to edit their own personal version of the text into the article (difference from that proposed in the RfC), and revert any mention of the "other" German news reports that don't favour the LL narrative. Problematic in several respects. Bon courage (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:? My {{tq| "own personal version" }} is a word-for-word reflection of the version made by @Suriname0 referenced in the closure, with the exception of a typo fix. If that typo fix is wrong, I'm more than happy to fix it. (indicated -> investigated) Just10A (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::It just said (among other things) that version got support, not that it was the mandated text. In any case leaving out one set of news stories while including others would be blatant POV-pushing, and that's not allowed. Also, be mindful of edit-warring. You are at 3RR. Edit-warring is also not allowed. Bon courage (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It's literally the exact passage that the closure said got support. Immediately editing it is clearly violating WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and reverting that twice is perfectly called for (if not outright mandated by policy. Also, WP:AGF. Just10A (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Aaron Liu Hate to drag you back into this mess. Some clarity of the closure might be helpful. Just10A (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Many things 'got support'. That doesn't equate to there being one rigid mandated text. Bon courage (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Great, so we have the exact version that got support on the page. You want to make an addition, so now the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion, which you, at least right now, do not have. What's the issue exactly? That I added exactly what the closure said obtained support and then didn't agree with your unilateral addition? Sorry I guess? Just10A (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Many supporters also recommended the mention be placed next to the German government's later findings and with attribution. Bon courage (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::and what does the closure say after that?

:::::::Spoiler alert: Saying something was not discussed much, but might get consensus in the future ≠ something having consensus. Again, I literally just put in the article exactly what the closure said got consensus, no more, no less. It is of course possible to have an addition, but the ONUS is on you to get consensus for that addition, and if it's not achieved, it's not going to be included. I really don't know what else to say. Just10A (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{tq|"but might get consensus in the future"}} ← can't see that wording. Something gets consensus when it sticks, like this text has, and WP:DRNC is wise advice too. Bon courage (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ tq| when it sticks, like this text has}}. It's been added for 2 hours. And is actively being disputed. And the edit's said why they were reverted, and it wasn't "no consensus." Just10A (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::No one has disputed it. Reverting is not 'disputing'. Bon courage (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::I also fixed my typo fix so that it's the exact version mentioned in the closure to quell any issues. Just10A (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::"Typo fix"? You also reverted (again) the mention that this is just newspaper reports, not facts (as the source is careful to). Can't skirt core policies like WP:V with a local consensus you know. Bon courage (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm referring to me changing back my good-faith fix of indication -> investigation. What's on the page now is the exact version referenced in the closure, plus your end addition, which is being edit warred in despite not having consensus. Just10A (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm rereading the closure right now and it seems perfectly reflected in Just10A's edits. Much more so than the weasel words you've added. Ratgomery (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=1294948702&oldid=1291935502 changes as of now] are highly misleading, given that the German report was never published and such an assessment was not endorsed by anyone. I recommend a prompt revert. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree, this is POV-pushing. Bon courage (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This is an extremely bizarre accusation. This was the version proposed in the RFC which was closed with consensus include, indeed noting that the consensus wasn't necessarily for this exact phrasing. Since the closure did not find consensus for the exact phrasing it's fine to suggest changes or alternative proposals, but how could it possibly be POV pushing to take the exact phrasing used in the RFC proposal that was voted on? To suggest a better phrasing is one thing but how can you accuse someone of POV pushing for using the exact version proposed in the RFC as a starting point. Ratgomery (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::In particular, the title changes. Bon courage (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Can you please elaborate. Ratgomery (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::These are not in Wikivoice anything so strong as "assessments", more rumours of documents that may exist. Bon courage (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I apologize but I don't understand what this post is trying to say. Can you please elaborate more on what is POV pushing about the title changes, preferably in full sentences. I'm not trying to be rude with that comment but I'm not following what you're saying and I think it's because of the terse replies. Ratgomery (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Newspaper reports of rumoured documents should not be billed as "intelligence agency assessments". Bon courage (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I do not see the sources calling these "rumoured documents" so it seems like original research to add such qualifiers. The sources refer to the documents without such qualifiers. Ratgomery (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The Reuters source is very careful to say the assessment is only as "two German newspapers reported on Wednesday" or what "papers say". Wikipedia goes beyond that and asserts there is a report. Bon courage (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Great. So you have a problem with the wording that the closure deemed got support. File a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Just10A (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::That attribution was needed also 'got support'. You have reverted it a few times now. Bon courage (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I can perhaps see your argument for that, although to me the Reuters report looks to be refering to the assessment as existing in their own voice and is only mentioning their source. Regardless, I do not think this justifies accusations of POV pushing. At worst it's a detail that can be worked out constructively. Thanks for elaborating. Ratgomery (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::The consensus from the RfC was to include. The constant goal post moving is getting a bit ridiculous at this point. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It has become more unlikely that we get better info about the services (BND) findings due to a series of court rulings. The Federal Administrative Court ruled in April, that the BND does not have to make report available to the public [https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien-und-film/medienpolitik/bnd-muss-presse-zu-corona-verdacht-nichts-sagen-110432412.html] and last week the same court decided that the BND should not reveal how its lab-leak-conclusions got to the press in the first place,[https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/urteil-zu-verdeckter-pressearbeit-im-geheimdienst-keine-aufklarung-uber-bnd-infos-zum-corona-ursprung-13789918.html] and gave the cryptic explaination, that this could damage the relations between China and Germany. So for the foreseeable future, there will be no conclusive updates on this story. Alexpl (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

1. There was consensus that the sourcing was exceptional enough to have this exceptional claim—that the intelligence agency made a report in 2020 finding lab leak was likely, a conclusion subsequently withheld—in the article, although most people objected to it having any more weight than two sentences. (That obviously does not include the proposed context.) Consensus that the sourcing was enough formed despite rejected objections e.g. those ScienceFlyer mentioned.
2. I don't know what consensus the idea of including in context had: it went unopposed among the supports and the omits mentioned this as part of their argument, but as I mentioned in the close statement it was underdiscussed. If Just10A wants to argue against that for some reason he is free to do so although I would've presumed consensus slightly stronger than the Bold in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss before anyone objected to such context, after which we do discuss. I agree with Bon that DRNC. Just discuss whether that added context's appropriate.
3. I assumed that there was a source that put this discovery in context or at least something that said Germany later didn't think lab leak theory was true! (else I wouldn't be able to rationalize why so many participants argued the 2020 BND report reflected a historical view that was overturned) Is that not the case? Personally I think the postfix favored by Bon might be improper synthesis; we don't even know if that's in chronological order.
4. I don't see any reason to add "German newspapers said that" as Bon did (the attribution strongly suggested in the RfC was attribution to the intelligence agency, not to the newspapers) but I don't see much reason to revert that addition either. In general it's usually best to avoid edit wars especially for such trivial matters.

Aaron Liu (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for clarifying Aaron. And as far was your questions go:

:1.) Yeah I think we're on the same page. Broad consensus for the 2 sentence inclusion, the rest certainly has a possibility but wasn't really fully discussed.

:2-3.) This will clarify for you in one go, the issue isn't DRNC as much as WP:AGEMATTERS. I'm with you, I'd imagine that if Germany's posture has changed since news of this broke, or if when news of this broke, they now contradicted the past report, they had said it. TMK though, the only source they're adding for their addition right now is an article from May 2020. So we have an article from 2020 saying "BND thinks X" and then a number of articles coming out in 2025 that allege "Actually, in 2020, BND thought Y." That's a pretty much a textbook WP:AGEMATTERS scenario, and thats the disputing reason. I couldn't find better/more recent sources in a cursory glance. That's the issue you outlined in #3, TMK, we don't have anything since then that indicates Germany's posture. That would make the add. at worst improper synthesis, and at best an WP:AGEMATTERS conflict.

:Agree 4 is more minor, that's mostly in conjunction with the other edits and the fact that clearly changing an agreed passage by close should almost certainly just be done by WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, not WP:LOCALCON. Just10A (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure if I can say there's consensus that the mention has to be included (verbatim) like Suriname0's version; just like those who wanted the claim to be within context (though to a much lesser extent here as Suriname0's version was very prominent in the RfC), participants did not discuss the merits of that version itself much other than it being superior to the original proposal. It went unopposed but that's not necessarily consensus, and there's definitely not a consensus that the mention must not deviate from Suriname0's version. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree. Inclusion of it got consensus but that doesn't mean in can never be changed/can never deviate. But the changes obviously would have to get consensus first. Just10A (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::Saying "Actually" would be original research, so a no-no. I think that's your invention, and not in the proposed text though, so is straw-man argumentation. Bon courage (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::What version? Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC

I've argued elsewhere that if we are to include updates from media reporting of differing governments/government agency assessments/reports/etc that it should be done in a manner that does not lead to a net increase of the section. With that in mind I propose the following wording for the whole section:

{{tq2|Some intelligence agencies have assessed the possibility of a lab leak origin for SARS-CoV-2. Such assessments evaluate source credibility rather than conduct scientific research.{{cite journal |vauthors=Rofer C |date=3 March 2023 |title=Lab-Leak Intelligence Reports Aren't Scientific Conclusions |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lab-leak-intelligence-reports-arent-scientific-conclusions/ |url-status=live |journal=Scientific American |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230928121333/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lab-leak-intelligence-reports-arent-scientific-conclusions/ |archive-date=28 September 2023 |access-date=28 September 2023}}

In 2020, German newspapers cited an alleged Federal Intelligence Service report estimating an 80–90% probability of a lab leak.{{Cite web |date=12 March 2025 |title=German spy agency concluded COVID virus likely leaked from lab, papers say |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/german-spy-agency-concluded-covid-virus-likely-leaked-lab-papers-say-2025-03-12/ |website=Reuters}} However, in the same year, Der Spiegel reported that Germany’s Defence Ministry, in an alleged internal memo, dismissed lab leak theories as a U.S. political distraction from pandemic policy failures.{{cite web |author=Agence France-Presse |date=8 May 2020 |title=Germany Doubts US Claim of Wuhan Virus Lab Leak |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/germany-doubts-us-claim-of-wuhan-virus-lab-leak/ |access-date=10 Jun 2025 |website=Courthouse News Service}} In late 2024, the German government requested an external review of the unpublished report.{{Cite web |title=Corona-Ausbruch: BND geht von Laborunfall aus – Kubicki spricht von "Vertuschung" |url=https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article255671964/Corona-Ausbruch-BND-geht-von-Laborunfall-aus-Kubicki-spricht-von-Vertuschung.html |access-date=2025-03-13 |website=Die Welt |language=de}}

An August 2021 U.S. report, commissioned by President Biden, found no evidence of Chinese foreknowledge of the COVID-19 outbreak.{{cite news |last1=Nakashima |first1=Ellen |last2=Achenbach |first2=Joel |date=27 August 2021 |title=U.S. spy agencies rule out possibility the coronavirus was created as a bioweapon, say origin will stay unknown without China's help |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/wuhan-coronavirus-lab-leak/2021/08/27/8f20b024-0740-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210829091607/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/wuhan-coronavirus-lab-leak/2021/08/27/8f20b024-0740-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html |archive-date=29 August 2021 |access-date=29 August 2021 |newspaper=The Washington Post}} The inconclusive assessment included four agencies (and the National Intelligence Council) favoring zoonotic origin with low confidence, three undecided, and the FBI supporting a lab leak with moderate confidence.{{cite news |last=Merchant |first=Nomaan |date=27 August 2021 |title=US intelligence still divided on origins of coronavirus |url=https://apnews.com/article/science-health-coronavirus-pandemic-2570b89545d4332b8a3bd7289982aa22/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210829012940/https://apnews.com/article/science-health-coronavirus-pandemic-2570b89545d4332b8a3bd7289982aa22 |archive-date=29 August 2021 |access-date=29 August 2021 |work=Associated Press News |language=en}}{{cite journal |last=Cohen |first=Jon |date=27 August 2021 |title=COVID-19's origins still uncertain, U.S. intelligence agencies conclude |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/covid-19-s-origins-still-uncertain-us-intelligence-agencies-conclude |url-status=live |language=en |doi=10.1126/science.abm1388 |s2cid=240981726 |url-access=subscription |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831193701/https://www.science.org/content/article/covid-19-s-origins-still-uncertain-us-intelligence-agencies-conclude |archive-date=31 August 2021 |access-date=29 August 2021 |quote=The first, and most important, takeaway is that the IC is 'divided on the most likely origin' of the pandemic coronavirus and that both hypotheses are 'plausible.' |website=Science}}{{cite news |last=Barnes |first=Julian E. |date=29 October 2021 |title=Origin of Virus May Remain Murky, U.S. Intelligence Agencies Say |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/us/politics/coronavirus-origin-intelligence-report.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211217032701/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/us/politics/coronavirus-origin-intelligence-report.html |archive-date=17 December 2021 |access-date=17 December 2021 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}} British intelligence deemed a lab leak "feasible".{{cite news |last=Brown |first=Larisa |date=30 May 2021 |title=Covid: Wuhan lab leak is 'feasible', say British spies |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-wuhan-lab-leak-is-feasible-say-british-spies-cvtxjjwpc |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219051413/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-wuhan-lab-leak-is-feasible-say-british-spies-cvtxjjwpc |archive-date=19 February 2022 |access-date=19 February 2022 |work=The Sunday Times}}

In February 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy shifted to a "low confidence" lab leak assessment, indicating unreliable sources.{{cite news |last1=Gordon |first1=Michael R. |last2=Strobel |first2=Warren P. |date=February 26, 2023 |title=Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a?mod=hp_lead_pos1&mod=djem10point |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230227002932/https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a?mod=hp_lead_pos1&mod=djem10point |archive-date=27 February 2023 |access-date=February 26, 2023 |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |language=en}}{{cite news |last1=Mueller |first1=Julia |date=26 February 2023 |title=National security adviser: No 'definitive answer' on COVID lab leak |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3874580-national-security-adviser-no-definitive-answer-on-covid-lab-leak/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230226150924/https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3874580-national-security-adviser-no-definitive-answer-on-covid-lab-leak/ |archive-date=26 February 2023 |access-date=26 February 2023 |work=The Hill}}{{cite web |last1=Barnes |first1=Julian E. |date=26 February 2023 |title=Lab Leak Most Likely Caused Pandemic, Energy Dept. Says |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230227000124/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html |archive-date=27 February 2023 |access-date=27 February 2023 |website=The New York Times}}{{cite news |date=9 March 2023 |title=How to make sense of intelligence leaks |url=https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2023/03/09/how-to-make-sense-of-intelligence-leaks |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230927015449/https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2023/03/09/how-to-make-sense-of-intelligence-leaks |archive-date=27 September 2023 |access-date=27 September 2023 |newspaper=The Economist |type=The Economist explains}} FBI Director Christopher Wray reiterated the bureau’s stance, accusing China of obstructing investigations.{{cite news |last1=Kaur |first1=Anumita |last2=Diamond |first2=Dan |date=28 February 2023 |title=FBI director says covid-19 'most likely' originated from lab incident |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/28/fbi-director-christopher-wray-wuhan-lab/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230301130016/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/28/fbi-director-christopher-wray-wuhan-lab/ |archive-date=1 March 2023 |access-date=1 March 2023 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}{{cite news |date=1 March 2023 |title=FBI chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak most likely |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230406173223/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903 |archive-date=6 April 2023 |access-date=5 June 2023 |work=BBC News}} National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated that there was "no definitive answer." to the pandemic origins' question.{{cite news |last1=LeBlanc |first1=Paul |date=27 February 2023 |title=New assessment on the origins of Covid-19 adds to the confusion |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/politics/covid-origins-doe-assessment-what-matters/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230227060318/https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/politics/covid-origins-doe-assessment-what-matters/index.html |archive-date=27 February 2023 |access-date=27 February 2023 |publisher=CNN |language=en}}

A declassified June 2023 Office of the Director of National Intelligence report found no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in labs or biosafety incidents but could not rule out a leak. Most agencies (with low confidence) favored zoonotic origin.{{cite news |last1=Whitcomb |first1=Dan |date=24 June 2023 |title=No direct evidence COVID started in Wuhan lab, US intelligence report says |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/no-direct-evidence-covid-19-pandemic-started-wuhan-lab-us-intelligence-report-2023-06-24/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20230624190222/https://www.reuters.com/world/no-direct-evidence-covid-19-pandemic-started-wuhan-lab-us-intelligence-report-2023-06-24/ |archive-date=24 June 2023 |access-date=25 June 2023 |work=Reuters |language=en}}{{cite news |date=24 June 2023 |title=Intelligence report says US split on Covid-19 origins |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66005240 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230625040756/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66005240 |archive-date=25 June 2023 |access-date=25 June 2023 |work=BBC News}}{{cite news |last=Merchant |first=Nomaan |date=2023-06-23 |title=US intelligence report on COVID-19 origins rejects some points raised by lab leak theory proponents |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/us-intelligence-report-covid-19-origins-rejects-points-100348095 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230625094837/https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/us-intelligence-report-covid-19-origins-rejects-points-100348095 |archive-date=25 June 2023 |access-date=2023-06-24 |work=ABC News}} Lab leak proponents accused intelligence agencies of bias or incompetence.{{cite news |date=27 June 2023 |title=COVID-19 lab leak theory ends with a whimper, not a bang |url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/covid-19-lab-leak-theory-ends-with-a-whimper-not-a-bang-20230627-p5djqb.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230807022109/https://www.smh.com.au/national/covid-19-lab-leak-theory-ends-with-a-whimper-not-a-bang-20230627-p5djqb.html |archive-date=7 August 2023 |access-date=24 September 2023 |newspaper=The Sydney Morning Herald}} Science reporter Liam Mannix called it the end of the lab leak theory.

In 2025, the CIA stated the virus was "more likely" from a lab leak but with "low confidence".{{cite news |last1=Honderich |first1=Holly |date=26 January 2025 |title=Covid-19: CIA says lab leak most likely source of outbreak |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9qjjj4zy5o |work=BBC News}} On April 18, 2025, the second Trump administration removed the online hub for federal COVID-19 resources and redirected the domain to a whitehouse.gov page endorsing the lab leak theory.{{multiref2|White House page:
{{cite web |title=Lab Leak: The True Origins of COVID-19 |website=whitehouse.gov |date=2025-04-18 |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250418135523/https://www.whitehouse.gov/lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19/ |archive-date=2025-04-18 |url-status=live}}|Press coverage:
{{unbulleted list citebundle|1={{cite magazine |author1-last=Roth |author1-first=Emma |date=2025-04-18 |title=Covid․gov now points to a 'lab leak' conspiracy website |magazine=The Verge |url=https://www.theverge.com/news/651825/covid-gov-lab-leak-conspiracy-website |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250418161407/https://www.theverge.com/news/651825/covid-gov-lab-leak-conspiracy-website |archive-date=2025-04-18 |url-status=live}}|2={{cite news |author1-last=Stein |author1-first=Rob |date=2025-04-18 |title='Lab Leak,' a flashy page on the virus' origins, replaces government COVID sites |publisher=NPR |work=Shots |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/18/g-s1-61324/lab-leak-white-house-covid-origins |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250418205228/https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/18/g-s1-61324/lab-leak-white-house-covid-origins |archive-date=2025-04-18 |url-status=live}}|3={{cite magazine |author1-last=Mast |author1-first=Jason |date=2025-04-18 |title=White House trumpets Covid lab leak theory on web page that was devoted to health information |magazine=Stat |url=https://www.statnews.com/2025/04/18/covid-lab-leak-theory-trump-replaces-pandemic-guidance-website-with-disputed-claims-alleged-coverup/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250418201214/https://www.statnews.com/2025/04/18/covid-lab-leak-theory-trump-replaces-pandemic-guidance-website-with-disputed-claims-alleged-coverup/ |archive-date=2025-04-18 |url-status=live}}}}

}} Virologist Angela Rasmussen called the page "pure propaganda, intended to justify the systematic devastation of... programs devoted to public health and biomedical research"{{cite news |last1=Stein |first1=Rob |date=18 April 2025 |title='Lab Leak,' a flashy page on the virus' origins, replaces government COVID sites |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/18/g-s1-61324/lab-leak-white-house-covid-origins |access-date=19 April 2025 |publisher=NPR}}}}

TarnishedPath^talk 10:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Seems OK. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Pinging @Just10A, @MasterBlasterofBarterTown, @Newimpartial, @ScienceFlyer, @WhatamIdoing, @Aaron Liu, @Bon courage and @Ratgomery from the discussion above. TarnishedPath^talk 10:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::"In 2020, German newspapers cited an alleged Federal Intelligence Service report" should be "In 2025, German newspapers cited an alleged 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report". And "However, in the same year, Der Spiegel reported" would be better as "In 2020, Der Spiegel had reported ..." Bon courage (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I have no objection to that. TarnishedPath^talk 11:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::"cited" seems a bit obtuse to me. How about {{tq|In 2025, German newspapers alleged that an unpublished 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report estimated...}}? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Do we know that the report favorable to lab leak was made before the internal memo? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Aaron Liu, see Bon's suggestion. I believe that resolves that question. TarnishedPath^talk 12:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think if we lack sources that put these two things next to each other in this order, we should just line them in chronological order no matter what. If we know the withheld report was written before the memo then I think this is fine; otherwise, I would put the memo as the first sentence since that's the order in which these things were reported. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Combined with the time fix Bon suggested, it should be this at the least. Additionally, we should name the papers's instead of just vaguely saying "german newspapers": "In March 2025, Die Zeit and the Süddeutsche Zeitung published a report (/article/whatever)" Lastly, I still maintain the 2020 memo has no business being included unless we can find a much better source than a single May 2020 article. Not only is it probably WP:AGEMATTERS, but the fact that we can't find another modern source that even mentions this with the new report gives it a pretty good WP:UNDUE argument. We reflect what the RS says, and if RS is widely covering this new BND article without trying to caveat it with this older claim, then neither should we. Just10A (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Age doesn't matter here, unless you want to imply some new stories trumps others. Bon courage (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Not "trumping" so much as nearly directly contradictory. Which then yes,WP:AGEMATTERS applies. Also, you still have the DUE issue. If RS doesn't use it as a caveat neither should we. Just10A (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No, there is no sense in which one story can be said to supersede (or caveat) the other. If we're going to surface primary news stories (good grief) then it's just a question of not cherry picking to adduce a desired narrative and putting the undigested mess out there as it is. If we're going to bollix-up the job of writing an encyclopedia, it needs to be done properly. Bon courage (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::"{{tq| No, there is no sense in which one story can be said to supersede (or caveat) the other}}."

::::::::How exactly do you figure that? Source 1 says: "In 2020, BND allegedly thinks X." Source 2 says "Actually, in 2020, BND allegedly thought Y."

::::::::No one is asking for the stars here. We're asking to produce any source that's not 1.) a single one from the stone-age of the pandemic that's not directly contradicted by more recent sources or 2.) One that mentions this old report with the new one in any way that suggests RS thinks it's relevant at all today. The bar to meet is pretty much on the ground. The fact that you're instead choosing to spend your time further protesting about how we're {{tq| bollix-up the job of writing an encyclopedia}} and how you still disagree with the closing is pretty indicative of the strength of that argument/those sources. Just10A (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::For everyone's info: Took a deeper look and found no other mentions/recent sources. Only other even acknowledgment of it is a short blurb on Reuters released the exact same day back in May 2020 [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-usa/german-spy-agency-doubts-u-s-china-lab-coronavirus-accusations-report-idUSKBN22K14S/], so still same problems. Just10A (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The only "problem" would be if editors decided to include / exclude primary sources depending on what they thought they meant, or in order to push a POV. I don't think anybody (else) is convinced we should be doing that. Bon courage (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::If by "{{tq|depending on what they thought they meant}}" you mean "depending on trying to follow WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:DUE", sure dude. Just10A (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Thanks for your enthusiasm for the aggregation of information. But sometimes, I feel like we should cut back on aggravating language a bit. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I don't think Just10A has found all the relevant discussion of the report from Der Spiegel. A different news wire report (longer than the Reuters one) was published by Agence France-Presse; it was translated into English and published as far afield as the [https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/germany-doubts-us-claims-of-china-covid-19-lab-leak-report/story-mOpNxVtYuX9DowQbgcPMcL.html Hindustan Times]; it also appeared in much its original form in the [https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2020/05/08/lallemagne-doute-de-lexplication-americaine-sur-lorigine-du-coronavirus Le Journal de Montreal].

::::::::::It is simply not true that, outside of Der Spiegel, the 2020 leaked memo was only "acknowledged" in a single "short blurb". I see no justification for suppressing this report, as offers valuable context on the German government's position (which did apparently continue to regard the lab leak hypothesis as a distraction throughput Covid's pandemic phase. Newimpartial (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The Agence France-Presse is the article we're already talking about. Just10A (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::@Just10A I can't see a distinction between Reuters and AFP sources in your comments above. There are a minimum of three relevant news reports:

::::::::::::- the primary Der Spiegel report

::::::::::::- the brief Reuters piece (secondary)

::::::::::::- the longer piece from Agence France Presse (also secondary)

::::::::::::If you meant to be recognizing that sourcing situation, that's great, but that's not how I understood what you wrote.

::::::::::::Anyway, to zoom out for a moment, the reliable sources report two facts, at similar levels of certaintly:

::::::::::::- the BND prepared a report stating that a lab leak was likely, which was read and then shelved by Angela Merkel;

::::::::::::- the BND prepared a briefing for Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer casting doubt on US claims of a lab leak and characterizing such claims as a attempt to divert attention.

::::::::::::To the best of anyone's knowledge, both of these news stories are accurate, and any attempt at meta-analysis to determine what the BND "really thought" and why, would be speculation/WP:OR. And the obvious explanations for the 2025 news reports being amplified more than the 2020 report is that there is much less "new" Covid news available now, and that the 2025 report much more conveniently confirms the priors of some important audiences in 2025. Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Yes, from the beginning, the source cited by TarnishedPath's version was the Agence France Passe one. It's still there. Just10A (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I think Just10A is saying that he cannot support inclusion of the 2020 memo as context unless there's a source that mentions both the 2020 memo and the unpublished report at once, so as to avoid WP:SYNTH. (Though I feel like there's no new conclusion implied if we put the memo first and only mention the unpublished report after mentioning the memo.) Aaron Liu (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Yeah, just put them in separate sentences without any connecting logic. Bon courage (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Partially, it's not a requirement so much as that would definitely be sufficient. Other modern discussions of the old report as relevant, even separately, would probably do the trick as well. But we don't even have that. The argument for inclusion is essentially "We are including the new report articles, and so the only way to give full context is to equally include the old report articles." However, I'm pointing out that if the position of: "The only way to accurately convey to the readers the full context of the situation is to include both articles/reports" was the actually case, then you'd think RS would reflect that, and they don't.

::::::::::::I agree that placing it in chronological reporting order with no connecting tissue significantly helps the issue (the original "however" language was particularly egregious). But I still do not see how the position of "These things absolutely HAVE to be included together" is so strong when tmk literally 0 RS seems to share that view. Just10A (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Agree with @Bon courage above, that there is no WP:SYNTH as they are completely separate sentences. TarnishedPath^talk 02:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::We don't know the order. We don't really know anything, other than what the primary news sources say. (Which is why it would have been ideal to wait for WP:SECONDARY sourcing to make sense of it). All we can see is there were news stories rumouring A, and there were news stories rumouring B. No, it doesn't make sense, but we are of course forbidden from drawing our own conclusions. Bon courage (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, I feel like there's less feelings of editorializing and synthesized conclusions if we put the news of the 2020 memo first. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Seems to be that saying this report was published in 2020, even though we do not even know if it exists, seems like "editorializing", So we would have to say "2020 a report (alleged in 2025) was allegedly published, or somesuch, or we put in in 2025, when it was alleged. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What's wrong with {{tq|In 2025, German newspapers cited an alleged 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report}}?
To be clear, I am recommending{{tqb|In 2020, Der Spiegel reported that Germany’s Defence Ministry, in an alleged internal memo, dismissed lab leak theories as a U.S. political distraction from pandemic policy failures.[3] In 2025, German newspapers cited an alleged 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report...}} Aaron Liu (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::The 2025 Die Zeit article says that the BND assessment was buried: {{tq|the best-kept secret of Berlin for years. It has been under lock and key for five years now, stamped deep red as a "secret."}} (better translation welcomed). That seems to address the apparent contradiction between the 2020 secret report and contemporaneous public statements. - Palpable (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::So we will have something dated 2025 before something dated 2020, does that make any sense? Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't think the order particularly matters; it's going to be bad whatever because it's impossible to avoid implying something about precedence. It's like an argument between film stars about whose name is first on the poster. Bon courage (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Do you support what I suggest? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::NO, the claims surfaced in 2025, not 2020 so it goes in after 2020. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "

::::::I'm pretty sure that's what he said, Slater: {{tq|otherwise, I would put the memo as the first sentence since that's the order in which these things were reported}} Just10A (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Ahh Well in that case I have no issue with their suggestion. We include the momo first, the alleged report second. All that back and forth made me forget who said what. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Seems to me we even include all we have said about the German reports, or nothing. We should, it's called context. What we should not do is raise two (anonymous) new papers reports to the status of fact. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:BTW the claim that intelligence assessments evaluate source credibility rather than conduct scientific research is false, and should not be stated in wikivoice cited to an opinion piece. This has been discussed before on this page: FBI has thousands of scientists on staff, DOE Z division has deep bio expertise, and IIRC the only internal document we have from DIA was written up by scientists. - Palpable (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::From the cited source:{{tq2|The important factor for intelligence assessments is the veracity of sources, whereas scientific conclusions depend on data and the coherence of the argument the data support. ... The scientific data are available to the public, unlike the reporting that underlies the intelligence assessments.}}

::SO it would seem the idea of there being some private scientific data is editorial fantasy. Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - TarnishedPath and Aaron Liu, I would support this text proposal, based on my original commentary in the section now closed by Aaron, and based on comments by TarnishedPath, Slatersteven, and others. -Darouet (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :What do you think of #c-Aaron_Liu-20250613135700-Bon_courage-20250613105400 and #c-Slatersteven-20250613155200-Just10A-20250613154500? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think both are fine, Aaron Liu. -Darouet (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Aaron Liu, I have no issue with yours and @Bon courage suggestions taken together. TarnishedPath^talk 02:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Darouet, @Slatersteven, @Aaron Liu and @Bon courage. Please see below update proposal based on Bon's and Aaron's suggestions. TarnishedPath^talk 02:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on @Aaron Liu and @Bon courage suggestions above we would have:

{{tq2|Some intelligence agencies have assessed the possibility of a lab leak origin for SARS-CoV-2. Such assessments evaluate source credibility rather than conduct scientific research.{{cite journal |vauthors=Rofer C |date=3 March 2023 |title=Lab-Leak Intelligence Reports Aren't Scientific Conclusions |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lab-leak-intelligence-reports-arent-scientific-conclusions/ |url-status=live |journal=Scientific American |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230928121333/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lab-leak-intelligence-reports-arent-scientific-conclusions/ |archive-date=28 September 2023 |access-date=28 September 2023}}

In 2025, German newspapers alleged that an unpublished 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report estimated a 80–90% probability of a lab leak.{{Cite web |date=12 March 2025 |title=German spy agency concluded COVID virus likely leaked from lab, papers say |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/german-spy-agency-concluded-covid-virus-likely-leaked-lab-papers-say-2025-03-12/ |website=Reuters}} In 2020, Der Spiegel had reported that Germany’s Defence Ministry, in an alleged internal memo, dismissed lab leak theories as a U.S. political distraction from pandemic policy failures.{{cite web |author=Agence France-Presse |date=8 May 2020 |title=Germany Doubts US Claim of Wuhan Virus Lab Leak |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/germany-doubts-us-claim-of-wuhan-virus-lab-leak/ |access-date=10 Jun 2025 |website=Courthouse News Service}} In late 2024, the German government requested an external review of the unpublished report.{{Cite web |title=Corona-Ausbruch: BND geht von Laborunfall aus – Kubicki spricht von "Vertuschung" |url=https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article255671964/Corona-Ausbruch-BND-geht-von-Laborunfall-aus-Kubicki-spricht-von-Vertuschung.html |access-date=2025-03-13 |website=Die Welt |language=de}}

An August 2021 U.S. report, commissioned by President Biden, found no evidence of Chinese foreknowledge of the COVID-19 outbreak.{{cite news |last1=Nakashima |first1=Ellen |last2=Achenbach |first2=Joel |date=27 August 2021 |title=U.S. spy agencies rule out possibility the coronavirus was created as a bioweapon, say origin will stay unknown without China's help |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/wuhan-coronavirus-lab-leak/2021/08/27/8f20b024-0740-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210829091607/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/wuhan-coronavirus-lab-leak/2021/08/27/8f20b024-0740-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html |archive-date=29 August 2021 |access-date=29 August 2021 |newspaper=The Washington Post}} The inconclusive assessment included four agencies (and the National Intelligence Council) favoring zoonotic origin with low confidence, three undecided, and the FBI supporting a lab leak with moderate confidence.{{cite news |last=Merchant |first=Nomaan |date=27 August 2021 |title=US intelligence still divided on origins of coronavirus |url=https://apnews.com/article/science-health-coronavirus-pandemic-2570b89545d4332b8a3bd7289982aa22/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210829012940/https://apnews.com/article/science-health-coronavirus-pandemic-2570b89545d4332b8a3bd7289982aa22 |archive-date=29 August 2021 |access-date=29 August 2021 |work=Associated Press News |language=en}}{{cite journal |last=Cohen |first=Jon |date=27 August 2021 |title=COVID-19's origins still uncertain, U.S. intelligence agencies conclude |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/covid-19-s-origins-still-uncertain-us-intelligence-agencies-conclude |url-status=live |language=en |doi=10.1126/science.abm1388 |s2cid=240981726 |url-access=subscription |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831193701/https://www.science.org/content/article/covid-19-s-origins-still-uncertain-us-intelligence-agencies-conclude |archive-date=31 August 2021 |access-date=29 August 2021 |quote=The first, and most important, takeaway is that the IC is 'divided on the most likely origin' of the pandemic coronavirus and that both hypotheses are 'plausible.' |website=Science}}{{cite news |last=Barnes |first=Julian E. |date=29 October 2021 |title=Origin of Virus May Remain Murky, U.S. Intelligence Agencies Say |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/us/politics/coronavirus-origin-intelligence-report.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211217032701/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/us/politics/coronavirus-origin-intelligence-report.html |archive-date=17 December 2021 |access-date=17 December 2021 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}} British intelligence deemed a lab leak "feasible".{{cite news |last=Brown |first=Larisa |date=30 May 2021 |title=Covid: Wuhan lab leak is 'feasible', say British spies |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-wuhan-lab-leak-is-feasible-say-british-spies-cvtxjjwpc |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219051413/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-wuhan-lab-leak-is-feasible-say-british-spies-cvtxjjwpc |archive-date=19 February 2022 |access-date=19 February 2022 |work=The Sunday Times}}

In February 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy shifted to a "low confidence" lab leak assessment, indicating unreliable sources.{{cite news |last1=Gordon |first1=Michael R. |last2=Strobel |first2=Warren P. |date=February 26, 2023 |title=Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a?mod=hp_lead_pos1&mod=djem10point |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230227002932/https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a?mod=hp_lead_pos1&mod=djem10point |archive-date=27 February 2023 |access-date=February 26, 2023 |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |language=en}}{{cite news |last1=Mueller |first1=Julia |date=26 February 2023 |title=National security adviser: No 'definitive answer' on COVID lab leak |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3874580-national-security-adviser-no-definitive-answer-on-covid-lab-leak/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230226150924/https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3874580-national-security-adviser-no-definitive-answer-on-covid-lab-leak/ |archive-date=26 February 2023 |access-date=26 February 2023 |work=The Hill}}{{cite web |last1=Barnes |first1=Julian E. |date=26 February 2023 |title=Lab Leak Most Likely Caused Pandemic, Energy Dept. Says |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230227000124/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html |archive-date=27 February 2023 |access-date=27 February 2023 |website=The New York Times}}{{cite news |date=9 March 2023 |title=How to make sense of intelligence leaks |url=https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2023/03/09/how-to-make-sense-of-intelligence-leaks |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230927015449/https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2023/03/09/how-to-make-sense-of-intelligence-leaks |archive-date=27 September 2023 |access-date=27 September 2023 |newspaper=The Economist |type=The Economist explains}} FBI Director Christopher Wray reiterated the bureau’s stance, accusing China of obstructing investigations.{{cite news |last1=Kaur |first1=Anumita |last2=Diamond |first2=Dan |date=28 February 2023 |title=FBI director says covid-19 'most likely' originated from lab incident |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/28/fbi-director-christopher-wray-wuhan-lab/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230301130016/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/28/fbi-director-christopher-wray-wuhan-lab/ |archive-date=1 March 2023 |access-date=1 March 2023 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}{{cite news |date=1 March 2023 |title=FBI chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak most likely |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230406173223/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903 |archive-date=6 April 2023 |access-date=5 June 2023 |work=BBC News}} National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated that there was "no definitive answer." to the pandemic origins' question.{{cite news |last1=LeBlanc |first1=Paul |date=27 February 2023 |title=New assessment on the origins of Covid-19 adds to the confusion |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/politics/covid-origins-doe-assessment-what-matters/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230227060318/https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/politics/covid-origins-doe-assessment-what-matters/index.html |archive-date=27 February 2023 |access-date=27 February 2023 |publisher=CNN |language=en}}

A declassified June 2023 Office of the Director of National Intelligence report found no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in labs or biosafety incidents but could not rule out a leak. Most agencies (with low confidence) favored zoonotic origin.{{cite news |last1=Whitcomb |first1=Dan |date=24 June 2023 |title=No direct evidence COVID started in Wuhan lab, US intelligence report says |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/no-direct-evidence-covid-19-pandemic-started-wuhan-lab-us-intelligence-report-2023-06-24/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20230624190222/https://www.reuters.com/world/no-direct-evidence-covid-19-pandemic-started-wuhan-lab-us-intelligence-report-2023-06-24/ |archive-date=24 June 2023 |access-date=25 June 2023 |work=Reuters |language=en}}{{cite news |date=24 June 2023 |title=Intelligence report says US split on Covid-19 origins |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66005240 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230625040756/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66005240 |archive-date=25 June 2023 |access-date=25 June 2023 |work=BBC News}}{{cite news |last=Merchant |first=Nomaan |date=2023-06-23 |title=US intelligence report on COVID-19 origins rejects some points raised by lab leak theory proponents |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/us-intelligence-report-covid-19-origins-rejects-points-100348095 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230625094837/https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/us-intelligence-report-covid-19-origins-rejects-points-100348095 |archive-date=25 June 2023 |access-date=2023-06-24 |work=ABC News}} Lab leak proponents accused intelligence agencies of bias or incompetence.{{cite news |date=27 June 2023 |title=COVID-19 lab leak theory ends with a whimper, not a bang |url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/covid-19-lab-leak-theory-ends-with-a-whimper-not-a-bang-20230627-p5djqb.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230807022109/https://www.smh.com.au/national/covid-19-lab-leak-theory-ends-with-a-whimper-not-a-bang-20230627-p5djqb.html |archive-date=7 August 2023 |access-date=24 September 2023 |newspaper=The Sydney Morning Herald}} Science reporter Liam Mannix called it the end of the lab leak theory.

In 2025, the CIA stated the virus was "more likely" from a lab leak but with "low confidence".{{cite news |last1=Honderich |first1=Holly |date=26 January 2025 |title=Covid-19: CIA says lab leak most likely source of outbreak |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9qjjj4zy5o |work=BBC News}} On April 18, 2025, the second Trump administration removed the online hub for federal COVID-19 resources and redirected the domain to a whitehouse.gov page endorsing the lab leak theory.{{multiref2|White House page:
{{cite web |title=Lab Leak: The True Origins of COVID-19 |website=whitehouse.gov |date=2025-04-18 |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250418135523/https://www.whitehouse.gov/lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19/ |archive-date=2025-04-18 |url-status=live}}|Press coverage:
{{unbulleted list citebundle|1={{cite magazine |author1-last=Roth |author1-first=Emma |date=2025-04-18 |title=Covid․gov now points to a 'lab leak' conspiracy website |magazine=The Verge |url=https://www.theverge.com/news/651825/covid-gov-lab-leak-conspiracy-website |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250418161407/https://www.theverge.com/news/651825/covid-gov-lab-leak-conspiracy-website |archive-date=2025-04-18 |url-status=live}}|2={{cite news |author1-last=Stein |author1-first=Rob |date=2025-04-18 |title='Lab Leak,' a flashy page on the virus' origins, replaces government COVID sites |publisher=NPR |work=Shots |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/18/g-s1-61324/lab-leak-white-house-covid-origins |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250418205228/https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/18/g-s1-61324/lab-leak-white-house-covid-origins |archive-date=2025-04-18 |url-status=live}}|3={{cite magazine |author1-last=Mast |author1-first=Jason |date=2025-04-18 |title=White House trumpets Covid lab leak theory on web page that was devoted to health information |magazine=Stat |url=https://www.statnews.com/2025/04/18/covid-lab-leak-theory-trump-replaces-pandemic-guidance-website-with-disputed-claims-alleged-coverup/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250418201214/https://www.statnews.com/2025/04/18/covid-lab-leak-theory-trump-replaces-pandemic-guidance-website-with-disputed-claims-alleged-coverup/ |archive-date=2025-04-18 |url-status=live}}}}

}} Virologist Angela Rasmussen called the page "pure propaganda, intended to justify the systematic devastation of... programs devoted to public health and biomedical research"{{cite news |last1=Stein |first1=Rob |date=18 April 2025 |title='Lab Leak,' a flashy page on the virus' origins, replaces government COVID sites |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/18/g-s1-61324/lab-leak-white-house-covid-origins |access-date=19 April 2025 |publisher=NPR}}}}

TarnishedPath^talk 02:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Nice! However:{{pb}}

:# Now that I look at this again, what do we think of replacing the second "alleged" with "said" (or "reported") and removing the first "alleged" per MOS:ALLEGED and MOS:SAID?

:# You missed the suggestion from Slater and me that would order things chronologically.

:{{pb}}This'd be the second paragraph if both of the above points are taken:{{tqb|In 2020, Der Spiegel reported that Germany’s Defence Ministry, in an internal memo, dismissed lab leak theories as a U.S. political distraction from pandemic policy failures.{{cite web |author=Agence France-Presse |date=8 May 2020 |title=Germany Doubts US Claim of Wuhan Virus Lab Leak |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/germany-doubts-us-claim-of-wuhan-virus-lab-leak/ |access-date=10 Jun 2025 |website=Courthouse News Service}} In 2025, German newspapers said that an unpublished 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report estimated a 80–90% probability of a lab leak.{{Cite web |date=12 March 2025 |title=German spy agency concluded COVID virus likely leaked from lab, papers say |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/german-spy-agency-concluded-covid-virus-likely-leaked-lab-papers-say-2025-03-12/ |website=Reuters}} In late 2024, the German government requested an external review of the unpublished report.{{Cite web |title=Corona-Ausbruch: BND geht von Laborunfall aus – Kubicki spricht von "Vertuschung" |url=https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article255671964/Corona-Ausbruch-BND-geht-von-Laborunfall-aus-Kubicki-spricht-von-Vertuschung.html |access-date=2025-03-13 |website=Die Welt |language=de}}}} Aaron Liu (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Aaron Liu do we have details taken from reliable sources which establish the chronology, or is that still be debated? Apologies if I've missed that part of the discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 06:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Since we don't have sources, the order to respect is the chronological order of reporting. The memo was reported 2020 and the lab leak thing was reported 2025. This also presents less potential original conclusions since the chronological order is a neutral order. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok, we can do that then until we have any better detail. TarnishedPath^talk 01:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see why we need to reduce the size of the entire section, or that such a view was expressed by others in the RFC, and the closure. I support just including information on the BND's report, regardless of the exact wording, leaving the rest of the article unchanged. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:B5BF:1D0F:3142:70CC (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• :My proposal doesn't reduce the size of the whole section. My proposal keeps the size of the section roughly the same, summarising some parts in order to accommodate the reporting on BND, to ensure that the entire section isn't forever growing whenever there is some blip in the news cycle. TarnishedPath^talk 06:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::The BND report was not a 'blip'. This article is dedicated entirely to the lab leak theory and the proposed text covering the BND's report is well within proportion to its relevance and weight, not requiring any reduction to the article or relevant section. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:1E:7E8F:A2F3:EB9F (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::All of the reporting was in March and nothing since. That's a blip. TarnishedPath^talk 09:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::@2A00:23C8:5304:F501:1E:7E8F:A2F3:EB9F Have you read the BND report? If you have, could you share a link? Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I don't know why you as an experienced editor are asking for a WP:PRIMARY source. We use only secondary and tertiary sources on Wikipedia. We're not in the fact checking business. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:31E9:9F89:994E:D04F (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Updated proposed wording based on discussion above:

{{tq2|Some intelligence agencies have assessed the possibility of a lab leak origin for SARS-CoV-2. Such assessments evaluate source credibility rather than conduct scientific research.{{cite journal |vauthors=Rofer C |date=3 March 2023 |title=Lab-Leak Intelligence Reports Aren't Scientific Conclusions |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lab-leak-intelligence-reports-arent-scientific-conclusions/ |url-status=live |journal=Scientific American |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230928121333/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lab-leak-intelligence-reports-arent-scientific-conclusions/ |archive-date=28 September 2023 |access-date=28 September 2023}}

In 2020, Der Spiegel reported that Germany’s Defence Ministry, in an internal memo, dismissed lab leak theories as a U.S. political distraction from pandemic policy failures.{{cite web |author=Agence France-Presse |date=8 May 2020 |title=Germany Doubts US Claim of Wuhan Virus Lab Leak |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/germany-doubts-us-claim-of-wuhan-virus-lab-leak/ |access-date=10 Jun 2025 |website=Courthouse News Service}} In 2025, German newspapers said that an unpublished 2020 Federal Intelligence Service report estimated a 80–90% probability of a lab leak.{{Cite web |date=12 March 2025 |title=German spy agency concluded COVID virus likely leaked from lab, papers say |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/german-spy-agency-concluded-covid-virus-likely-leaked-lab-papers-say-2025-03-12/ |website=Reuters}} In late 2024, the German government requested an external review of the unpublished report.{{Cite web |title=Corona-Ausbruch: BND geht von Laborunfall aus – Kubicki spricht von "Vertuschung" |url=https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article255671964/Corona-Ausbruch-BND-geht-von-Laborunfall-aus-Kubicki-spricht-von-Vertuschung.html |access-date=2025-03-13 |website=Die Welt |language=de}}

An August 2021 U.S. report, commissioned by President Biden, found no evidence of Chinese foreknowledge of the COVID-19 outbreak.{{cite news |last1=Nakashima |first1=Ellen |last2=Achenbach |first2=Joel |date=27 August 2021 |title=U.S. spy agencies rule out possibility the coronavirus was created as a bioweapon, say origin will stay unknown without China's help |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/wuhan-coronavirus-lab-leak/2021/08/27/8f20b024-0740-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210829091607/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/wuhan-coronavirus-lab-leak/2021/08/27/8f20b024-0740-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html |archive-date=29 August 2021 |access-date=29 August 2021 |newspaper=The Washington Post}} The inconclusive assessment included four agencies (and the National Intelligence Council) favoring zoonotic origin with low confidence, three undecided, and the FBI supporting a lab leak with moderate confidence.{{cite news |last=Merchant |first=Nomaan |date=27 August 2021 |title=US intelligence still divided on origins of coronavirus |url=https://apnews.com/article/science-health-coronavirus-pandemic-2570b89545d4332b8a3bd7289982aa22/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210829012940/https://apnews.com/article/science-health-coronavirus-pandemic-2570b89545d4332b8a3bd7289982aa22 |archive-date=29 August 2021 |access-date=29 August 2021 |work=Associated Press News |language=en}}{{cite journal |last=Cohen |first=Jon |date=27 August 2021 |title=COVID-19's origins still uncertain, U.S. intelligence agencies conclude |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/covid-19-s-origins-still-uncertain-us-intelligence-agencies-conclude |url-status=live |language=en |doi=10.1126/science.abm1388 |s2cid=240981726 |url-access=subscription |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831193701/https://www.science.org/content/article/covid-19-s-origins-still-uncertain-us-intelligence-agencies-conclude |archive-date=31 August 2021 |access-date=29 August 2021 |quote=The first, and most important, takeaway is that the IC is 'divided on the most likely origin' of the pandemic coronavirus and that both hypotheses are 'plausible.' |website=Science}}{{cite news |last=Barnes |first=Julian E. |date=29 October 2021 |title=Origin of Virus May Remain Murky, U.S. Intelligence Agencies Say |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/us/politics/coronavirus-origin-intelligence-report.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211217032701/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/us/politics/coronavirus-origin-intelligence-report.html |archive-date=17 December 2021 |access-date=17 December 2021 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}} British intelligence deemed a lab leak "feasible".{{cite news |last=Brown |first=Larisa |date=30 May 2021 |title=Covid: Wuhan lab leak is 'feasible', say British spies |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-wuhan-lab-leak-is-feasible-say-british-spies-cvtxjjwpc |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220219051413/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-wuhan-lab-leak-is-feasible-say-british-spies-cvtxjjwpc |archive-date=19 February 2022 |access-date=19 February 2022 |work=The Sunday Times}}

In February 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy shifted to a "low confidence" lab leak assessment, indicating unreliable sources.{{cite news |last1=Gordon |first1=Michael R. |last2=Strobel |first2=Warren P. |date=February 26, 2023 |title=Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a?mod=hp_lead_pos1&mod=djem10point |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230227002932/https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a?mod=hp_lead_pos1&mod=djem10point |archive-date=27 February 2023 |access-date=February 26, 2023 |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |language=en}}{{cite news |last1=Mueller |first1=Julia |date=26 February 2023 |title=National security adviser: No 'definitive answer' on COVID lab leak |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3874580-national-security-adviser-no-definitive-answer-on-covid-lab-leak/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230226150924/https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3874580-national-security-adviser-no-definitive-answer-on-covid-lab-leak/ |archive-date=26 February 2023 |access-date=26 February 2023 |work=The Hill}}{{cite web |last1=Barnes |first1=Julian E. |date=26 February 2023 |title=Lab Leak Most Likely Caused Pandemic, Energy Dept. Says |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230227000124/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html |archive-date=27 February 2023 |access-date=27 February 2023 |website=The New York Times}}{{cite news |date=9 March 2023 |title=How to make sense of intelligence leaks |url=https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2023/03/09/how-to-make-sense-of-intelligence-leaks |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230927015449/https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2023/03/09/how-to-make-sense-of-intelligence-leaks |archive-date=27 September 2023 |access-date=27 September 2023 |newspaper=The Economist |type=The Economist explains}} FBI Director Christopher Wray reiterated the bureau’s stance, accusing China of obstructing investigations.{{cite news |last1=Kaur |first1=Anumita |last2=Diamond |first2=Dan |date=28 February 2023 |title=FBI director says covid-19 'most likely' originated from lab incident |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/28/fbi-director-christopher-wray-wuhan-lab/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230301130016/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/28/fbi-director-christopher-wray-wuhan-lab/ |archive-date=1 March 2023 |access-date=1 March 2023 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}{{cite news |date=1 March 2023 |title=FBI chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak most likely |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230406173223/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903 |archive-date=6 April 2023 |access-date=5 June 2023 |work=BBC News}} National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated that there was "no definitive answer." to the pandemic origins' question.{{cite news |last1=LeBlanc |first1=Paul |date=27 February 2023 |title=New assessment on the origins of Covid-19 adds to the confusion |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/politics/covid-origins-doe-assessment-what-matters/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230227060318/https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/politics/covid-origins-doe-assessment-what-matters/index.html |archive-date=27 February 2023 |access-date=27 February 2023 |publisher=CNN |language=en}}

A declassified June 2023 Office of the Director of National Intelligence report found no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in labs or biosafety incidents but could not rule out a leak. Most agencies (with low confidence) favored zoonotic origin.{{cite news |last1=Whitcomb |first1=Dan |date=24 June 2023 |title=No direct evidence COVID started in Wuhan lab, US intelligence report says |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/no-direct-evidence-covid-19-pandemic-started-wuhan-lab-us-intelligence-report-2023-06-24/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20230624190222/https://www.reuters.com/world/no-direct-evidence-covid-19-pandemic-started-wuhan-lab-us-intelligence-report-2023-06-24/ |archive-date=24 June 2023 |access-date=25 June 2023 |work=Reuters |language=en}}{{cite news |date=24 June 2023 |title=Intelligence report says US split on Covid-19 origins |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66005240 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230625040756/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66005240 |archive-date=25 June 2023 |access-date=25 June 2023 |work=BBC News}}{{cite news |last=Merchant |first=Nomaan |date=2023-06-23 |title=US intelligence report on COVID-19 origins rejects some points raised by lab leak theory proponents |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/us-intelligence-report-covid-19-origins-rejects-points-100348095 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230625094837/https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/us-intelligence-report-covid-19-origins-rejects-points-100348095 |archive-date=25 June 2023 |access-date=2023-06-24 |work=ABC News}} Lab leak proponents accused intelligence agencies of bias or incompetence.{{cite news |date=27 June 2023 |title=COVID-19 lab leak theory ends with a whimper, not a bang |url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/covid-19-lab-leak-theory-ends-with-a-whimper-not-a-bang-20230627-p5djqb.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230807022109/https://www.smh.com.au/national/covid-19-lab-leak-theory-ends-with-a-whimper-not-a-bang-20230627-p5djqb.html |archive-date=7 August 2023 |access-date=24 September 2023 |newspaper=The Sydney Morning Herald}} Science reporter Liam Mannix called it the end of the lab leak theory.

In 2025, the CIA stated the virus was "more likely" from a lab leak but with "low confidence".{{cite news |last1=Honderich |first1=Holly |date=26 January 2025 |title=Covid-19: CIA says lab leak most likely source of outbreak |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9qjjj4zy5o |work=BBC News}} On April 18, 2025, the second Trump administration removed the online hub for federal COVID-19 resources and redirected the domain to a whitehouse.gov page endorsing the lab leak theory.{{multiref2|White House page:
{{cite web |title=Lab Leak: The True Origins of COVID-19 |website=whitehouse.gov |date=2025-04-18 |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250418135523/https://www.whitehouse.gov/lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19/ |archive-date=2025-04-18 |url-status=live}}|Press coverage:
{{unbulleted list citebundle|1={{cite magazine |author1-last=Roth |author1-first=Emma |date=2025-04-18 |title=Covid․gov now points to a 'lab leak' conspiracy website |magazine=The Verge |url=https://www.theverge.com/news/651825/covid-gov-lab-leak-conspiracy-website |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250418161407/https://www.theverge.com/news/651825/covid-gov-lab-leak-conspiracy-website |archive-date=2025-04-18 |url-status=live}}|2={{cite news |author1-last=Stein |author1-first=Rob |date=2025-04-18 |title='Lab Leak,' a flashy page on the virus' origins, replaces government COVID sites |publisher=NPR |work=Shots |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/18/g-s1-61324/lab-leak-white-house-covid-origins |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250418205228/https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/18/g-s1-61324/lab-leak-white-house-covid-origins |archive-date=2025-04-18 |url-status=live}}|3={{cite magazine |author1-last=Mast |author1-first=Jason |date=2025-04-18 |title=White House trumpets Covid lab leak theory on web page that was devoted to health information |magazine=Stat |url=https://www.statnews.com/2025/04/18/covid-lab-leak-theory-trump-replaces-pandemic-guidance-website-with-disputed-claims-alleged-coverup/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250418201214/https://www.statnews.com/2025/04/18/covid-lab-leak-theory-trump-replaces-pandemic-guidance-website-with-disputed-claims-alleged-coverup/ |archive-date=2025-04-18 |url-status=live}}}}

}} Virologist Angela Rasmussen called the page "pure propaganda, intended to justify the systematic devastation of... programs devoted to public health and biomedical research"{{cite news |last1=Stein |first1=Rob |date=18 April 2025 |title='Lab Leak,' a flashy page on the virus' origins, replaces government COVID sites |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/18/g-s1-61324/lab-leak-white-house-covid-origins |access-date=19 April 2025 |publisher=NPR}}}}

TarnishedPath^talk 01:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Pinging @Aaron Liu, @ActivelyDisinterested, @Callanecc, @Hemiauchenia, @Just10A, @MasterBlasterofBarterTown, @Newimpartial, @ScienceFlyer, @Slatersteven, @WhatamIdoing, @Ymerazu, @Bon courage, @Ratgomery, @Alexpl, @Palpable and @Darouet as editors involved above for final comment. TarnishedPath^talk 01:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::@TarnishedPath I'm fine with it. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Seems good! Aaron Liu (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm happy with this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:It reads weird to have an incident in 2025 placed before one in 2020. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Slatersteven Isn't the 2025 thing placed after the 2020 thing here? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry, each of these really needs a separate sub thread, as it is hard to follow which one is which. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::will do TarnishedPath^talk 13:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)]

:::::No issue with the New, New new (or is there another new) suggestion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I hope we can finish it with this. I'll wait a day and see what other comments there are. TarnishedPath^talk 14:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you, this looks fine. -Darouet (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

Given the recent mini-edit war, do editors here think that imposing universal editing restrictions such as:

• WP:1RR
• Wikipedia:Consensus required restriction, or
• Wikipedia:Enforced BRD

would be helpful? We could request it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:The results of the three month RfC were very clear: the supermajority here indicates consensus to include in the article a mention of German intelligence not publishing a report in favor of the lab leak theory in 2020. A revision war dedicated to undermining this needs to met with sanctions for those involved in removing the information. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::The Wikipedia:Edit warring policy is even clearer: Edit warring is a blockable offense, even if you "only" edit war once or twice instead of four or fourteen times.

::Do you think that we could prevent future edit wars by adding bright-line rules? If so, which of the usual options do you think would be most likely to result in preventing future edit wars? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::: The rules seem plenty clear .. people are just ignoring them. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::It wasn't an RFC and a flod of new editors, who have next to no editing outside of the contentious topic are does not make a consensus. Please read WP:DCON. TarnishedPath^talk 05:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:I am requesting sanctions against @ScienceFlyer and @Bon courage over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::Well, I expect that will be a waste of time, but nobody's going to stop you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This RfC lasted three months, dozens of contributors, and overwhelming consensus for inclusion .... all wiped away because one use decides WP:IDONTLIKEIT? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The RfC lasted three months, etc., but did not result in consensus about how to include that information. It's perfectly legitimate to agree with the RfC that the unpublished German report should be mentioned in the article, and to disagree that the first attempt at doing so was not the best way to go about it.

::::Also: Wikipedia:There is no deadline for getting the RfC's result implemented. It doesn't have to be done less than four hours after the closing summary was posted. It's okay to talk about how to get it right first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::@MasterBlasterofBarterTown Why? @Aaron Liu stated (emphasis added): {{tq2|the supermajority here indicates consensus to include in the article a mention of German intelligence not publishing a report in favor of the lab leak theory in 2020.}} and {{tq2|However, the mention to be included is not necessarily the text proposed at the start of this discussion, to which a substantial amount of supporters registered opposition|}}

::The highly misleading edits I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1294961312 reverted] failed to immediately say say the report was not published. It also failed to say that the report was not endorsed by anyone. And it was prior to any discussion of a reasonable edit that could be supported by consensus.

::I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1294950725 notified] the talk page about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=1294948702&oldid=1291935502 the misleading edits] and removed them over an hour later. There was no edit war. ScienceFlyer (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC) ; edited 23:28, 11 June 2025

:::I think there's some confusion. The text added was not {{ tq|"the text proposed at the start of this discussion"}}, it was the text made by Suriname that the closing explicitly said was supported: {{tq| However, the mention to be included is not necessarily the text proposed at the start of this discussion, to which a substantial amount of supporters registered opposition, supporting Suriname0's wording instead.}}

:::I'm assuming this is just a confusion, the stuff you reverted is not the original proposed wording, it was Suriname's version. Saying it didn't get support for inclusion plainly contradicts the closing. Whether Suriname's version will have stuff further added to it is up for debate, whether Suriname's version got consensus for inclusion however, is not. You merely saying you believe it's misleading isn't enough to overturn an RFC/Discussion closing, that's classic WP:LOCALCON. Again, I'm assuming this was just a confusion, because otherwise the edit doesn't make sense, that's why editors are so fired up about it. Just10A (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That doesn't necessarily mean that the RFC found a consensus for Suriname0's wording.

::::That could mean:

::::* There was some text proposed.

::::* Some people supported that original proposed text.

::::* Some people preferred Suriname0's text to the original proposed text.

::::* There is an agreement to reject the original proposed text.

::::* But rejecting the original + agreeing to include something doesn't prove that there is an agreement to use Suriname0's text.

::::WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq| "But rejecting the original + agreeing to include something doesn't prove that there is an agreement to use Suriname0's text."}} But it doesn't say "something"? It says "Suriname's wording instead"? Are you arguing that Suriname's text does not have agreement to include from the closing? Just10A (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Just10A I'm not WAID, but I'm definitely saying that consensus to include Suriname's text is not a plausible conclusion to reach from the discussion. Attempts to wikilawyer the language of the close simply don't change that. Newimpartial (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Then challenge the close per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. I can't go off of NewImpartial's random opinion on the discussion. (As well as blatantly trying to revert the close, contrary to procedure [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_48&diff=prev&oldid=1294927522]). We go off of the close/consensus, not individual editors who are upset the community didn't see eye-to-eye with them. Just10A (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Just10A Why do you believe making closes within archives is an activity supported by community consensus? You have claimed that "admins have supported it", but (1) I've seen no evidence of that, and (2) even if an admin or two has said that, where's the support in policies, guidelines, or community decisions? Newimpartial (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Because it explicitly says so at the top the closure request noticeboard. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closure_requests] Just10A (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::To clarify: You shouldn't normally post closing summaries in the archives. You should normally un-archive the discussion and post the summary on the talk page.

::::::::::(The one generally accepted exception is if unarchiving the discussion would result in an overwhelmingly large talk page. In that case, the closer needs to make a near-heroic effort to make sure the closing statement is seen.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Just10A, some supporters of inclusion preferred Suriname0's wording and opposed the original wording. That might or might not mean that there is an overall consensus to use Suriname0's wording.

::::::Maybe an example using a simple vote would be easier to understand.

::::::* The US Senate currently has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 independents (100 total).

::::::* Imagine that there is a budget vote that falls strictly along party lines: 53 Republicans in favor, and everyone else against.

::::::* But now in my made-up example, imagine there are actually two questions to vote on:

::::::** The first vote is "Shall we pass a budget?", and that gets 53 votes in favor, so it passes.

::::::** The second vote is "Shall we adopt budget A or budget B?", and that one gets 13 votes for budget A and 40 votes for budget B.

::::::*** This means that only 40 out of 100 Senators voted for budget B, which (in the US Senate) is a losing vote count – even though they won the vote for "Shall we have a budget at all" plus budget B had far more votes than the alternative.

::::::I don't know whether that's what happened here. I'm only telling you that it seems like a grammatically sound reading of the sentence as written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I understand what you're saying, the issue is I don't think that's what the sentence says. Regardless, I guess he can just clarify (again lol). But we don't need to be being this pedantic (either side) about a closure in the first place, so it'll probably sort itself out. Just10A (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I can understand interpreting the sentence your way, too. I have no idea which is more likely, because I refuse to read the RFC discussion myself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks @Just10A for your comment- Yes, I think there was some confusion. I clarified my comment. I hope everyone can take a deep breath and try to focus on improving the page rather than specious allegations of edit warring.

::::Still, I do not agree with your characterization of Aaron Liu's closure message. And I do not agree that there is consensus to include Suriname0's wording.

::::The presence of all this confusion suggests that we need to achieve consensus on wording. For example, I think it needs to be made abundantly and immediately clear that this report was never published, it's not an official finding, there is no evidence provided for the conclusions, and claims about the report are attributed to unnamed sources. And feel free to let me know if any of my assessments are incorrect because I'm basing this from memory since I can't seem to get passed some paywalls right now. ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::1.) Please do not edit comments after they've been replied to. That's bad practice per WP:REDACT. 2.) It still doesn't make sense, you cited 1 quote from the closing about a totally different text (the one proposed at the start) and then cited another quote emphasizing that the entry needed to say the report was not published... but it already did that. Neither one of your cites or reasonings are applicable to the entry. Just10A (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::I support this. I would also note a lack of civility in their replies. 2600:1010:A016:C76D:9C7D:807C:F66B:17D9 (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:There may have been a consensus for inclusion, but not how. Untill that is decided, no version has consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Is that how RFCs work? You have the RFC then you have another long debate about how to include the material until anything can be added? I am not as experienced at Wiki as some of you all but this doesn't seem right to me. Ymerazu (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It's just that this discussion was shortsighted and did not discuss the wording much. That's not a problem for discussions where all the participants only discuss the same wording but here there was a substantial amount of different wordings proposed, enough so that you can't say there was consensus behind any wording, not to mention the bad wording at the start generated excess opposition.{{pb}}Usually what you're supposed to do is hash out the wording before starting an RfC and have the RfC only discuss whether to adopt the wording or not. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I appreciate this explanation, thanks. It seems like this isn't the optimal path so I hope it can reach a good resolution regardless. Ymerazu (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{RPA}} Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi @Hemiauchenia, this is the second time you've replied to me with personal attacks and nothing of substance related to the discussion. I understand you don't like me and question the value of my contributions. Now that it's noted, please lay off and take it elsewhere. Ymerazu (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{RPA}} Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is your 3rd time doing this, and you were warned last time. If you continue doing this you are going to be brought to AN. WP:FOC, if you think an editor is an WP:SPA, there's procedures for that. Just10A (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:I wouldn't be opposed to both the consensus required and 1RR restrictions. I've seen those two together get rid most disruption elsewhere. TarnishedPath^talk 10:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:All of these seem like a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::Enforced BRD isn't needed if consensus required restriction is in place as the later is a stronger restriction. TarnishedPath^talk 10:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Though I agree that just consensus-required is probably the best, are we sure that the edit war wasn't a one-off and restrictions are still necessary? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'm happy to keep an eye on this and see if the situation changes but given that we're around three days after the post-RFC close edit war and that it hasn't continued page editing restrictions probably aren't needed at this point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :@Callanecc, thanks for the offer. I don't keep a close eye on this article, and I'd be happy to leave it to you. I don't want bigger restrictions than we need, so if this turns out to be a one-time blip, then that's great. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)