Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 21 days

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. COVID-19 Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Emergency / Society / Pulmonology Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Molecular Biology Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Viruses Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Frutos, Roger; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (March 2021). "Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover to the circulation model". Infection, Genetics and Evolution: 104812. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812.
• Singh, Devika; Yi, Soojin V. (April 2021). "On the origin and evolution of SARS-CoV-2". Experimental & Molecular Medicine. 53 (4): 537–547. doi:10.1038/s12276-021-00604-z.
• Hakim, Mohamad S. (14 February 2021). "SARS‐CoV‐2, Covid‐19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222. ISSN 1052-9276.
• Barh, Debmalya; Silva Andrade, Bruno; Tiwari, Sandeep; Giovanetti, Marta; Góes-Neto, Aristóteles; Alcantara, Luiz Carlos Junior; Azevedo, Vasco; Ghosh, Preetam (1 September 2020). "Natural selection versus creation: a review on the origin of SARS-COV-2". Le Infezioni in Medicina. 28 (3): 302–311. ISSN 1124-9390. PMID 32920565.
• Graham, Rachel L.; Baric, Ralph S. (19 May 2020). "SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence". Immunity. 52 (5): 734–736. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016. ISSN 1074-7613. PMC 7207110. PMID 32392464.
• Zhang, Yong-Zhen; Holmes, Edward C. (April 2020). "A Genomic Perspective on the Origin and Emergence of SARS-CoV-2". Cell. 181 (2): 223–227. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.03.035.

• Kasprak, Alex (16 July 2021). "The 'Occam's Razor Argument' Has Not Shifted in Favor of a Lab Leak". Snopes.com. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
• Thacker, Paul D. (8 July 2021). "The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?". BMJ. 374: n1656. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1656. ISSN 1756-1833.
• Jacobsen, Rowan (June 29, 2021). "Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan". MIT Technology Review.
• McKelvey, Tara (27 June 2021). "Wuhan lab-leak theory fuels Trump comeback rally". BBC News.
• Fay Cortez, Michelle (27 June 2021). "The Last—And Only—Foreign Scientist in the Wuhan Lab Speaks Out". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
• Regalado, Antonio (June 25, 2021). "They called it a conspiracy theory. But Alina Chan tweeted life into the idea that the virus came from a lab". MIT Technology Review.
• Hvistendahl, Mara (June 19, 2021). "I Visited a Chinese Lab at the Center of a Biosafety Debate. What I Learned Helps Explain the Clash Over Covid-19's Origins". The Intercept.
• Ling, Justin (15 June 2021). "The Lab Leak Theory Doesn't Hold Up". Foreign Policy.
• Folmer, Kaitlyn (14 June 2021). "Nature-based or lab leak? Unraveling the debate over the origins of COVID-19". ABC News.
• Wallace-Wells, David (12 June 2021). "The Implications of the Lab-Leak Hypothesis". Intelligencer.
• Larson, Christina; Merchant, Nomaan (9 June 2021). "EXPLAINER: The US investigation into COVID-19 origins". AP NEWS. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
• Evans, Anna Muldoon, Nicholas G. (18 June 2021). "There Is No Good Way to Even Investigate the Lab Leak Theory". Slate Magazine.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Maxmen, Amy; Mallapaty, Smriti (8 June 2021). "The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don't know". Nature. 594 (7863): 313–315. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01529-3.
• Jacobsen, Rowan (June 6, 2021). "How amateur sleuths broke the Wuhan Lab story and embarrassed the media". Newsweek.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) (The reliability of Newsweek post-2013 is debated and context-specific. One rationale for why this particular source is probably not unreliable is presented here.)
• Eban, Katherine (3 June 2021). "The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19's Origins". Vanity Fair.
• Sohn, Rebecca (3 June 2021). "A Very Calm Guide to the Lab Leak Theory". Slate Magazine.
• Palus, Shannon (29 May 2021). "Just Because We're Talking About the Lab Leak Theory Doesn't Mean It's Come True". Slate Magazine.
• Brumfiel, Geoff (28 May 2021). "Many Scientists Still Think The Coronavirus Came From Nature". NPR.org.
• Zimmer, Carl; Gorman, James; Mueller, Benjamin (27 May 2021). "Scientists Don't Want to Ignore the 'Lab Leak' Theory, Despite No New Evidence". The New York Times.
• Hinshaw, Drew; Page, Jeremy (27 May 2021). "Time Is Running Out in Covid-19 Origins Inquiry, Say WHO-Led Team Members". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
• Hinshaw, Michael R. Gordon, Warren P. Strobel and Drew (23 May 2021). "WSJ News Exclusive Intelligence on Sick Staff at Wuhan Lab Fuels Debate on Covid-19 Origin". Wall Street Journal.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Wallace-Wells, Benjamin (27 May 2021). "The Sudden Rise of the Coronavirus Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker.
• Maxmen, Amy (27 May 2021). "Divisive COVID 'lab leak' debate prompts dire warnings from researchers". Nature. 594 (7861): 15–16. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01383-3.
• Whipple, Tom (27 May 2021). "Could a Wuhan lab leak really be to blame for Covid?". The Times.
• Kessler, Glenn (25 May 2021). "Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible". The Washington Post.
• Jacobsen, Rowan (May 13, 2021). "Top researchers are calling for a real investigation into the origin of covid-19". MIT Technology Review.
• Wade, Nicholas (5 May 2021). "The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora's box at Wuhan?". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
• Gorman, James; Barnes, Julian E. (26 March 2021). "The C.D.C.'s ex-director offers no evidence in favoring speculation that the coronavirus originated in a lab". The New York Times.
• Baker, Nicholson (4 January 2021). "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis". Intelligencer.
• Jacobsen, Rowan (9 September 2020). "Could COVID-19 Have Escaped from a Lab?". Boston Magazine.
• Jacobsen, Rowan (14 May 2020). "The non-paranoid person's guide to viruses escaping from labs". Mother Jones.

• Godlee, Fiona (8 July 2021). "Covid 19: We need a full open independent investigation into its origins". The BMJ: n1721. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1721.
• Knight, Peter (21 June 2021). "COVID-19: why lab-leak theory is back despite little new evidence". The Conversation.
• Rodrigo, Allen (June 14, 2021). "The COVID-19 lab-leak hypothesis is plausible because accidents happen. I should know". The Conversation.
• Seyran, Murat; Pizzol, Damiano; Adadi, Parise; El‐Aziz, Tarek M. A.; Hassan, Sk. Sarif; Soares, Antonio; Kandimalla, Ramesh; Lundstrom, Kenneth; Tambuwala, Murtaza; Aljabali, Alaa A. A.; Lal, Amos; Azad, Gajendra K.; Choudhury, Pabitra P.; Uversky, Vladimir N.; Sherchan, Samendra P.; Uhal, Bruce D.; Rezaei, Nima; Brufsky, Adam M. (March 2021). "Questions concerning the proximal origin of SARS‐CoV‐2". Journal of Medical Virology. 93 (3): 1204–1206. doi:10.1002/jmv.26478.
• Rasmussen, Angela L. (January 2021). "On the origins of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 27 (1): 9–9. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-01205-5. ISSN 1546-170X. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
• Hayes, Polly (13 July 2020). "Here's how scientists know the coronavirus came from bats and wasn't made in a lab". The Conversation.

• Grant, Bob (July 1, 2021). "Labs, Leaks, and Liability". The Scientist. (editorial on how media covers the hypothesis)
• Ridley, Matt; Chan, Alina (April 10, 2021). "Bats, pangolins, wet market, lab? The mystery deepens". The Weekend Australian Magazine.

COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and COVID-19 lab leak theory redirect to two separate pages. That can't be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jikybebna (talk • contribs) 08:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jikybebna, I agree, that will need to be fixed, if/when this survives AfD and the merge discussion.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After I wrote that comment, someone redirected both pages to "misinformation". Not exactly what I had in mind but it's better than when they were pointed at different pages. Jikybebna (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And as of right now, Lab leak theory redirects to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, Lab leak hypothesis redirects to Nicholas Wade, COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory redirects to COVID-19 misinformation, and Lab leak redirects to List of laboratory biosecurity incidents. The last one makes sense. The first 3 reflect just how muddied and politicized the phrase "lab leak" has become. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I went ahead and changed most of these redirects to point here. Might as well centralize everything here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following this discussion [3], I am unblanking this page. Pinging involved admins CambridgeBayWeather, ToBeFree, HighInBC and DGG. Courtesy pings to involved editors: Arcturus, Jweiss11, Extraordinary Writ and Jclemens, Loksmythe, Hobit, SmokeyJoe, Robert McClenon, 力, Goszei, Adoring nanny, Almaty, Forich, Terjen Empiricus-sextus, My very best wishes, Kashmiri, SMcCandlish, Drbogdan Geogene, Dream_Focus, and Guest2625. I have also written an essay on why Wikipedia should have a page on this hypothesis, regardless of whether it is proven or disproven in the end. Happy editing. CutePeach (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: just to make it more clear, we're talking about Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 7 -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CutePeach, you have restored the discussed text, with exactly one modification: Removing the maintenance templates. Which part of "this particular draft isn't worth restoring" and "write a new article" in the closure is unclear? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblanking looks highly problematic, especially as it seems to involve misrepresentation of what was agreed (maybe, a new draft). Alexbrn (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree:, this version of the article is different to the deleted one [4]. I was just about to start making improvements and then it got blanked again. Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress? Some of the sections in the body need rewriting for style and clarity, but otherwise the article is largely faithful to the sources cited.

RoySmith, were you aware that this version of the draft was published as an article? Unblanking was clearly alluded to in the deletion review. CutePeach (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review was of a draft. This misreading of the close, and the above ping list heavily loaded with wiki-friends, all smells pretty bad. Alexbrn (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That revision has way too many issues for it to be reasonable to expect people to vet for policy compliance. It also has the problem of being exhaustingly repetitive on quotes and for omitting a lot of details. I also agree that a new draft should be started. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I looked at the timestamps and noticed that, as you can verify in Special:Diff/1009196063/1034189301 (2021-02-27 equal to today), the restored revision of the article already long existed at time of the deletion review (2021-06-07). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: did the deletion review of the draft have any bearing on this related article? Once we hear back from RoySmith on whether he knew about this article and what Jweiss11,SmokeyJoe and DGG meant about removing the redirect, can you please decide on whether we move this article back to draftspace or unblank it? I have pinged the above editors, not because they are my wiki-friends, but because they have expressed interest in building an encyclopedic entry on this notable topic. CutePeach (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, I'd say a MfD discussion usually doesn't affect a different mainspace article about the same topic as the discussed draft. On the other hand, the exact restored revision did exist during the latest discussion, that discussion happened less than a month ago, and the usual approach to create an AfD discussion about this would probably exhaust the community's patience (IDHT/FORUMSHOP). The whole situation isn't ideal. The easiest way out of the mess is to write an entirely new article about the topic from scratch, here in mainspace. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.... which would be a recipe for a fringey WP:POVFORK. Alexbrn (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...to which a normal response would be improvement or a proper AfD discussion leading to a general result about the topic, not the current content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there's a consensus (at DRV) that the page may exist at that title. I agree with that opinion. I also think restarting in mainspace is better, because in draftspace it's usually just like-minded people working on it, and thus the end product is more slanted on something contentious like this, and then people will call for it to be deleted. That is, in my mind, a procedural wrangling. If it's stubbified and then expanded collaboratively, it's more likely to be NPOV. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That outcome mentions a "new draft", in bold. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word "draft" as well above, but meant the actual definition of the word (ie starting all over again), and not as a shorthand for "the draft namespace". I suspect Roy used it in the same way. The close adds: There was a running thread about the proper use of mainspace vs draft vs userspace vs POVFORK for controversial new article; I don't see any particular consensus there, which in turn means I'm not going to make any statement about where such a new attempt should be written. Draftspace is also not mandated by any policy, for anything, about anything.

@Alexbrn: this revert with the summary POVFORK indicates that you fundamentally disagree with the consensus established at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 7 and will not accept any article at this title. You cannot simply ignore a community consensus as closed by an uninvolved administrator. If you think it's a POVFORK, gain consensus for your view at WP:AFD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree:, I am confused. If this is the text of the deleted draft [5], then this article is a much improved version, and shouldn’t be affected by the outcome of the MfD. From my understanding, the deletion review was a review of procedure, not the outcome of the MfD. I can start a new article but I just want to understand our predicament better. CutePeach (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been consensus for a standalone article, this is dealt with in the misinformation article and the investigation article, where it makes better sense per WP:NOPAGE. There is no reason to single it out as the one "hypothesis" that needs a special standalone article, and many reasons why this would be a bad idea. Alexbrn (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• At least one page on this topic by itself is inevitable: This topic may have once been fringe, but is no longer fringe, so that consideration is irrelevant. (I can seetwo: one for the original fringe hypothesis, one for the science as it develops, and one for the political controversy. It's even possible there may turn out to be sufficient RW coverage to justify one on the WP handling of the subject. , It is probably but not certainly incorrect, but there's been too much discussion of the possibility to not warrant a separate article. Whether there should then be a section on the page this is presently redirected to can be discussed afterwards. (I personally think a redirect would be appropriate, because it just possibly might be looked for there. DGG ( talk ) 13:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Since I was pinged here (as the DRV closer), I'll comment. I do need to make clear however that I'm firmly not wading into content issues, just process. So, here's what I see:
  • This is the version of Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis which was the subject of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 7.
  • I also see User:Boing! said Zebedee/COVID-19 lab leak theory which is substantially identical, so I assume there's been some copy-paste going on, which is a problem. Don't do that.
  • Looking at this version of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis noted as "unblanking as per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 7" by CutePeach, I haven't figured out where that came from. Given the length, I'm assuming it's not all new text, which means it really needs to have proper attribution. Something like "reverting back to version xxxxx as per ...." would have been more appropriate.
  • I also see that while I've been writing this, ProcrastinatingReader has started on a brand new version of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis in mainspace (Special:Diff/1034204447) that appears to be from scratch. This is fully in compliance with my DRV close, so carry on. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's carry on with the version pointed by RoySmith above. On a related but different note: What ever happened to the OP of the first draft, ScrupulousScribe? Forich (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forich, I think he was indef'd for sockpuppeting. Looks like that was on Feb 19, 2021. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop blanking the page. Multiple editors are working in good faith to get this article into shape, and legislative-style negotiation over non-public drafts is not how we best do things. The topic in general is clearly encyclopedic, and the material we have so far is very well-sourced, so it's simply a matter of polishing out any accidental or (at least in theory) intentional WP:OR or WP:POV-pushing that could be present, and keeping this within WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE limits.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have replaced "Wuhan Institute of Virology" with "a lab in Wuhan, China” as most proponents of the lab leak hypothesis do not implicate the WIV directly, such as Richard Ebright in this Counterpunch article [6]. If we are going to mention the WIV, it should be in the main body of the article, where the connection is properly explained. CutePeach (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources do, however. This article isn't about the promoters of the lab leak theory, it's about the RS coverage of it. WIV should be mentioned in some way, if not in the opening sentence. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, —PaleoNeonate – 20:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoNeonate, ProcrastinatingReader, agreed. We cannot diminish what most RSes say, which is that the WIV is the primary location implicated in this theory. It's what WP:DUE tells us to do.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider this version. Expansion would require including who promotes and promoted it, resulting in a similar article to the content at the misinformation article and perhaps information on the investigations one, both already more complete (and would be redundant)... —PaleoNeonate – 15:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There can be overlap on content between articles; in fact, there often is. It doesn't help (per current consensus #1) we have no agreement on the best article for some of this information, and some of those articles can probably be trimmed with a link to this article. The misinformation article is 95k chars of readable prose, which is near the limit of WP:SIZERULE

That being said, legitimate content has consistently been removed from those two articles, not due to fringe reasons or NPOV concerns, but simply because it (apparently) doesn't fall within scope. On the former, it's usually Alexbrn who removes citing "this article is about misinformation, which that is not". On the latter, it's usually others who say the added content is not relevant enough to the subject of the article. So a lot of information can be added here that doesn't fit within the others. If this article shouldn't exist, the case needs to be made at AfD, not by sheer force. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Were you aware of the various previous incarnations that were deleted per consensus? Also, although one review closer supported it above, the closing statement was for a draft article. But with the current stub, we at least don't sport a huge misinformation article in mainspace... —PaleoNeonate – 15:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I sound like complaining above, but if an article was to eventually exist, it definitely needed WP:TNT so I thank you for your initial restart, —PaleoNeonate – 23:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions Trump and allegations of racism, but missing is the attempt to sanction China in hope to offset a monumental domestic management failure, —PaleoNeonate – 15:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added something along those lines. If you know of other sources feel free to add. Separately, a list of good articles (scholarly and media) would be helpful in expanding the article, as I believe a lot has been lost over time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the source of most of the problem is the absence from this article of the elephant in the room: the bait-and-switch pushed by right wing media that takes tentative support for the possibility of a lab leak and turns this into a plea for false equivalency between the zoonotic and lab origin hypotheses. Lab origin has, as far as I can tell, virtually no serious support: all the available genetic and other evidence points to a zoonotic origin, and a lab origin is implausible for a number of reasons. Wuhan is a logical place to be studying a novel zoonotic coronavirus, and a leak from the lab as the origin of onward transmission has not been definitively ruled out - if it is even possible to do so. I think it's important to separate virus-origin with pandemic-origin here, especially with the disinformation being published by NewsCorp in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk • contribs)

I consider this covered at current time. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need to include all three of these in this article, because all of these, except 'intentional bioweapon' are easily described as part of a "lab leak" in the common vernacular. The bioweapon theory must be differentiated from this hypothesis, so it merits a small inclusion in this article as well.

We cannot continue to muddy these terms any further, and when we discuss them here, we really need to be very specific. Or else this article descends into the fate of basically every other COVID-19 origins article, namely arguing past each other for paragraphs and paragraphs. Differentiation of these things is key, and including discussion of all of them is key. See also a similar discussion at the COVID-19 wikiproject.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Those are very different things. Option 1 implies zoonotic/natural origin of the virus. In fact, all pathogens ever leaked from labs (even labs involved in bioweapons programs in the USSR) had natural origin. There is a huge confusion in publications about this with regard to COVID-19. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree quite strongly with Shibbolethink in this matter. jp×g 02:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting my agreement too. If we're going to have an article on this, we must make the difference clear (as, however, is also already done, if a bit clumsily, at COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_origin). There's likely also something that can be found on the confusion between the different hypotheses itself - there's this where the author writes that

The risk of conflation is not simply due to the audience’s inattentiveness. It also results from how the lab-leak theory has previously been reported. Until recently, it was itself categorised as a conspiracy theory. In early March 2020, for instance, a widely circulated open letter published in The Lancet condemned as “conspiracy theories” all hypotheses suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t have a natural origin. This meant it was lumped together with the idea that the virus was deliberately created as a biological weapon. In turn, this creates problems when politicians later try to rehabilitate the lab-leak theory: if one supposed conspiracy theory turned out to be credible, some might wonder whether other related conspiracy theories might be credible too.

Of course, how much weight is DUE for this is another question, but sources exist is what I'm saying. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually two additional lab leak related theories which are not captured, ref:[8]. The first being a deliberate infection of a natural virus. The second, somewhat a variation of the accidental lab leak of a natural virus but implying not so much a "leak" but rather indirectly the relocation of collected of live bats and bat-related samples to Wuhan by the WIV contributed to a natural spillover event in Wuhan indirectly; inadvertently aided by the WIV. For all these five different theories, it is important to weight the RELATIVE evidence of each and every theory against it's alternatives, rather than simply to weight scientific publications sprouting WP:RS. There is for example, overwhelming improbability of the spillover event occuring at the wet-market which the PRC blamed; especially given limited sale of bats[9] and the immediate coverup of other facts by the WIV and PRC; for example around the mis-sequencing of samples[10] and access to WIV databases[11]. Whilst many lab leak theories either are (or border on) being unsubstantiated conspiracies it's no less ridiculous than the wet-market story [12] which somehow still remains in WP mainspace despite being completely unsubstantiated... PRC information operatives at play perhaps? Aeonx (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The first being a deliberate infection of a natural virus." Is there a reliable source you can point to which considers this a credible possibility? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could and the nature article I referenced already includes this as one of the possibilities. However I'm not going to. Why? Because I loathe to descent this talk page into a discussion about what is and isn't WP:RS and what is/isn't WP:DUE before we've even established the various scope and aspects that are reported. As I already mentioned, all of these ideas are theories, so you're question about credibility should first be clarified. What is credible when it comes to limited information and the possible presence of deliberate cover-up and misinformation?

There are ongoing issues that seem to mean that some totally ludicrous and in-credible origin stories about Wet-Market exist in mainspace and I dare say the same standard of credible WP:RS has not been followed, instead relying on news reports and PRC reporting, which we know is historically manipulative. Aeonx (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"news reports and PRC reporting"? I didn't know that American WP:NEWSORG (such as CNN, WSJ, NYT, WaPo, et al.) - the same kind of sources that have been reporting on the lab leak in a more positive light than serious scholarship - were "PRC reporting": you might want to make sure your arguments actually make sense and are not just vague insinuations and subtle personal attacks? Wikipedia is neither a battleground nor a debating society. On the other hand, you're always free to suggest additional scholarly sources (the same kind on which much of this is based) to improve the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this article stays, or is merged, or deleted, we should add a "scientific" background section as we've done at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. This is necessary for the following reasons:

1. Readers can't understand or evaluate the lab leak concept on scientific terms if the concept isn't introduced within the context of current scientific understanding and consensus on the virus' origins.
2. The scientific background text that derives from SARS-CoV-2 is the most carefully written and researched text that we have on this topic at Wikipedia.
3. There have been a number of articles that have popped up trying to discuss this topic in a manner that relies on the popular press rather than scientific literature. Forcing these articles to include the actual science is the best defense against misinformation.

I've tried to start this but the task is quite daunting because transclusion isn't simple. User:Yadsalohcin, User:RandomCanadian, I believe you may have helped with the transclusion process in the past, and User:Diannaa you had suggestions about how to do this without violating copy / attribution requirements. -Darouet (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion is not an appropriate solution, because the full section there is not relevant enough for here. Writing actual prose is fine. You can attribute just by giving the title of the page and saying to check its page history for attribution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've always liked {{Excerpt}} for article transclusions. Prevents duplicate effort writing and maintaining. I know of no copyright issues with this well-used template. Maybe consider a version of the following code:

{{Excerpt|Investigations into the origin of COVID-19|Scientific background|subsections=yes}}

There may be other pieces we can transclude too. Or in the long run, maybe we have other articles transclude this one. I'm undecided, just throwing out ideas. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That section is way too long and only a few paragraphs there are relevant background. It would be better to summarise the relevant parts here and then add a {{main article}} at the top of the section to go to the full one. See: Wikipedia:Summary style ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, I agree that a background section is necessary. I think transclusion could be fine, as long as it were not overly long. But a summary is also fine, as long as it doesn't over-emphasize one or another points in the original article in a way that is WP:UNDUE.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Scientific background section about? Is it the scientific background of this hypothesis or scientific background about COVID-19 origins? To me it looks like it is the scientific background of what we know about COVID-19 origins and therefore WP:UNDUE, especially as an entire section. Most sources covering the lab leak hypothesis already acknowledge that the virus has a natural reservoir and we don’t need an entire section about it. I could say the same thing about the scientific section of the investigations article. If we have a scientific background here, it should be on the hypothesis, just like on Solutrean hypothesis, and other hypothesis pages. Francesco espo (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco espo raises a good point. ProcrastinatingReader, Novem Linguae and Shibbolethink, please can you make a policy based argument on why we are including this WP:UNDUE content? CutePeach (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CutePeach - you're arguing that what scientists know about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should receive little to no coverage at this page, which is supposed to be about one idea of the virus' origins. If we follow your advice, the article will perfectly mislead readers: omit the scientific consensus on SARS-CoV-2 origins as WP:UNDUE, and therefore present the opinion of a fringe or extreme minority without the counterbalance of the fields of biology, virology, infectious disease ecology, etc.

WP:DUE requires that we present views according to their weight. Since we're talking about a scientific issue - the origin of this virus - we need to reflect all scientific views proportionally to their acceptance by scientists. That means we can write an entire article about the lab leak idea, but most viewpoints expressed are going to be highly skeptical ones by scientists who explain why the idea is "extremely unlikely." Part of any such explanation is showing why a natural zoonosis is far more likely. Everyone wins in the end, since readers who come to learn about this topic will learn a lot about SARS-CoV-2 ecology and origins. -Darouet (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say natural zoonosis is far more likely, which is a problem. You must distinguish between the origins of zoonotic virus and the origins of the human virus, and how the former became the latter. The hypothesis is focused on how the former became the latter through a possible laboratory or occupationally acquired infection.

If there was a scientific consensus, we wouldn't even have this page. Any proclaimed scientific consensus is based entirely on the WHO report commissioned by the WHO DG who has critiqued its findings. The "scientific consensus" claim doesn't belong here or any other article on Wikipedia.

WP:DUE pertains to the subject of the page, and the subject of this page is the lab leak hypothesis, and our readers expect us to cover the subject accordingly. CutePeach (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CutePeach: WP:DUE pertains to the subject of the page, and the subject of this page is the lab leak hypothesis, and our readers expect us to cover the subject accordingly. DUE applies both to the existence of the page, and how we cover it in the article. Just because we agree it's DUE to have its own article, doesn't mean the content on the page can't be UNDUE. The relevant sections of the policy follow:

WP:DUE: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader.

WP:GEVAL: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

I hope that makes the policy concerns more clear, so we can all be on the same page of why we describe the mainstream view first, and the level of acceptance of the lab leak theory. Note the main goal above: "avoid misleading the reader". Hopefully that puts us on the same page to have more fruitful discussion on how extensive the descriptions of the mainstream and minority views are, and which aspects of each require which kind of treatment. There are definitely aspects of a lab leak which have significantly more acceptance as a possibility (WHO-evaluated possibility: collection of a relatively unchanged bat virus) than others (intentional development of a bio-weapon). Bakkster Man (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bakkster Man, there is no need to quote the entire text from WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL here, as we all know those policies already. It seems like your argument to describe the mainstream view first is like arguing that we first describe The Christ in Messiah in Judaism, with an entire introductory section. Even as a Catholic, I can’t agree to that, and I don’t agree with your above interpretation of WP:DUE WRT this page. The purpose of this page is to describe the lab leak hypothesis, based on what reliable sources tell us, and to do so as accurately as possible. As I have said in my reply to ProcrastinatingReader below, I am not opposed to providing contextual information where it is relevant, for WP:BALANCE, and now that I think about it, the best section for that would be in the footer, titled "Reception". WP:GEVAL is not a relevant policy here, as this page is about the lab leak hypothesis and not about COVID-19 origins in the general. Your constant referral to the Natural origins hypothesis as the "mainstream" view - when investigations are still ongoing and evidence for either hypothesis is lacking - may require us to take this to ArbCom, as per DGG’s suggestion. I request a policy based WP:THIRD opinion from JPxG or SMcCandlish, or anyone else on this page. CutePeach (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CutePeach, It is a WP:CANVAS violation to selectively ping users who may be sympathetic to your side, rather than a neutral criteria such as "all users who have edited in the last 72 hours." That's also not WP:THIRD, which is a specific process involving uninvolved users who have not interacted with this content or its editors. What you have asked for is a POV opinion. Please do not do this again. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darouet, very good points, I agree. We must cover what is covered in articles about the lab leak hypothesis in secondary sources, in proportional weight to how those sources cover it. And you'll see if you glance at the sources section on this talk page, most secondary sources also cover the scientific consensus (that this theory is unlikely) and a quick primer on what we know about the virus' origins, before delving deeply into the theory itself and how it fits into that picture. We are mirroring what is covered in secondary sources about this topic. So this background section is the essence of WP:DUE.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the reader: I think the scientific background provides useful contextual information to introduce what is known about the virus's origins. And as a practical and social matter, I doubt you'd be able to write an article like this without Wikipedia controversy if it were excluded. An article solely explaining the lab leak would be unacceptable to many. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, yes, agreed that this is one of the main ways in which we avoid this article becoming a POVFORK.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: I’m sorry but that is not a policy based argument. This article is about a specific hypothesis - and we are having to rewrite it from scratch because two WP:NOLABLEAK advocates appended "or TNT" to their "Delete" votes in the MFD - and now they insert "Scientific background", supposedly to provide what you call useful contextual information to introduce what is known about the virus's origins.

If we wanted to "introduce what is known about the virus's origins", we would provide information that is relevant in context to the lab leak hypothesis, as what is "known" and "not known" on COVID-19 origins is a matter of dispute between scientists. When mentioning the "smoking gun" claim about the Furin Cleavage Site that Nicholas Wade’s BOAS piece attributed to David Balitmore [13], then we should also provide his later clarifications from newer sources [14][15], so as to provide a WP:BALANCE of WP:OPINIONs, and not what is "known". When we mention Mike Worobey’s analysis of the Wuhan maps in NPR [16], then we should also mention the reported map data errors in the WHO’s report as reported by Eva Dou in WaPo [17] [18]. In this way the information is actually contextual.

However, the "Scientific background section" as it is now gives the impression - falsely - that there is already an accepted scientific consensus on all aspects of the origins of this zoonotic virus and the mechanism by which it spilled over into humans. Do you see such a section in Anthropocene or any of the other hypothesis pages JPxG mentioned here [19]? CutePeach (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: if this article is a WP:POVFORK then that would imply it presents the POV of only one group of scientists and editors, which is not something I have advocated. We should provide alternative POVs for WP:BALANCE, where they are WP:DUE, using WP:INTEXT attribution. I am writing a draft on the similarly notable DuPont PFOA dumping scandal adhering to the same principles, and I don’t anticipate any problems with that. CutePeach (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CutePeach: I made some significant changes to the section of text you added. You say you're not advocating that we present "the POV of only one group of scientists", yet your addition left a bare claim of A third group from the Broad Institute, including Alina Chan, Shing Hei Zhan and Benjamin Deverman published a preprint, which they submitted to a number of journals, but was rejected among other non-neutral writing which I attempted to clean up. Per the above citations to WP:DUE, I shouldn't have to explain why that needed to be fixed (and requires additional fixes). And, more to the point, it should be readily apparent why your edits could easily be perceived as POV pushing. Two out of three claims lacked peer review, and there was no mention made to the alternate explanations of the things the authors claimed. Consider more thorough initial edits and/or self-tagging the section as needing expansion if you hope to avoid the perception that your edits are pushing a POV. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Scientific background should be renamed to something else. The information there is valid and should be in the article. Dream Focus 12:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this removal. It's inevitable that Daszak is going to be covered in this article in some form or another. The two main events driving a resurgence of the theory are: the WSJ report, and the Daszak mess. The coverage of him is not exactly favourable in sources. Although there's no consensus of any intentional wrongdoing, the sources do agree that The Lancet report at the time stigmatised discussion on the issue and appears dodgy. I don't see how total exclusion of that content is justifiable, really. Naturally it'll need tweaking for NPOV as it was written by one user; I tried to copyedit it slightly but I'm not familiar with all of the sources on that issue so perhaps people could try do that rather than delete? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been handled relatively well at Daszak's own biography. But turning this article into a raft of absurd accusations against Daszak would be highly inappropriate: effectively suggesting that the lab leak idea has merit because we should somehow doubt one of the world's top experts on this topic. Daszak's work remains the consensus on this issue because virologists and infectious disease ecologists know their stuff and agree with him. For our purposes, journal article publications by other scientists overwhelmingly support Daszak's scientific work and publishing. -Darouet (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those two pieces of correspondence in journals (not peer reviewed) are criticised by investigative journalists. Scientists don't have a monopoly on conflict of interest allegations, and it remains a well covered aspect of the issue in reliable sources and is quite central to the theory. Which policy allows for the removal of one paragraph of well sourced unflattering content? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the coverage on his own article (Peter_Daszak#COVID-19_pandemic) takes a similarly negative tone: The letter has been criticized by Jamie Metzl for embodying "poor science", and by Katherine Eban of Vanity Fair as having had a "chilling effect" on scientific research and the scientific community by implying that scientists who "bring up the lab-leak theory... are doing the work of conspiracy theorists". According to emails obtained by FOIA, Daszak was the primary organizer of the letter, and had communicated with colleagues while drafting and signing the letter to "conceal his role and creat[e] the impression of scientific unanimity.". It also caused controversy since Daszak did not disclose that his EcoHealth Alliance group had an existing relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, with some alleging that this was an apparent conflict of interest. In June 2021, The Lancet published an addendum in which the April 2020 letter's authors were asked to update their competing interest disclosures. As the only author to do so, Daszak listed his cooperation with researchers in China. So you'll have to explain the problem here? You don't think those things (eg a letter producing a "chilling effect" on the discussion of this article's subject) are things that should be mentioned here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the topics you mention (the "chilling effect" of the letter, and the later COI statement) are absolutely notable on this topic. Regarding the original diff mentioned, it had some serious NPOV/OR/WTW issues ("objective evaluation of a lab origin by the scientific community was halted" and "small group of researchers who were funded to study pandemic causing viruses" both being problematic, and that's just the opening sentence). Important topic, definitely needed a rewrite from what was originally there. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't write it. While I agree it needed copyediting for tone at minimum, I think as a rule it would've been better to do that than full removal. I attempted to correct some of it and I think that was a reasonable base for further modifications. I just think it's less likely to be a testing editing process to try build on others' contributions rather than delete, unless there is absolutely nothing to build on (such as in the most recent section I removed). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed another paragraph, but that one should stay, agree with Bakkster Man. There are two things here. (a) there was indeed a COI as a matter of fact (this is nothing special, a lot of people have COI with regard to something). (b) a letter by scientists (basically an opinion letter) was criticized by people who disagree - this is fine to include if properly worded. My very best wishes (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the notable (and out of the ordinary) item was not the COI itself, but the lack of disclosure until the following year. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True. Things like that can be even regarded as a scientific misconduct which undermines his credibility on this issue. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write more on this later - sorry for delay - but this article is about the lab leak idea, not about how one of the leading researchers on this topic can't be trusted. Such a focus would become a coatrack and a mechanism for implying, but not arguing outright, that we should discount the science on SARS-CoV-2, and one of its leading scientists. If any part of this is mentioned, we can note the allegation very briefly, and then note why it's the case that this doesn't seem particularly relevant to scientists interested in or studying the origins of SARS-CoV-2. There's a ton written about the political motivations of the attacks on Daszak and that should receive more prominent mention, as it helps explain the lab leak idea in the larger context of scientific consensus on the issue. -Darouet (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's covered in the context of the investigation, by several reliable sources. It's noted as having a chilling effect on the investigation, by several reliable sources. The effective derailing of an investigation is clearly (according to several reliable sources) an important event to be noted in the article of that investigation. It's the reliable sources that decide what is relevant to a topic. There is nothing unreliable in the slightest about The British Medical Journal, The Times, The Conversation, an investigative journalist at Vanity Fair, etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree. To cover the history, we should mention the alleged chilling effect of the letter as described in the sources we have, and the renewed openness after the WHO report was published. One sentence on the Daszak COI disclosure is worth noting in the context of the letter, I wouldn't suspect anything more or less to be likely to be appropriate. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this article is about the lab leak idea, not about how one of the leading researchers on this topic can't be trusted absolutely, —PaleoNeonate – 20:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments above and the discussion there, I've copied text and sources (but have not transcluded) from Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and origin to this article, COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis#Scientific consensus on likely natural zoonosis from bats. I or other editors might copy additional material, and possibly modify it slightly, from that article into into one in order to contextualize the discussion about a possible laboratory origin with strong scientific references.

Per User:ProcrastinatingReader, I am copying rather than transcluding, so that we can decide what to include at a more granular level. I'm hesitant to take this approach because it can be used to shift text away from what scientific editors have added at SARS-CoV-2 and towards a pro-leak viewpoint that is right dismissed by most scientists. Nevertheless I'm adopting the copying approach in the hopes that we can avoid that pitfall. -Darouet (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the diff of the copying here [20]. -Darouet (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good start to me. There's probably more that can be added, but there are editors better versed on the science than me. Perhaps Novem Linguae? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, looks good to me. I'm sure some other people will take a crack at it too :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be some discussion of the genetic arguments that COVID-19 was designed here, I think? Specifically arguments such as Nicholas Wade's arguments about the furin cleavage site? I haven't looked into this in enough depth to want to write the whole thing unassisted, but my brief analysis has suggested that MEDRS sources are pretty clear that Wade (and others) are simply incorrect here regarding the importance of the CGG codon, and the text will need to make that clear. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we should include a discussion of it, but only where it is covered (and how it is covered) in reliable secondary sources. Examples from the sources list at the top of this talk page: [21] [22] [23] [24]

We need those secondary RSes to tell us how to frame our discussion of the Wade piece and couch it in the mainstream scientific view that they source from other primary sources (scientists, articles, etc). Sorry, I want to make clear I think you probably agree with me on this, just wanted to put it out there. :) --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the paper by Frutos, which explicitly addresses the claims about the "uncommon" codons and many others; and there's also the discussion that was had here for sources about the FCS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RandomCanadian, Ah yes thank you, that is an important source I forgot they talked about it as well. Agree Frutos et al. should be in the mix here. Here's the link: [25].--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should quote exactly what those involved said. What I wrote in a different draft I think explain the situation well:

WHO's director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated: "Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts". The WHO team investigating the virus's origin were not allowed to do a full audit of the Wuhan lab. ^[1] He later stated it was "premature" to dismiss the lab leak as the origin of the virus. ^[2]

Over two dozens experts signed an open letter calling for a proper investigation in China specifically to determine if a lab leak happened from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Their complaints about the previous investigation was that China was given veto power over who was allowed to be on the investigation team. Peter Daszak, who has a long-time collaboration with the Wuhan lab, was on the team. Other complaints were that they weren't allowed to enforce international protocols, they weren't allowed to demand access to records or samples at the lab, nor talk to any key personnel there. ^[3]

Former CDC director Robert Redfield stated he believes COVID-19 came from the Wuhan lab. He also states the WHO were compromised. ^[4]

The WHO-China investigation team did write in their report: “The closest known CoV RaTG13 strain (96.2%) to SARS-CoV-2 detected in bat anal swabs have been sequenced at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wuhan CDC laboratory moved on 2nd December 2019 to a new location near the Huanan market. Such moves can be disruptive for the operations of any laboratory.” ^[5]

Dream Focus 08:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be covered up to some point considering that it's among arguments used to dismiss the legitimacy of the official investigations. It's already covered in 3.4 Accidental release of a natural virus at the moment, however. There's an empty subsection about RaTG13, but it's also covered in the current Scientific background section (not a direct ancestor). —PaleoNeonate – 19:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears strange since the studied virus was first extracted from infected humans. It was obviously adapted enough to be transmissible among humans and there's nothing suspicious about that. The search for the animal origin is still ongoing and it's expected that years may be needed to discover that source. —PaleoNeonate – 18:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This section definitely needs a lot more work. The question to answer is "why did the pandemic spread so quickly from first identification?" There's two answers. One is that it was circulating and adapting to humans undetected (possibly because it wasn't causing severe illness due to the lack of adaptation, or just because mild to moderate symptoms are common) long enough to adapt before it was noticed, another is that it adapted in lab culture. Thing is, the latter explanation has only one peer-reviewed study making the claim (and it was a computer modeling study), while the former has lots of reliable sources. It shouldn't be hard to make that clear, but it might require more of a hatchet being taken to the section. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoNeonate, note that apparent "pre-adaption" is not the same thing as "adaptation", and note also the term "apparent", as none of the studies cited propose it as definite, and it is not being proposed as such. As Bakkster Man explains correctly, there are several possible explanations for this pre-adaption, one of which is a lab leak, which is what this page is about. This is not a controversial point and is accurately cited in the previous version of this article, using the WHO-convened report, which is a WP:PRIMARY source, so we can’t use it in this version. I am reinstating the MIT Technology Review and Boston Magazine pieces describing Chan’s preprint and I remind you of Colin's prior advice regarding pre-prints [26]. Based on this prominent reliable sources, Chan et al is WP:NOTABLE and WP:DUE in this subsection, and we should not use a reason that Colin described as a red-herring to remove it. CutePeach (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have WP:UNDUE concerns about the "apparent pre-adaption" section. I was waiting to see if it improved, but I am not seeing that so far. We may want to think about removing the section. Do we really need 4 paragraphs about 1) an idea that was edited out in peer review, 2) a primary study, and 3) a preprint? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To echo Novem Linguae, I think this section is wholly undue and based now on improper citations. We cannot have information which depends almost exclusively on preprinted, it runs counter to the ArbCom sanctions. Preprints are not reliable, news reports about preprints are even worse. It’s a game of telephone with unverified and unreviewed findings. We need experts (scientists acting as peer reviewers and summarizers in literature reviews) to tell us how to contextualize these findings. At the moment, neither are included in the sources of this section. If and when better sources are used, it would make sense to include.

There may be some quality sources regarding the pre-Huanan market spread and how it relates to the virus circulating asymptomatically or sub clinically in Hubei province, such that the virus had time to adapt and overcome the “hill” of a new host’s immune system/factors. Much of this is theory based on insufficient evidence, but it has more backing (genetics, epidemiology, contact tracing) than the lab leak version which is almost entirely supposition. As far as I can tell, that is not included very well in the current version. We probably need to thoroughly add that view sourced to RSes and bring RSes for the other views, to become DUE, or delete as UNDUE. Just my 2 cents. —Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Among recent sources I read about it, although not MEDRS and appeared to be plausible coverage, was https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/18/in-hunt-for-covids-origin-new-studies-point-away-from-lab-leak-theory "The claim that Sars-CoV-2 was suspiciously well adapted to humans at the beginning of the pandemic also finds little support. It infects a wide range of species – including cats, dogs, mink, tigers and lions – and if anything has become better adapted to humans over the pandemic, in part through further alterations to the spike protein." and it continues. If things have no support, it may not even be WP:DUE. However, at least we have such mainstream sources that say it's not credible, meaning that it received some media attention. —PaleoNeonate – 20:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae and PaleoNeonate you have just spent a year blocking the creation of this article and now that it is here you want to delete its most important section. I think it would be better for you instead to propose how to improve the section based on the sources provided or to offer some new sources that describe this premise. The high affinity of the hACE2 noted by Petrovsky and the post-outbreak genetic stability noted by Chan is very central to the hypothesis. Shibbolethink this page is not about the natural origins hypothesis, the writing of Antonio Regalado and Rowan Jacobsen for MIT Technology Review and Boston Magazine on the lab leak hypothesis are more WP:DUE here than your personal opinions about the hypothesis. Even if the lab leak hypothesis will be disproven, it will be a part of history and we need to describe it for our readers that need to know how things went in any case. --Francesco espo (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE says we must discuss this topic relative to the mainstream view, and WP:GEVAL indicates we can provide that mainstream rebuttal with similarly strength sources. Which, given the current section, is pretty weak. If it's critical to the theory, bring better sources. If they exist, you find them. Don't throw junk at the wall, and insist others find a way to make it stick. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Bakkster Man, this page is about the Lab Leak Hypothesis in specific, not COVID-19 origins in the general, so your proposed application of WP:NPOV’s WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL sections is at odds with the policy’s WP:POVDELETION clause. Wikipedia has all sorts of pages on hypotheses using sources a lot less reliable than ours, and providing WP:BALANCE is not a must in their own pages where the consensus described by RS to be in flux [27]. If you’ve read the MIT Technology Review article, you will know that Jonathan Eisen’s provided an WP:OPINION we can cite for WP:BALANCE, which I have included in the reinstated text. Please don’t misapply WP:PAGs to this page. This is not a warning, just friendly advice.

If you would like to open a WP:ARE to gain clarification on the application of WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL, as well as the use of WP:PREPRINTS in this page, I will be sure to make a statement there. I see you haven’t objected to RandomCanadian’s inclusion of Dalgleish’s preprint, just like you didn’t object to their inclusion of a Wikivoice statement about pangolins in COVID-19 pandemic, despite my requests for you to check it [28]. In that case, the claim there was false, and does not match our position on Pangolin CoVs in SARS-COV-2 and COVID-19 investigations. If you simply agree with others when they disagree with me without checking their claims, that could give the appearance that you are forming a WP:FACTION and that is not good for our collaboration.

I actually agree with RandomCanadian’s inclusion of Dalgleish paper here, even though paper hasn’t actually been published yet and is technically not even a preprint, but that’s fine because SBM is a reliable source - just like the MIT Tech Review, which is cited 104 times on Wikipedia [29]. I do think we need to qualify Gorski’s comments as being based on comments Dalgleish made to the Daily Mail, which is apparently not a reliable source - so we have to be mindful of the possibility they have misquoted him. I think we should only provide information about the hypothesis from our reliable WP:SECONDARY sources and let our readers make up their own minds about things. CutePeach (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this presentation invites typical WP:GEVAL: "foo says this but bar says that". It may be unavoidable but could be mitigated by formulating the paragraphs with care and avoiding to attribute the mainstream scientific view where possible (vs claims and public opinion, per WP:YESPOV). —PaleoNeonate – 19:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoNeonate, agreed that it is risky. But it is similar to the approach taken at Moon landing conspiracy theories, which is also a heavily contentious article. I think if done well, it can make everybody happy. Because it puts the steel-manned arguments forward, and then knocks them down. But of course that will require very very delicate craftsmanship, agreed.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: That's what I'm trying to do with the #Deliberate genetic engineering subsection (to begin with). It probably needs to be done with the others too. Is the current format good? i.e. , "Somebody notably said X. Scientists say X is bollocks for reasons Y and Z". Or do you have better suggestions? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and for things that are not discussed in reliable sources and are only supported by primary or dubious sources, they are likely simply undue and should be omitted. I spent a few hours reading a number of sources earlier today and noticed that no credible source presents such pro/con lists. Various mention the scientific consensus that a lab leak is considered unlikely, especially as a pandemic origin. We often find the standard "cannot be ruled out" or "more information is needed", etc, that conspiracists tend to transform into "yes" shows (and unfortunately even Fox News does this, misleading many, some sources mention this fact). As we know, that's not new and happens with ufology like cherry picking in a recent report, it happens with dubious medicines and pseudoscientific medicinal treatments, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 20:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm for a better answer to your format question I'll come back later after having reread the current state of the article, I might also boldly copy-edit... —PaleoNeonate – 20:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IRT Special:Diff/1034473522, the intended emphasis was not "more investigation needed", but that it was a call for legitimate scientific investigations by the scientific community, resulting from the widely disseminated unwarranted/hasty speculation. Another editor had also tagged it as primary, so maybe it can be left out for now... —PaleoNeonate – 19:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A claim like that (which is contentious and concerns contentious stuff that has easily escalated to edit wars in the past) needs to be sourced with a high quality secondary RS which has a very close interpretation to the statement.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't even aware when I originally inserted this source that a huge controversy was created around one of its authors. If used, it would need to be with a secondary source that mentions both this paper's position as well as how controversy was fabricated... —PaleoNeonate – 20:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is important and sources exist, but help is welcome to express and source it properly. I have restored it but am not too happy with the current citation batch I hastily used... —PaleoNeonate – 19:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed ad nauseam in many previous discussions on other pages - and the Hakim paper fails verification for this claim, so I have tagged it accordingly. There is no consensus on the origins of the virus, and even the WHO Report - which some here claim represents scientific consensus - has been critiqued by the WHO Director General, the US and 13 other governments, and the European Union. Scientific consensus follows - not precedes - proper investigation.

Furthermore, the blanket statement Some scientists, despite misgivings, agree that more investigation into the origins is warranted also fails verification and requires more citations. Most scientists, including those most vocally against it - like Angela Rasmussen - agree that more investigations including it are warranted [30] [31]. CutePeach (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure its valuable quibbling about wording, as long as both views are represented. We have no way or proving "most",, but also no way or disproving it, so either wording is likely to be in error. The woding "some" does in many cases seem like waffling, but it's better than making judgments. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So some sources that mention this consensus are: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/27/did-covid-come-from-a-wuhan-lab-what-we-know-so-far https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/14/covid-origins-australias-role-in-the-feedback-loop-promoting-the-wuhan-lab-leak-theory

As for the above, there are valid reasons for this consensus. Virology and epidemiology weren't born last year and patterns that were long expected were met, etc. Also, Wikipedia is not into false balance reporting and controversy-fomenting by gallop, there are policies about this. Reliable sources also put things in perspective, which perspective is the one WP must reflect. User:PaleoNeonate/Userboxes/Brainwashing^[Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 20:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding, IRT to a comment in the next closed thread: "This document ... examines the probability that each claim is true to allow the reader to make his or her own conclusions." we hear that all the time and it's not what Wikipedia is about. —PaleoNeonate – 20:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]