Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Omit - For multiple reasons:

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

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

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

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

:* WP:UNDUE, in a nutshell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{reftalk}}

{{edit fully-protected|COVID-19 lab leak theory|answered=yes}}

I propose to better explain the CIA's January 2025 assessment. For example, I can't seem to find a copy of a "CIA report", so propose to change "the CIA released a report" to "the CIA released a statement".

Existing text:

{{tq2|1=In January 2025, the CIA released a report which concluded that the virus likely originated from a lab. The report had been created at the behest of the Biden administration and then CIA director William Burns, and was declassified by John Ratcliffe. The agency stated that it had "low confidence" in the conclusion, and that other scenarios such as a natural origin remain plausible.{{cite web | last=Press | first=Associated | title=CIA now backs lab leak theory to explain origins of Covid-19 | website=The Guardian | date=2025-01-26 | url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/26/cia-now-backs-lab-leak-theory-to-explain-origins-of-covid-19 | access-date=2025-01-26}}{{cite web | title=CIA says Covid-19 probably leaked from Chinese laboratory | website=Financial Times | date=2025-01-26 | url=https://www.ft.com/content/9880273c-8517-4502-abf0-e667319ea6bd | access-date=2025-01-26}}{{cite web | last=Honderich | first=Holly | title=Covid-19: CIA says lab leak most likely source of outbreak | website=BBC News | date=2025-01-26 | url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9qjjj4zy5o | access-date=2025-01-26}}{{cite web | last=De Luce | first=Dan | title=CIA shifts assessment on Covid origins, saying lab leak likely caused outbreak | website=NBC News | date=2025-01-25 | url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/cia-shifts-assessment-covid-origins-saying-lab-leak-likely-caused-outb-rcna189284}}}}

Proposed:

{{tq2|1=In January 2025, the CIA released a statement that concluded that the virus likely originated from a lab. The assessment had been created at the behest of the Biden administration and then CIA director William Burns. It was declassified by Burns's successor, John Ratcliffe, a proponent of the lab leak hypothesis. The agency stated that it had "low confidence" in the conclusion, and that other scenarios such as a natural origin remain plausible. The assessment was not based on new data, and no evidence was provided to support the conclusions.{{cite web |last1=Débarre |first1=Florence |title=The ‘lab-leak origin’ of Covid-19. Fact or fiction? |url=https://theconversation.com/the-lab-leak-origin-of-covid-19-fact-or-fiction-250462 |website=The Conversation |access-date=19 March 2025 |date=25 February 2025}}[Keep other refs the same, but note that Financial times I can't read due to paywall.]}} ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:The last sentence might qualify as opinion per WP:THECONVERSATION, but I'm not particularly familiar with it. Also, it would probably be better to just directly say what the assessment is vs what it is not, just because it's generally better writing. Something more akin to what was written in the Guardian, like: {{tq| "Instead of new evidence, the conclusion was based on fresh analyses of intelligence about the spread of the virus, its scientific properties and the work and conditions of China’s virology labs.}} Either way, it's all minor. Just10A (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Saying "The last sentence might qualify as opinion per WP:THECONVERSATION" misrepresents or misunderstands WP:THECONVERSATION, which says "The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. It is generally reliable for subjects in the authors' areas of expertise.", which clearly applies here. JaggedHamster (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::1.) I think you misinterpreted what I said. What I (and I think the perennial source list) meant was that The Conversation, like some other publications, does not have a dedicated opinion section, so we don't necessarily know when it's an op-ed or when it's not, so we have to discern. That's relevant since we're balancing it with other sources.

:::2.) Given there's clearly a discussion going on about it with multiple editors, I suggest you self-rev per WP:QUO. I think you'd agree it applies here. Just10A (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:I prefer the existing sentence, as Just10A said, is summarizes what the assessment says, not what it doesn't say High Tinker (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::It is vital to state that CIA has not provided any evidence to support its claims, which are contrary to the consensus of experts and all available facts. In addition, it is highly relevant that the CIA leader who released the assessment is a proponent of the lab leak hypothesis. Therefore, I disagree with @Just10A's wholesale [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1281684738 reversion] of my edit. I'm fine with adjusting citations. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::My "wholesale reversion", was just normal WP:QUO procedure, not a complete rejection of any copy editing possibilities. Just10A (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:I prefer the existing text as per Just10A and High Tinker above. Also, I think you based parts of your changes on the following excerpt from the Débarre article: “According to The New York Times, the CIA’s revised assessment is based not on new evidence, but on a reinterpretation of existing data. However, the reasoning behind its reassessment, along with the supporting data, have not been made public, making it impossible to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the agency’s conclusions”. Wouldn’t it be better to refer to the original source, i.e. cite the New York Times with respect to the allegations that the CIA did not base their assessment on new data? I wasn’t able to find such statement in the New York Times and the link in the Débarre article gives a page not found disclaimer. In any case, if one does not know the contents of the CIA assessment, how can one affirm that it is not based on new data? Additionally, what does “new data” mean? In relation to what or when is the term “new” employed? Because of the previous reasons and this, I think the proposed version is problematic and dubious. Regards, 2804:7F4:323D:41E:788E:C438:83C4:2133 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• The new text is necessary because it summarizes the sources we're using - the Guardian says {{tq|The finding is not the result of any new intelligence}}, extremely prominently; the BBC source says {{tq|But officials told US media that the new assessment was not based on new intelligence and predates the Trump administration}}; NBC says {{tq|The CIA’s assessment was not based on new intelligence but on analysts reviewing existing information, a source familiar with the matter told NBC News}} and {{tq|Ratcliffe has long argued that the virus most likely emerged from a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology}}; and the BBC says {{tq|But officials told US media that the new assessment was not based on new intelligence and predates the Trump administration}} - every single source we are currently citing states this, yet we were omitting that fact in a way that potentially misled readers into believing that there was new intelligence. All of the objections above seem to ignore this fact - the sources we were previously using clearly stated and prominently it was not based on new intelligence, so we can't rely on those sources without stating it. The alternative to including that aspect would be to remove the paragraph entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq| "All of the objections above seem to ignore this fact"}}. I literally quoted the Guardian (same source you used) and included in the quote that it's not based on new intelligence. Go back and reread. Just10A (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Aquillion, thanks for your reply. I agree that the fact that no new data was used is appropriately and abundantly sourced; my issue is with the last sentence. First, “not based on new data” is taken with respect to what? I suppose it is the data used in the previous CIA assessment/report, but I could not find this clearly stated in any reference. If that is the case, we need to make sure to state the period in which the current assessment was carried out and, when saying that it is not based on new data, to state that this is wrt the previous CIA assessment with the period in which it was conducted. If we do not have sources for that, we should then strike it altogether because it is not clear. Second, claiming that “no evidence was provided to support the conclusions” is non neutral because we are talking about a CIA assessment and not the report that led to it. They decided to release the assessment without evidence, which is understandable because they cannot out their sources, among many other reasons. Talking about evidence there is misleading because it implies that the conclusion to which the CIA arrived was not based on any evidence, and we cannot even imply that because we do not have the report and it is also not realistic [edit: i.e., one would assume a top notch intelligence agency, coming to such assessment under Biden, would have at least some evidence to base their assessment on]. Given the previous issues, I think the last sentence should either be rewritten or replaced by Just10A’s suggestion, which in my view is more accurate, less biased and appropriately sourced. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:F521:7C83:B788:FC48 (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:@ScienceFlyer, I agree with you that no report was released to the public and I think so does Just10A and we can keep most of your edit. However, you have already pushed your version twice against the BRD policy and two editors pointed out to you that they find the last sentence is problematic and non neutral. Instead of pushing repeatedly maybe you could participate in this discussion. In my opinion, simply saying “no evidence was provided to support the conclusions” is misleading because an assessment release is not a report; it is not an adequate medium for presenting any evidence and none are expected. Therefore in my opinion this part should be rewritten, maybe saying that the report (together with the evidence used to reach such assessment, if any) was never released to the public. There is also the fact that “new data” is imprecise, and if there is no source that is precise enough to state what this “new” is relative to, then we should just strike it. What do you think about this? Thanks. 189.26.53.247 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::@ScienceFlyer Have you not read WP:QUO or WP:NOCON? Either can apply. Whichever one you choose, please stop trying to edit war this in. Just10A (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Just10A I have removed the entire paragraph in question, since there is clearly no consensus about how to include it. QUO is not a license for any editor to insist on their favorite version, where no stable version has ever existed. Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::1.)It’s not my preferred version. Its the one called for by both QUO and NOCON (which is a license to restore it to the previous version, as dictated by policy). Quo is an essay, NOCON is not, I was citing both just for abundance. (Also, that paragraph had sat there stably for a month plus??)

::::2.) This is fine, as long as it’s not being shoehorned in and policy is being followed, we’re good. We can workshop it and re-add it. Just10A (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::You should revert your removal. That was content whose inclusion had already been pacified, so much so that the current post treats it as an existing version and proposed a change on top of it. No one has proposed to remove that entire paragraph so far in this discussion. This is clear disruptive behavior on your part. If you want to take it out, propose it in the talk page. This is the general rule around here; or is it only valid when one attempts to add information that gives credit to the lab leak theory? Also, read the report by the Académie nationale de médecine below (an editor tried to DISCUSS it before adding it in the text, otherwise it would have been reverted, as you should know by now). These are respected and reputable epidemiologists and virologists, who when discussing the particular subject of this article did clearly mention the CIA assessment in their report. So it is clearly DUE, unless you consider yourself a better arbiter of that than those specialists. 2804:7F4:323D:387D:3169:FF8B:4A12:437B (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@2804:7F4:323D:387D:3169:FF8B:4A12:437B I'd like to see evidence for {{tq|That was content whose inclusion had already been pacified}} before reverting. I understand that those objecting to inclusion

:::::consider the shorter version to be a stable status quo, but I have not seen any evidence for consensus on this point. (The fact that one editor has attempted to balance the short version by adding content to make it longer is not evidence of consensus that the short version is fine on its own.)

:::::One approach to the situation would be to hold an RfC, offering the shorter and longer versions as alternatives. Newimpartial (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Actually, upon review, this paragraph seems to have sat almost untouched since late January (and through many other edits to the page) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1271935454]. (This was the main edit, was minorly adjusted for one day after then stopped). I do think that a reasonable person would consider that long enough to be the "stable version."

:::::Regardless, I think this is a pretty minor point. We can just make adjustments and re-add the workshopped version provided it's done pretty soon, I just wanted to state that so that there wouldn't be any confusion about the *broad* paragraph having consensus down the road. Just10A (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::This could work, pretty much just the RS:

::::::In January 2025, the CIA released a statement that concluded that the virus likely originated from a lab. The assessment had been created at the behest of the Biden administration and then CIA director William Burns, and was declassified by Burns's successor, John Ratcliffe. The agency stated that it had "low confidence" in the conclusion, and that other scenarios such as a natural origin remain plausible. The conclusion was not based on any new evidence, but on fresh analyses of intelligence about the spread of the virus, its scientific properties and the work and conditions of China’s virology labs. Just10A (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Just10A what is the source for {{tq|The conclusion was (based) on fresh analysis of intelligence about the spread of the virus...}} etc.? And how is the basis of the conclusion presented in other sources? Newimpartial (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It is almost a direct quote from the Guardian article:

::::::::{{tq| "Instead of new evidence, the conclusion was based on fresh analyses of intelligence about the spread of the virus, its scientific properties and the work and conditions of China’s virology labs."}} Just10A (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@ScienceFlyer What are you doing? You've been tagged twice in this discussion and are ignoring it, but are reverting edits in article space? You are blatantly ignoring policy and guidelines. If you have an issue, you should edit the paragraph posted or should raise it when you were tagged here to explicitly discuss a new version. Just10A (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Just10A I'm concerned about plagiarism of at least 22 words from The Guardian, which warranted an immediate revert. Also, I saw no consensus for your proposed changes.

::::::::::If you'd like another explicit statement about my opinion: I stand by keeping Florence Débarre's "The Conversation" article as a source. She is an expert, and there seems to be a lack of published expert opinion on the CIA statement. I also think it must be explicitly said that (1) the new CIA director is a lab leak proponent and (2) no evidence was provided to support the CIA's conclusion. The proposed, mostly plagiarized sentence {{tq|"The conclusion was not based on any new evidence but on fresh analyses of intelligence about the spread of the virus, its scientific properties, and the work and conditions of China’s virology labs."}} seems like irrelevant fluff anyway and I'm not sure why it's necessary. In summary, I'm not sure what the problem was with the version [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1283767818 you removed], so I stand by it.

::::::::::To clarify some history: My edit was proposed on March 19, added on March 21, and existed for 12 days until April 3. I would appreciate it if you would pound the facts, rather than either making dubious attempts to pound what you think is the law and to [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pound_the_table pound the table]. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::First of all, stop accusing me of plagiarism. It's a single sentence, and it's not even the same. The reason it's largely similar is because it's listing factors. Obviously the "list of reasons why they made the decision" is going to be the same, and the source is immediately cited. That's not plagiarism per WP:PLAGFORMS. We can just even attribute it if you feel that uncomfortable.

:::::::::::Secondly, Debarre is an expert in evolutionary biology not an expert in what the CIA said, which is the point of the section/paragraph. We can include her, but she's not really special. This isn't a MEDRs issue.

:::::::::::Lastly, this: {{tq|"to clarify some history: My edit was proposed on March 19, added on March 21, and existed for 12 days until April 3."}} is frankly laughable. You're *conveniently* leaving out that the edit was immediately disputed on March 21st, reverted, then reinstated despite being contrary to WP: NOCON (policy) (as pointed out by multiple editors, both here and on my own talk page), and allowed to stay only while it was being discussed because people knew it would soon be resolved and didn't care enough to edit war you back.

:::::::::::Regardless, I really do not care. I'm trying to get this issue squared away. On that basis:

:::::::::::{{tq|"In January 2025, the CIA released a statement that concluded that the virus likely originated from a lab. The assessment had been created at the behest of the Biden administration and then CIA director William Burns, and was declassified by Burns's successor, John Ratcliffe, who favors the lab leak theory. The agency stated that it had "low confidence" in the conclusion, and that other scenarios such as a natural origin remain plausible. The conclusion was not based on any new evidence, but on analyses of existing intelligence about the spread of the virus, its scientific properties, and the work and conditions of China’s virology labs." }}

:::::::::::We can add in-line Guardian attribution if need be.

:::::::::::How do people feel about this? Just10A (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::That version looks good to me. Ratgomery (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::@Just10A Thanks for your revised suggested text. The piece in The Guardian, which was reported by the Associated Press, still has too many words that overlap with your proposal (at least 19 in a row, see [https://www.diffchecker.com/xgMCMlXo/ diff]). I'd say if there's demand to have that section (which I think is unnecessary due to wordiness), then just quote the whole thing per WP:PLAGFORMS and credit the AP.

::::::::::::Florence Debarre [https://theconversation.com/the-lab-leak-origin-of-covid-19-fact-or-fiction-250462 comments] on the CIA's statement:

::::::::::::{{tq2|However, the reasoning behind its reassessment, along with the supporting data, have not been made public, making it impossible to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the agency’s conclusions.}}

::::::::::::So I think it's a good source for an important statement "No evidence was provided to support the CIA's conclusion." This is a fact that she pointed out. And yes she is an expert on COVID and its origins, as shown by her [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=debarre+F%5Bau%5D&sort=date&size=200 publication history]. But, indeed, it doesn't take an expert to explicitly point out that the CIA did not release any evidence for its extraordinary claims. I look forward to more feedback. ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::{{tq| "In January 2025, the CIA released a statement that concluded that the virus likely originated from a lab. The assessment had been created at the behest of the Biden administration and then CIA director William Burns, and was declassified by Burns's successor, John Ratcliffe, who favors the lab leak theory. The agency stated that it had "low confidence" in the conclusion, and that other scenarios such as a natural origin remain plausible. The Associated Press stated that the conclusion was not based on any new evidence, but on analyses of existing intelligence about the spread of the virus, its scientific properties, and the work and conditions of China’s virology labs."}} Just10A (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Last call? Just10A (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Looks fine to me. PricklyPorcupine (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I think that's way too much WP:WEIGHT. I think the current sentence {{tq|In 2025, The CIA concluded that the coronavirus is "more likely" to have leaked from a Chinese lab than to have come from animals, although the agency has "low confidence" in the conclusion.}} is a more appropriate weight for this. One sentence maximum. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::{{outdent|0}} Agree with NL's version, one sentence is more than enough for this news. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I continue to object to this proposal. The last sentence is overly long and misses the vital point: No evidence to support the CIA's conclusion. ScienceFlyer (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Wikipedia cites sources, not evidence. 70.158.101.137 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Yeaaaah, this is way too much weight placed on the pro-lab leak perspective, more than is warranted by these sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Yeaaaah the result of this talk is already settled and in the article. I don't have a problem with NL's version. If you're gonna make a prick-ish/dismissive comment, at least don't be stupid about it. Just10A (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::It should also be noted that this report was prepared under the Biden admin, as RS report. For example, the BBD says {{tq|The review was reportedly ordered in the closing weeks of the Biden administration and completed before Trump took office on Monday}} [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9qjjj4zy5o]. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:8C20:CC1E:1C42:30AC (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

Today, from U.S. Right to Know - [https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/dia-analysis-covid-may-have-come-from-wuhan-lab/ US intelligence agency’s classified analysis offers detailed scientific view that COVID-19 may have come from Wuhan lab].

Newly FOIA'd documents from DIA - DIA had proper scientific analysis supporting plausibility of LL. Conflicts with Andersen Proximal Origins paper. Also offers rebuttal of source [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lab-leak-intelligence-reports-arent-scientific-conclusions/ [164]] (an op-ed anyways, no reason to be cited as is). This should be included under the U.S. Intelligence header.

Analysis was not directly attributed, but likely done by DIA and National Center for Medical Intelligence scientists Jean-Peal Chretier and Robert G. Cutlip, who previously authored a similar [https://drasticresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/an-argument-against-natural-covid-19-creation-copy-2.pdf now declassified paper] found by DRASTIC in Aug. 2023 and reported on by Washington Times [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/aug/30/inside-ring-report-dia-spy-arm-ignored-covid-19-or/]. Not sure if this one has been adjudicated yet, but should also be included.

Some insight to calm the frequently expressed doubts as to how these Intel agencies are coming to these conclusions. I assumed it was a foregone conclusion that the U.S. security state has access to some pretty top notch researchers. I don't know why anyone would doubt that the U.S. gov does not have a highly motivating interest in knowing that their intelligence info is based in some form of actual relevant evidence. Jibolba (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Another nothingburger in a another FRINGE source. We need to build articles on quality, reliable sources. And we have plenty of those. Bon courage (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::Didja read it? Jibolba (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Editors are reminded this is a WP:CTOP, and trolling questions fall afoul of the standards required. Bon courage (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The question was legitimate and not trolling, but I can see that my diction may appear charged. In other words:

::::Did you read the article and, if so, what leads you to the conclusion that it is "FRINGE"? I have difficulty understanding how anything in the article/declassified documents could be characterized this way.

::::The term "fringe" seems to have taken on a distorted meaning, wherein the statements of PhD researchers on behalf of the U.S. government are, by some contrivance, fringe. Documents obtained by FOIA are fringe. Jibolba (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::More impertinence. When an editor ventures a judgement on a piece, asking back if they've "read it" is trolling or an accusation of impropriety. The web site you linked is chock-full of antiscience misinformation (including long rants on Glyphosate, GMOs, and even fluffing of Russell Brand), so we are not going to be using it, as it falls way below the minimum standard for Wikipedia. This is basic. Bon courage (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Not to accept a source because other articels on the same platform are bad? What policy is that? Could be useful in another context. Alexpl (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Err, the core policy that says material must be verified to RS (i.e. sources must have a good reputation). We're not going to be using notorious misinformation sites, as Wikipedia doesn't want to become a laughing stock. Bon courage (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::So the subjective impression, that other stuff on a platform is "substandard" will not do, especially if written by a different author. Not helpful. Alexpl (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Not really, this is a very well-known antiscience lobby group and so simply not the kind of source Wikipedia uses (the straining on this page to use shit sources when so many good ones have been published, is a wonder to behold!) If you really think USRTK is the kind of "reliable source" Wikipedia should be using, WP:RSN is thataway. Bon courage (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::At first glance, their website seems legitimate enough. They aren't listed at WP:RSP, but are mentioned once in the noticeboard archives, with one editor calling them an " an anti-GMO advocacy group" in 2015. Are there any specific pieces you can point to that demonstrate that they are anti-science? Poppa shark (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Just need to read it, it's obvious. I notice they were mentioned in the context of LL conspiracy theories already.[https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-lab-leak-hypothesis-for-the-origin-of-sars-cov-2/] Bon courage (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::You also should note that one of the papers this article you cited uses to justify such a strong preference for natural zoonosis is very flawed. In Pekar et al., first they had reported a Bayes factor of 60 to support double spillover, with a threshold of 10 for significance. Then, after a statistician from DRASTIC pointed out several mistakes in their computer code for running simulations, the corrected Bayes factor went down to 4.3 and they had to arbitrarily lower their threshold down to 3.2 in order to keep the significance of the result and not change their main conclusions in their erratum. Does that seem like serious science to you? Plus, [https://michaelweissman.substack.com/p/explanation-of-and-comments-on-mccowans that paper is full of flawed logics and reasoning]. Some editors seem to be very quick at dismissing certain kinds of sources, but very slow at looking critically at the sources purported to be “real science”, choosing instead to believe them blindly. 2804:18:1903:9E0A:CC69:D79E:E567:F04C (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::That's just somebody's blog. You need a peer-reviewed source to dispute the statistics in a peer-reviewed paper. Not a substack. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::[https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-lab-leak-hypothesis-for-the-origin-of-sars-cov-2/ This] is also just a blog and I was refuting exactly the use of such reference (to invalidate USRTK) because it isn’t up to date and it is misleading. Also, the statistics have already been properly disputed, under peer-review, and the paper had to be fixed with an erratum. [https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337 See here right at the top], if you don’t believe me. These are not just some fools saying BS on a substack. These are matters still undergoing revision/validation (because any scientist knows peer-review is not an attestation of the correctness and soundness of a paper’s arguments, it is just a starting point and the real validation occurs with time and interest from the community). Once again, very quick to dismiss. 177.173.209.92 (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::No. Science Based Medicine has staff, an editorial policy and all the hallmarks of an actual, you know, online periodical. It isn't some random guy's substack. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Really? Then why don’t we use it as a reference in the COVID-19 lab leak theory article? Maybe you could add it. (It isn’t a random guy. His group actually identified wrong simulations in Pekar and made the authors redo their work.) 2804:18:1903:9E0A:CC69:D79E:E567:F04C (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::It is used. And used well. Bon courage (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::According to WP:SBM: {{tq|There is a general consensus that at least some articles on Science-Based Medicine can be considered self-published, and substantial disagreement over whether the site's editorial control is adequate, with even some partial supports acknowledging that material on the site may not be substantially reviewed if reviewed at all. As such, material from this site should be used with caution, probably with attribution, and should not on its own be used to support negative or controversial content in BLPs. Particular articles from the site may still be reliable on the basis of self-published sources by experts; those should be considered on an individual basis.}}

::::::::::::::::::Not really what @Simonm223 painted it to be, especially for dismissing a self-published substack post by an expert in statistics. 2804:7F4:323D:8F80:C43B:48D9:18B9:8D69 (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Not the Weissmann substack again. Sheesh, you'd hope editors would have at least a clue about sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I could say the same for the skeptical blog you used above. I was obviously not suggesting to push that blog to mainspace, I was using it to show it to you that matters are not that settled in the science of the main papers supporting natural zoonosis, but I rest my case. Keep up the good work. 177.173.209.92 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::See WP:SBM. But yes, crazy stuff exists on Substack{{snd}}how on Earth is that relevant to editing Wikipedia articles? Bon courage (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Lets be clear, whether or not the white coat waste, or whatever its called, is a disreputable source, the actual document source is the US government via FOIA. It seems to me that is still a reliable source (although I would be wary of US government sources subject to pressure from the current executive) EmaNyton (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I wouldn't expect that an editor with your tenure should need to have WP:RS explained to them but, no, if other articles on that website share medical misinformation then the whole website is unreliable for medical information. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Let me see if I understand correctly: if a source "share[s] medical misinformation" on other unrelated articles then the whole website is unreliable for medical information. Did I get that right? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Yes. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::USRTK is not doing any in-house science here. They are reporting on documents they have obtained which were authored by highly respected, mainstream scientists [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Cutlip][https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Paul-Chretien]. Nothing in this specific article is misinformation. Jibolba (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Again, this is basic. The WP:DAILYMAIL publishes accurate content often, but because of its bad content is what Wikipedia calls a "unreliable source" so is never used for anything. Our readers need to have assurance that content here rests on sources with reasonable reputations. Again, when we have scholarly book chapters, expert commentary, and journal articles on this topic, the push to use appalling sources is simply astonishing. WP:POVSOURCING I suppose. Bon courage (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I would venture more generally that if a source cannot be relied upon (to, e.g., not publish misinformation), that is in fact the very definition of unreliable (formed from the prefix un-, the verb rely, and the suffix -able, meaning, "not able to be relied upon"). Guidance is available to help determine whether a source (which could be a publisher, creator or specific work) could or couldn't be relied upon. I'm not sure if that was a serious question, but if it was, I hope this answered it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|whining about editor behavior that is out of place here}}

::::::::::Comments like "Pretty shocking to see this in a non-newbie" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1284779820] and "I wouldn't expect that an editor with your tenure should need to have WP:RS explained to them but" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1284908480#] are not appropriate for talk page discussions. They are disrespectful and, in the context of a content dispute, may be construed as WP:PA. 122.3.203.139 (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::WP:PEARLCLUTCHING and WP:SOCKING are also best avoided. Bon courage (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Sure, there's WP:PEARLCLUTCHING, but there's just being unnecessarily rude which I think you're doing now, @Bon courage.

::::::::::::Is everything alright? People are being super patient and earnest and you're shutting them down in a really uncharitable dismissive way. Is this the kind of conduct you think makes Wikipedia a better place? 162.222.63.62 (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

::DIA is now a Fringe source? EmaNyton (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Intelligence agencies are not reliable sources. Even if the guy who determines who leads them and who tells them what to do is not a felon and a pathological liar, they will not necessarily say what is true but what they want people to believe for whatever reasons. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Indeed, American spooks are not[https://www.jpost.com/archaeology/archaeology-around-the-world/article-847774] sources of knowledge, which is why we need sensible WP:SCHOLARSHIP to make sense of their emissions. Bon courage (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Mutatis mutandis can be said of many other organizations that are used as sources.

::::Fauci has admitted to saying things for, as you put it "what they want people to believe for whatever reasons" - whether with good intentions ( eg. to preserve mask supply for health care professionals) or otherwise. Shall all NIH-linked sources be considered unreliable as well?

::::If this is a directive from "the guy who determines who leads them and who tells them what to do", then why haven't all of the agencies supported it with strong confidence? What of the agencies that supported the Lab Leak prior to that guy taking power? EmaNyton (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is about whether an intelligence agency is a reliable source. Your whataboutism does not matter. Read WP:RS. You will not find any spies mentioned there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Nyton's "whataboutism" is perfectly reasonable here. There's a blatant double standard at play here. Jibolba (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If you say so, it must be true. Back to article improving please. No spies in WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think you're missing the issue of WP:DUE. The issue isn't whether DIA itself is a reliable source. The issue is whether their position is one of {{tq|significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources.}} Similar with the CIA report, it's not about whether we think the CIA is RS, it's about whether the CIA's viewpoint is being prominently covered by other orgs that are RS. That's the issue here, not whether DIA itself is in RS.

::::::::If you, in your personal capacity as an editor, are trying to exclude something that is being reported by RS because your personal analysis conflicts with the RS, then what you are doing is WP:OR. Now, if you want to argue that the DIA report isn't featured prominently enough in RS to warrant inclusion (which might very well be the case), or should be excluded based on WP:VNOT, then do that. But being snarky and then arguing whether there are {{ tq|"spies in WP:RS"}} just shows you're totally missing the issue. Just10A (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Trying to pass of either the CIA or DIA as being significant viewpoints is erroneous. They are WP:FRINGE positions as evidenced by the positions in review articles from MEDLINE-indexed scientific journals. TarnishedPath^talk 00:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::That’s completely dependent on what RS says, not us. Just10A (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Well, obviously and a reading of review articles from MEDLINE-indexed scientific journals clearly indicates that the positions of CIA or DIA are WP:FRINGE. TarnishedPath^talk 06:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Cool. Again, that's a totally different argument than {{tq|"whether an intelligence agency is a reliable source"}}. That's "how is the opinion of the intelligence agency treated by RS," not whether it is itself RS. We're not disagreeing. Stop being argumentative. Just10A (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I'm not discussing whether they are reliable sources because it's not relevant. I'm using the relevant WP policy and guidelines concerning whether the content is covered. Reminder to WP:AGF, and not accuse others of being argumentative for the sake of it, given the warnings given to you on your user talk. TarnishedPath^talk 10:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::{{tq|"I'm not discussing whether they are reliable sources because it's not relevant. I'm using the relevant WP policy and guidelines concerning whether the content is covered"}} Great. They weren't doing that. They were arguing over whether it was a reliable source. Again, we're not in disagreement. No need to debate.

::::::::::::::Also, the only person here who's had an official AE warning for incivility here is, ironically, you. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2024]. I think they got the message though, we’re good here. Just10A (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::What is {{tq|ironic}} is bringing up a warning predating your account creation, for an editor who has been here eighteen years, which itself could be considered uncivil. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::"I've been here since dial-up. Not acknowledging that is uncivil".

::::::::::::::::You can consider whatever you want, but there is no need to try humbling others by throwing the age of anyone's account around. It is completely irrelevant. This is not an uptime contest. Stick to the point. Zp112 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I would never use the age of an account as a humbling mechanism. Did you read the post I was responding to? Just10A was trying to humble another editor and I simply pointed out the irony -- a word they themself used. Isn't irony ironic? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::My AE civility warning has exactly nothing to do with this discussion. You on the other hand are telling an editor (me) to {{tq|Stop being argumentative}} and that there is {{tq|No need to debate}}. Your current behaviour needs to cease. TarnishedPath^talk 00:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Just10A noted that the CIA, FBI, and DIA represent significant viewpoints under WP:DUE. You dismissed them as "fringe" based on vague references to MEDLINE-indexed reviews, then sidetracked the discussion about unrelated talk page warnings. Let’s refocus on the topic at hand: government-attributed views published in reliable sources are clearly DUE. Peer-reviewed papers offering alternative interpretations don’t negate their relevance. None rule out the lab leak theory, which is why the article refers to it as a “theory”, not a fact or a hoax. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:8C20:CC1E:1C42:30AC (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::@2A00:23C8:5304:F501:8C20:CC1E:1C42:30AC I find this "significant viewpoint" argument difficult to parse in the present context. The "significance" of intelligence agency statatements on a matter for which they lack relevant evidence us more in the nature of Agitprop than informed commentary, in my view.

:::::::::::::::::And in the specific instances we are primarily discussing now, additional attention brought recently to positions staked out by intelligence agencies in 2020 and 2021 cannot make the viewpoints they promote more important or plausible; not when we have more recent sources with higher quality information.

:::::::::::::::::This might seem more clear if we imagine a scenario where, in response to the most recent specialist articles about Dark Matter, low-quality sources were to go back and republish quotes from non-astrophysicists made prior to the most recent publications. Popular science publications might amplify these statements even if, as in the case of some of the agencies we are discussing, they no longer reflected the views of their authors.

:::::::::::::::::In my hypothetical as in this case, superficial sources might present these older viewpoints though their advocates were rebutting the most recent findings. But in establishing WP:DUE, I believe we would largely ignore such sources. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::You might personally believe that intelligence agencies aren't relevant to this topic, but when multiple RS publish and discuss their viewpoints, those views become significant under WP:DUE. Their inclusion in the article would be minimal and proportionate to coverage. It's that simple. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:8C20:CC1E:1C42:30AC (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::{{tq|when multiple RS publish and discuss their viewpoints, those views become significant under WP:DUE}}

:::::::::::::::::::This is an erroneous reading of Wikipedia policy and @Newimpartial's hyperthetical example is exactly on point.

:::::::::::::::::::Per WP:DUE:

:::::::::::::::::::{{tq|Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.}} (emphasis mine)

:::::::::::::::::::When we look at sources we should be looking at the quality of the sources to determine if they have weight or if they are WP:FRINGE. You argue above that a report simply getting into the news cycle and having a bunch of WP:RS report on what is being stated in the report gives it weight. This could not be more incorrect. A FRINGE viewpoibnt does not cease to be FRINGE simply because it is widely reported on in RS. If a viewpoint is contradicted by the very best sources (in this circumstance a reading of review articles from MEDLINE-indexed scientific journals) it will remain FRINGE regardless of the coverage in RS. TarnishedPath^talk 00:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::Per WP:DUE, significance is based on prominence in reliable sources, not scientific consensus. Including a mention of this DIA report with proper attribution isn’t undue weight, it’s proper representation. This article is about the lab leak theory, and regardless of whether you consider it "fringe" or not, we have RS contributing subject matter to include here. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:8C20:CC1E:1C42:30AC (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::Once again you're patently wrong. TarnishedPath^talk 03:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::That's your opinion. RS say it’s notable. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:8C20:CC1E:1C42:30AC (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::We're not discussing notability. TarnishedPath^talk 09:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::@TarnishedPath to be fair, "Promotion of lab leak conspiracy theories by intelligence agencies" probably is a topic that meets the WP:GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::Can all the people pushing to put the spy agency opinions into this article please just go and read WP:MEDRS so they can get on the same page as the rest of us about what actually constitutes a reliable source for matters of epidemiology? This has been going in circles for more than a month now. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::Including attributed statements from spy agencies doesn't require MEDRS. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:B532:448C:982D:24A7 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::Also: "...who created something or where it was created is historical information" (From the closing comments of the May 2021 RFC at the top of the talk page).

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::The intelligence reports are mostly concerned with the virus origins, so MEDRS is not required. Ymerazu (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::@Ymerazu while what you say is technically correct, intelligence agencies offering their opinions about the origins of the virus without a basis in evidence do not offer {{tq|historical information}} in the sense of the RfC close, although their opinions are themselves "historical information" in the sense of an historical artifact without external validity. Newimpartial (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::Who told you MEDRS is required in this case? We are not discussing the suspicious use of the CGG codon to encode arginine in the furin cleavage site insert -- a codon that is extremely rare in coronaviruses but commonly used in lab constructs. Zp112 (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::Where did they state that WP:MEDRS sourcing was required? TarnishedPath^talk 02:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::@Newimpartial I agree that it is something that probably meets GNG. However GNG is not the relevent policy in determining how much of this article should be dedicated to it.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::I've argued elsewhere that if the material is to be covered in the article then the whole section should be refactored so that there is no net increase in prose dedicated to the musings of intelligence agencies. Otherwise if we continusually include material from intelligence agencies every time there is reporting in RS, we will end up with continusually increasing prose dedicated to it and that would be WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPath^talk 00:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Include in the Political, academic and media attention section along with the FBI, DOE and CIA reports. USRTK is a good RS for an FOIA drop and attribution can be used for their editorialisation. There were several RS [https://archive.md/mgWvx] [https://archive.md/ifluz] [https://archive.md/nYzoJ] covering the Pentagon's DIA's position and the alleged stymieing of its NCMI scientists' report in the US intelligence community. This FOIA confirms the provenance of the Chretien Cutlip paper that was written in response to the Proximal Origins paper. It’s a small but significant part of the lab leak story that deserves a mention. 119.111.137.238 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I want to return to @Bon courage's point above because I think you may have missed it. The secondary source that was presented to suggest this report has any significance was not a reliable source. As such it is not usable for including the report, which is itself a primary source. To determine if the report is appropriate for inclusion you would first need to identify reliable secondary sources that address it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::You and @Bon courage have asserted USRTK is unreliable, but there's no consensus on that, and reliability depends on context. In this case, it’s just the publisher of verifiable FOIA docs, not for its editorialising. Other RS have reported on the Chretien Cutlip paper already, but didn't FOIA the paper. 122.3.203.139 (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Include may help contextualizing. Alexpl (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Jibolba this is a report from a biased, unreliable source in support of the "genetically-engineered virus" hypothesis, which is nearly universally regarded by those with relevant expertise as a conspiracy theory. (Belief in the possibility of a lab leak among French doctors, or scientists in surveys, does not imply that they also believe in a bioengineered virus, at least not according to any source I've seen to date.)

:The "evidence" presented by "Right to Know" consists of slides from within the DIA in mid-2020. I don't see how any such "revelations" can affect current evaluations of the conspiracy theory, nor do I understand why coverage outside of independent, reliable sources would be a reason to mention this material in any Wikipedia article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::Many have been dismissive of the statements of U.S. and, recently, German intel agencies on the grounds that they are not based in scientific analysis. These documents demonstrate they were, at least in part. Jean-Paul Chretier is a PhD in Genetic Epidemiology and MD from Johns Hopkins. Robert Cutlip is an MD at WVU. They are both widely published and cited in the major science journals.

::Maybe in the context of RS standards, it is reasonable to disregard the USRTK article itself (though USRTK are not deprecated to my knowledge). However, it does not change the veracity of these declassified documents. They can be seen as supplementary to the paper reported on in the Washington Times. Jibolba (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Jibolba you appear to be engaged in an interesting, but WP:OR reconstruction of intelligence agencies' assessments of Covid origins. Please don't expect that particular project to have an impact on Wikipedia article text. If reconstructions of intelligence community thinking appear in reliable sources, then and only then can we attribute authority and WEIGHT to the presumptive scientific basis of these assessments. Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I am hardly breaking new ground: [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/aug/30/inside-ring-report-dia-spy-arm-ignored-covid-19-or/] Jibolba (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Newimpartial you clearly haven't read the Chretien Cutlip paper we're discussing here. It dispels your claim that "genetically-engineered virus hypothesis ... is nearly universally regarded by those with relevant expertise as a conspiracy theory". Chretien and Cutlip are relevant experts and claiming that these NCMI scientists created this "conspiracy theory" in early 2020 is ridiculous. 119.111.137.238 (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Wait - Having read through this, I am not seeing reliable secondary sources giving credence to this analysis. I am seeing sources which are unusable for an extraordinary claim by this encyclopedia as per WP:RS. If RS show up at some future point, that's a different story. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Does this even add anything? Five years ago a US govermental institution thought that the virus could have been from lab leak, well OK we already have details in the article about US Govermental Institutions thinking the virus could be from a lab leak. This article doesn't need to contain every report or memo that parts of the US government every produced. If the claim is some form of genetic engineering then WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies and would need much better sourcing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::It adds knowledge that some at DIA favored a lab leak theory that was definitely disproven in September 2021 with the publication of the genome of the bat coronavirus BANAL-20-52 and subsequently disproven additional times with the publication of additional related genomes. This is not news, per se, because one could infer the same from the previously published Chretien and Cutlip critique of the "Proximal Origins" paper.

::There's a narrative explaining the DIA lab leak theory on pg 39 of the recently released document. The theory is that SARS-CoV-2 is a chimera of two viruses, swapping the receptor binding domain (RBD) of Spike. That was disproven and then disproven again and again. Most recently, [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.04.15.648942v1 this week with new SARS2-like viruses sampled from bat in Cambodia].

::Whether or not you consider their theory to be a "conspiracy theory", it's undeniable that it has been a "disproven theory" for three and a half years. So it's relevant in that it's one of several stories recently showing that 2020-2021 government lab leak theories were disproven in September 2021 (also: the FBI theory described in a WSJ article and Boris Johnson's favored theory described in tabloids). 89.114.65.38 (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:wait for better secondary sources, if anything. This is a lot of rehashed recooked stuff that already is published elsewhere. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Do not expand until such time as a proposal is put forward for the whole section which is policy compliant. If anything is to be included from this the whole COVID-19 lab leak theory#US government and intelligence agencies section should be revised so that any updated material does not lead to a net increase in the section size. It's not in accordance with WP:NPOV to expand the section whenever a bunch of spies or law endorsement officials have a brain fart about the goings on in the facilities of competitor nations. The only condition under which there should be a net increase to the size of the section is if, and only if, there is a WP:WEIGHT of coverage from review articles from MEDLINE-indexed scientific journals which support the assessments. TarnishedPath^talk 09:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I propose we add something like this:

As of 2025, both CIA{{cite news |last1=Honderich |first1=Holly |title=Covid-19: CIA says lab leak most likely source of outbreak |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9qjjj4zy5o |work=BBC News |date=26 January 2025}} and the US government officially support a lab leak as the most likely version of the virus' origin.{{multiref2|1=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}}|2=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}}}}}}

Thereisnous (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Let's not. There was already a huge RfC on this proposal and the article reflects the outcome. Bon courage (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Well, it's a new proposal based on new events. Thereisnous (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think anyone should take seriously the "proposals" of some [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biology_and_sexual_orientation&diff=prev&oldid=1281939881 ridiculous bigot who thinks that non-cis/het/straight people are the result of bacterial infections to be "cured."] 73.206.161.228 (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: 1) I've never said or implied such a thing. 2) How is the edit related to the topic in question? --Thereisnous (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::What? Jibolba (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Why should we add it? Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:: The lead should reflect the body of the article. The article has a sizable section "US government and intelligence agencies". Thereisnous (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Which does not supprt that say that. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::We don't have everything in the body in the lede. If we're going to include daft stuff from the USA, are we also going to include daft stuff from China about a US lab leak? Bon courage (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: The official position of a superpower is not "daft stuff". The official position of China should be included too, of course Thereisnous (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::As we already describe, the US regime is pumping out disinformation on this topic. Newsflash: superpowers emit daft stuff all the time. Bon courage (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Is China a superpower? Zp112 (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Thereisnous {{Tq|The official position of a superpower is not "daft stuff"}} - citation, please. Superpowers have published disinformation and "daft stuff" for as long as there have been superpowers. It may appear novel for the US to do so, just as it may appear novel for US authorities to defy the habeus corpus principle, but when such things happen the challenge for an encyclopaedia is to report such events without undue rationalization of EXCEPTIONAL claims or credulity, at least, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::In other words, the White House is no longer a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia gatekeeping universe? Zp112 (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Obviously not in some areas, as the regime is pumping out disinformation/propaganda. This is currently being settled at WP:RSN. Bon courage (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Speaking of the regimes, the CCP regime seems to be paying close attention to this article. Zp112 (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::If you give us text source to the CCP regime, it will be rejected too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{tq|the CCP regime seems to be paying close attention to this article}} ← Interesting! Citation required! Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Zp112 to answer your question, I don't believe that the White House was ever anything other than a self-published source, generally reliable for its own opinion. I don't know that that situation has shifted in a meaningful way, in spite of its increasing reliance on LLMs in its press releases, etc. Newimpartial (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:So we are to believe the WH statement blaming Dr. Fauci for lying about Covid? Should we also believe that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and the US was winning the Vietnam War? O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::IRAQ! You could not have come up with a better polemic against zoonosis, the official doctrine of every US gov office for years, if you tried.

::Bad news, dissent on US interventionist wars is coded as far right isolationism now! You are not trusting the experts (the State Department)! Jibolba (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• As ever this is a global issue, reports and and such from all US governmental institutions belong only in the "US government and intelligence agencies" section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with this proposal. The lead should reflect more recent items added to the article. PricklyPorcupine (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:No. Because it's not even correct for one. The US intelligence community still remains divided on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Out of eight intelligence agencies and the National Intelligence Council, there's four agencies and the NIC that still supports natural origin.[https://theconversation.com/disputes-over-covids-origins-reveal-an-intelligence-community-in-disarray-here-are-4-fixes-we-need-before-the-next-pandemic-201166] And secondly, per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, we cannot give disproportionate weight in the lede to a theory that lacks strong support from the broader scientific community and is still considered uncertain even within the US gov itself. While the CIA says a lab-related origin is more likely, it admits it has low confidence in its findings. And Trump will support calling climate change as a hoax. So framing all this as an authoritative source for facts, or as unified government position both misrepresents the facts. Also, why prioritise the US view over other govs? Are they uniquely authoritative on this global issue? Should we then also include positions from China etc? WP:DUE applies. If CIA or US gov positions are to be mentioned, they belong in a later section (In US Government responses), with appropriate context about their divided views and low confidence levels. In which we already done.Smalledi (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

So (to make it clear), this is not about the USA, so the USA should not be given undue prominence. Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is wild to include and overly posture the US above all other countries. let alone the fact that this would change every few years (or months). The US government is not the president, is not the executive, etc. It is a larger entity than just the office of the President. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::This is a really bizarre line of reasoning that is once again being pulled out of the war chest as a way to mislead. The US was one of three countries doing research at WIV, it makes perfect sense to privilege their viewpoint. And yes, the same goes for whatever propaganda comes out of China. It doesn't matter if it's propaganda. If it is being reported by RS it is relevant information. Simple as! Jibolba (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::So long as we have sources discussing the propaganda as propaganda (i.e. WP:SECONDARY ones). Wikipedia might well gives readers well-sourced knowledge about such propaganda, but it is not an uncritical relay for it. For that reason this article does not dwell on the various nonsenses coming from the PRC about Yankee bioweapons. Bon courage (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tqq|The US was one of three countries doing research at WIV, it makes perfect sense to privilege their viewpoint.}} Seems to me the opposite may be true. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• This is reasonable, given that the alleged U.S. funding of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab is a key tenet of the lab leak theory. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:8C20:CC1E:1C42:30AC (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• We had a RFC on this and there was clear consensus that it shouldn't happen per WP:WEIGHT. If you're wishing to change that consensus then a new RFC would be required. TarnishedPath^talk 00:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

This article is hopelessly biased towards the natural origins theory, repeatedly framing aspects of the lab leak theory as "debunked" before even explaining what those aspects are. The article text violates the most basic principles of neutrality by treating one hypothesis as settled fact and the other as a fringe idea, without fairly presenting the arguments or evidence cited by credible sources. The article uses dismissive language from ambiguous characters without proper attribution, creating the impression of editorialising rather than neutrally summarising reliable sources. The scientific scandals and conflicts of interest surrounding the early dismissals of the lab leak theory are not covered at all. Readers are not being given an accurate or balanced understanding of the this subject on a societal level. 75.99.106.186 (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:See WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:There are ongoing disputes about the content of the article. If you want to help, keep a level head and stick around. Ymerazu (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:See thread below, not everyone agrees on the same origin. So, whose version do we pick? Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Simple: Cui bono? Alexpl (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Perfectly put. It's an embarrassment. 2600:4041:5369:8200:E1D3:BD14:EFDA:A712 (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There are plenty of RS in the “reverted edit” thread from may 22 below. 2603:7000:3D00:2445:4C8E:9EC9:BDAD:2405 (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It appears they are suggesting it started in the US and was imported into China, with the first case detected at the Wuhan market.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/china-releases-white-paper-covid-19-origins-tracing-xinhua-reports-2025-04-30/

In fact, even back in 2019 or 2020, the CCP has always claimed the Wuhan market is not the origin, but rather the virus was imported into China from the US, either on seafood or soldiers who came for the 2019 Wuhan military games.

66.22.167.30 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Same old variety of braying idiocy; different authoritarian regime this time. Omit until/unless decent WP:SECONDARY sources offer some sensible context. Bon courage (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Well, [https://web.archive.org/web/20220220181324/www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-04/23/c_139002600.htm there are no wet markets in China]. Here's a [https://en.nhc.gov.cn/2025-04/30/c_86426.htm link to the whitepaper]. See COVID-19 misinformation by China where content might be appropriate. On the other hand the whitepaper touts the WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2 and this article has its assessment of "extremely unlikely" prominent in the lead. Maybe by the same standards we should add that introduction through the cold food chain is "possible" to the lead as well. fiveby(zero) 04:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:This from the Chinese government is the equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?". Exactly zero encyclopaedic value. TarnishedPath^talk 08:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::The "military games" story is covered (a little) in PMID:37697176. Bon courage (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:No more or less important than the US saying otherwise, a good example of why we should go with MEDRS sources and not government agencies. Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Chinese officials have long alleged that the virus was imported into China. This is no more likely than the lab leak scenario and is not taken seriously by most scientists. The allegation ignores the substantial and consistent body of evidence that the pandemic began through a spillover that began in or was amplified by the market. -Darouet (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The claim that the virus was imported into China is significantly less likely than a lab origin, which is supported by circumstantial evidence, and relevant scientists quoted by RS. 2A00:23C8:5304:F501:8C20:CC1E:1C42:30AC (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Include It is also reported by [https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/30/china/china-covid-origin-white-paper-us-intl-hnk/index.html CNN], [https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/china/covid19-origin-wuhan-lab-leak-trump-b2742900.html The Independent] and [https://www.journaldequebec.com/2025/05/01/le-chine-blame-les-etats-unis-pour-lorigine-de-la-covid-19 Journal de Quebec]. While not a new allégation, the continued international coverage highlights its significance for the lab leak théory. The Chinese gouvernment's emphasis on blaming the US for the origine of the virus appears to be a strategic effort to deflect scrutiny from uncomfortable questions about possible lab origine of the virus and the New Year banquet superspreader event. 67.68.181.148 (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Include it Jibolba (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Include Seems to me if we have the USA government's claims, we have to have the Chinese government's claims, we do not take sides. Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• :If we are going to include this material from the Chinese government, then the whole section should be refactored so that there is no net increase. TarnishedPath^talk 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::We put both sides or no sides. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I'm not arguing against that. My argument is that I think it would be inappropriate that the total section grow per WP:WEIGHT. If we are going to add prose about one governments views, that should be offset with removal of prose from somewhere else in the section. TarnishedPath^talk 08:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I find the wording {{tq|the Wuhan market not being the origin}} rather amusing. The IP obviously likes the China-did-it lab leak theory und tries to spin China's US-did-it lab leak theory as support of that. Classic kettle logic. Let's use different wording in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

{{old heading|Blatantly incorrect assertion in body of reference 1}} WP:TALKHEADPOV O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The lead contains, as its second sentence:

{{bq|most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis}}

Then, reference 1 is cited, stating:

{{bq|See numerous reliable sources since 2023 which support this:}}

Followed by a number of sources. However, upon cursory inspection of the sources listed, it comes to light that only one of them was published since 2023. Now, of course, it is true that the articles have not yet been retracted. But I don't think we should portray a simple lack of retraction as a continuing support, especially considering that many of these sources are explicitly not meant to represent up-to-date consensusFor example, many of the sources are studies on the spread of misinformation, or calls-to-action regarding misinformation. You would not expect such a source to be retracted even if the misinformation turns out to coincidentally be true. The fact remains that the misinformation was unsupported back when the source was written, and that a call-to-action to stem its flow was justified at that time.. And even if a source is meant to represent up-to-date consensus, I'm sure that any experienced Wikipedia editor has seen plenty of sources that are blatantly outdated and have yet to be retracted. A lack of retraction clearly isn't evidence of continuing reliability.

As such, these sources cannot reasonably be asserted to date from "since 2023".

And what about the [https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/scicheck-still-no-determination-on-covid-19-origin one source] that was published in 2023? Well, this one states:

{{bq|''There remains no proof of how the SARS-CoV-2 virus (...) originated.}}

{{bq|''most scientists suspect a zoonotic spillover}}

This doesn't actually support the cited claim, which uses the much stronger word "believe".

Therefore, I suggest the following changes:

• The factcheck.org source should be moved to a different reference. This reference should be inserted after the phrase "this claim is highly controversial" instead of its current location.
• The phrase "since 2023" should be removed.

Dieknon (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Dieknon (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

:No issue with removing "since 2023". Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:It was added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1265770074 here]. It's wrong and should just be removed. Bon courage (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|The addition of the German news is being discussed further up; please continue there rather than splitting the thread. Bon courage (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)}}

User TarnishedPath reverted this addition after “developments since 2022”. This information seems important and question TarnishPath’s motivation for constant reversion.

The Germany foreign intelligence service (BND) concluded that the virus leaked from Wuhan with a probability of 80-95%; it came to this conclusion as early as 2020, but withheld its finding from the public until 2025.https://www.dw.com/en/covid-pandemic-likely-unleashed-by-lab-mishap-germanys-bnd/a-71897701 It has not been definitively acknowledged when in 2020 or how early the agency made its determination. The French Academy of Medicine has also concluded that the lab leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, as the most likely explanation.https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/opinion/covid-lab-leak.html

In the United States, the Department of Energy, overseeing the Biosciences center to coordinate US biosecurity research, has concluded that a lab leak from Wuhan is the most likely explanation.https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/covid-origins-warnings-nih-department-of-energy The CIA made a similar determination,https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9qjjj4zy5o as did the FBI, who withheld its 2021 report until it was disclosed by two confidential sources; the agency publicly acknowledged itsthe finding in 2023.https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origins-lab-china DenverCoder19 (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::As the NYT opinion peace, you use as one source, states: "good-faith argumentation and some bad-faith suppression" Alexpl (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{archive bottom}}

FactCheck.org has a [https://www.factcheck.org/2025/05/trump-administration-incorrectly-claims-certainty-about-origin-of-coronavirus/ new article] "Trump Administration Incorrectly Claims Certainty About Origin of Coronavirus" ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Useful for establishing the WP:FRINGE nature of the LL narratives and contextualizing some of the more whacked-out claims. Also we really should be saying that the US spooks are pointing fingers at two mutually exclusive lab origins (the Wuhan CDC and the WIV), as is mentioned here. A fuller use of this source would be appropriate at COVID-19 misinformation by the United States. Bon courage (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::With Sars Cov 2 infected transgenetic mice can easily transported from one place to another place. 87.208.73.230 (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think even the most rabid LL proponents have spun up that line{{snd}}is there a source? Bon courage (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:This source is framed in terms of American politics and should not be used to make [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1291933549 sweeping claims about scientific consensus in wikivoice]. The source notably misrepresents the results of the only decent survey on the topic, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Archive_46#Secondary_coverage_of_expert_survey discussed previously]. - Palpable (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)