talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

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)

::::Only if the mice are woke. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:27, 26 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)

::WP:YESPOV applies. There's no doubt in RS what the consensus is, so it should just be asserted. Bon courage (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Says the guy whos only purpose on Wikipedia is to argue about lab leak lol Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That is not an accurate description of my motivations, and I'm honestly not sure what you find ironic. There is a possibly relevant discussion on my talk page, but as I understand it we try to comment on content here. - Palpable (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Your editing history doesn't lie. All of your edits over the last few years have been entirely dedicated to this topic. That makes you an effective WP:SPA. ArbCom has required SPAs to {{tq|... contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.}} As you can imagine I think that you have utterly failed the "avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral" criterion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::This honestly should've just been reverted per WP:RPA. There is rarely a more clear-cut illustration of an ad hominem fallacy. I wouldn't pay it much mind.

:::::@Hemiauchenia, besides the fact that the SPA link you just cited is an essay (not that the arbcom decision is), there are clear procedures you can follow if you think an editor is being an SPA. Making personal attacks is not a part of them. Now focus on content or don't comment at all. Just10A (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The problematic nature of SPAs is long-established as one of the WP:ARBPRINCIPLES and is frequently re-stated as such in many cases around problematic topics areas. This is an obvious case. As a reminder, this is a WP:CTOPS and it is best to focus on content, and avoid doggedly following any agendas. Bon courage (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The SPA essay is clear that established editors are not SPA, even if they focus on one topic for an extended period of time. As an experienced user maybe you haven't read the page in awhile and forgot what it says, take some time to do that now.

:::::::@Bon courage As someone who frequently talks about how important it is to keep civil in CTOPS, why aren't you pushing back on this clear personal attack against Palpable? Ymerazu (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It's best for everyone to WP:FOC rather than engage in WP:PEARLCLUTCHING. Aspersions frequently get left uncommented on this page even from editors who are now suddenly ultra-concerned about strict civility rectitude. E.g.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1286558298]. I am not an administrator; if something here rises to the level where admin action is required, raise it an WP:ANI or WP:AE. Otherwise, this is improper use of this page. Bon courage (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You're also basically an SPA lol. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{cite web | last=Engber | first=Daniel | title=Trump Thinks He Knows What Started the Pandemic | website=The Atlantic | date=20 May 2025 | url=https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2025/05/lab-leak-pandemic-trump-maga/682854/ | access-date=26 May 2025}}

Not useful for WP:BMI, but maybe useful for US politics, in particular for describing how belief in a lab leak is a tool for antiscience and as a kind of MAGA/MAHA loyalty test. E.g.:{{tq2|Declaring fealty to this point of view has now become a sacred rite within the GOP, not unlike endorsement of the claim that the 2020 election was a fraud. Plenty of Trump’s most senior appointees have averred that COVID started in a lab. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem described it as “the truth.” FDA Commissioner Marty Makary has claimed that a laboratory origin is a “no-brainer,” and described it falsely as “now the leading theory among scientists.” Bhattacharya said at an NIH town hall on Monday that he believes the coronavirus was released from a lab, and that it derived from U.S.-funded research. The DHS, FDA, and NIH did not reply to requests for comment.{{pb}}

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has staked out the most extreme position of the bunch, publicly declaring that “SARS CoV-2 is certainly the product of bioweapons research.” ... }} Bon courage (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)