Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

{{atopg

| result = Procedural close as this discussion already concluded with a consensus outcome. TarnishedPath^talk 16:33, 27 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)
• :::::@2A00:23C8:5304:F501:31E9:9F89:994E:D04F to the best of my understanding, the policy text to which you linked says nothing against editors reading primary sources or asking for links to them. I agree that statements in article text should be based on independent sources, but I wasn't asking about sourcing for article text. (The IP was making statements that might make more sense if they had access to the leaked source, itself, hence my question.) Newimpartial (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::FYI this thing has already been included. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 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}}

{{abot}}

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)

The author of this WP:OPINION piece in the WP:GUARDIAN highlights just how biased our article is, particularly in its MOS:WEASELly framing of the topic as a rightwing issue, largely relying on outdated sources. Her strongest point is that such framing is actually harmful to science, a concern that has repeatedly been raised on this talk page without resolution [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_34#Assertion_regarding_racism_is_unsupported] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_38#Assertion_regarding_racism_unsupported] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_27#%22Informed_by_racist_undercurrents%22] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_32#%22informed_by_racist_undercurrents%22_redux] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_46#Request_for_ECP_on_talk_page_declined] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_35#New_Cell_paper].

This Guardian Oped author has been cited on the subject by reliable sources such as The New York Times [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/magazine/covid-start.html] and The Atlantic [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/lab-leak-covid-origin-coincidence-wet-market/620794/], and has written extensively on it in MIT Tech Review [https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/11/19/1040390/covid-wuhan-natural-spillover-wuhan-wet-market-huanan/?s=03] and Scientific American [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-woman-hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/], including a piece already cited in our article [https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/02/09/1044985/shi-zhengli-covid-lab-leak-wuhan/], demonstrating her relevance as a subject-matter expert on both the origins and the racial framing of the debate.

Her writing has consistently leaned toward natural origin and critiqued many pro-lab-leak reports. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:31E9:9F89:994E:D04F (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:More newspaper silliness. Anyway this article doesn't say LL is "just a rightwing conspiracy", though of course the LL world contains quite a few conspiracy theories of all kinds. As ever, lean on the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't understand your point. We don't call it a right-wing conspiracy theory, none of your sources say this article is biased or weaselly, the Guardian article doesn't mention Wikipedia, where's the beef? O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::Predictably, actual scientists are giving [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/25/covid-lab-leak-theory-right-conspiracy-science the piece] short shrift[https://bsky.app/profile/ggronvall.bsky.social/post/3lsjpmfvuds2r][https://bsky.app/profile/angierasmussen.bsky.social/post/3lsgpvv7rcs2m]. As ever, the discourse surges as the media scrabbles for clicks, but the WP:SCHOLARSHIP and science is more circumspect, and needs to the basis of our content. This is meant to be a serious enyclopedia. Bon courage (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)