Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 34

RFC: Include FBI and Department of Energy findings in the lead?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:TLDR: There is a consensus against mentioning that the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy announced in 2023 that they favor the lab leak theory in the lead of this article.

This RFC has more than 200 comments from about 60 editors so far. About 90% of participants joined the conversation at least a week ago; there have been no new participants for several days. Most participants are highly experienced editors, and many seem very familiar with the subject matter. A straight count of votes is very close to 2:1 against the proposal to mention these agencies in the lead.

Most editors, regardless of whether they support or oppose mentioning these two agencies in the lead, agree that the main question is whether inclusion in the lead is WP:UNDUE. The arguments for exclusion from the lead were more likely to explicitly invoke Wikipedia's policies in their rationales. There is a clear consensus that including only those two agencies in the lead would be UNDUE. For the 'no' voters, this often, but not always, takes the form of not wanting them mentioned in the lead at all. Many editors, including those on both sides of the question at hand, are hesitant to include only those two agencies in the lead (or only US agencies) but might be more supportive of a broader statement (see, e.g., this comment from opposer OrewaTel and this one from supporter NoonIcarus). Five different editors (12% of opponents) used the words cherry picking to describe naming only these two agencies.

These responses, and this comment from the editor who started this RFC, suggests that the question asked may not have adequately described the full range of possibilities, so that editors have rejected a narrow idea (mention only these two) but might have had a different response to a broader (or more specific) question (e.g., a proposal that included views not only from the US FBI and DOE, but also from other US agencies as well as China and the EU). However, Slatersteven said, editors have answered the question they were actually asked, and there is consensus against the question when it is narrowly construed to mean mentioning only these two agencies in the lead.

A few participants are concerned about WP:MEDRS, but editors generally agreed that the question at hand is not about whether it's scientifically true that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted from lab work ("biomedical information"), but whether it's important that these US agencies said something ("politics"). A few comments, such as this comment from Fermiboson, suggest ways to mention the two agencies without implying that they are correct or that their views should be considered more important than the views of scientific researchers, but this does not seem to have reduced support for exclusion from the lead.

On smaller themes, I found some comments largely irrelevant (e.g., whether the article should be merged into Origin of COVID-19), background information (e.g., whether the US DOE is an intelligence agency), or based in individuals' personal values (e.g., whether science is seeking the truth). I have disregarded these in analyzing the responses to the RFC, as they have no particular net effect on the question at hand.

Although the question at hand is only about whether these particular agencies should be mentioned in the introduction to the article, for the avoidance of doubt, there is essentially unanimous support for including the information about the US FBI and US DOE in the body of the article.

This is not the first attempt to get this information into the lead. I do not suggest making another attempt until there have been substantial changes in the facts, but I do not expect all proponents to take my (optional) advice. So in the belief that someone is going to suggest this again (and again and again), let me suggest a path that would have at least a small chance of achieving consensus in the future:

1. Think about at this comment from CapnJackSp and the immediately following one by Ortizesp, which suggest briefly explaining how the FBI's statements affected the perceived credibility of the claim at different points in time. This might result in proposing a statement closer to "The idea became more popular when..." or "made headlines around the world" than "The FBI made an announcement".
2. Multiple editors, on both sides of the immediate question, say that singling out one or two US agencies and excluding all other US agencies and all other countries is inappropriate. Therefore, if you want to see this mentioned in the lead, do not propose including the US FBI or DOE alone. Taking the views of these editors into account might result in a proposal to say something about all of them (e.g., that the views of US intelligence agencies was mixed at that point in time, or that different countries had different views).
3. Write the rest of the article first per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. If the article addresses these points at length (e.g., when, why, and how various intelligence agencies differ from each other and from mainstream scientific positions), then the policy- and guidelines-based argument for including this in the lead will be stronger.

Unless there is a dramatic shift in editors' views, any future proposals/RFCs that do not meet all three of these expectations are very likely to be rejected, and may be met with complaints that their proposers are wasting the community's time and patience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the lede of our article on the COVID-19 lab leak theory mention that the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy announced in 2023 that they favor the lab leak theory? (For context and sources see discussion at Special:Permalink/1178629790#Department of Energy and FBI views not represented in lede.) --Andreas JN466 17:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC) (restarted after premature closure)

Survey (Request for comment)

• Yes, include a mention. The most recent, MEDRS-compliant scholarly article summarising the debate that I'm aware of, published two months ago in The BMJ ("Did covid-19 come from a lab leak in China?", https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p1556 Published 10 July 2023), notes the DoE's and FBI's tentative support for the lab leak theory and mentions that the FBI director's statements "made headlines", even while noting other agencies' dissent (as should we of course ...) and describing the scientific consensus as Many virologists, epidemiologists, and other infectious disease experts still say that all available evidence points to SARS-COV-2 spilling over to humans from an animal host, most likely at a wet market in Wuhan. That seems in line with WP:NPOV to me – "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The DoE and FBI view may be wrong, but it's a significant view that was covered by media around the world, and a mention in the lede is due. --Andreas JN466 17:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• No, undue (with a side of Bad RfC). While this can of course be covered in the article body, cherry picking two (out of several) US-only intelligence service views (in reductive cherry-picked summary, to boot) and elevating them to the lede is problematic, especially when RS gives as much weight to other country's views (Chinese CDC) and/or to what actual scientists/experts think, which is the sort of knowledge Wikipedia shoud emphasize. (Add: note I have added a bad RfC assessment to this as the OP has shifted the goalposts in their initial responses below. Suggest WP:RFCBEFORE might have been wise.) Bon courage (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• No agree with BC that its undue. The lead is supposed to be a summary, we already have too many cherry picked studies and whatnot there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• No – I don’t see how the concept that something is possible, but without evidence, is DUE for the lead. I also don’t understand what the FBI, a domestic intelligence organization, has to do with a lab in Wuhan China and I have no idea what the DOE has to do with this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment While this article is about the lab leak theory and should be able to mention important supporters, the views of the other U.S. agencies should also be included for balance. For length, there can be a count of in favor of LL, undecided, and in favor of non-LL origin, without naming every agency. Some of them had low/medium/high confidence. Senorangel (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• No per WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. Neither of those listed bodies have the required qualifications to make such statements given that they are not bodies primarily comprised of virologists and epidemiologists. Academic literature (such as review articles in virology and epidemiology journals) disagrees that the lab leak was likely. To avoid a WP:FALSEBALANCE between experts such as virologists and non-experts such as nuclear scientists and police, the article generally should not give nearly as much weight to the latter. Additionally, US intelligence agencies themselves admitted in June this year that “We do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic”. People need to give this up, it’s a none-starter. TarnishedPath^talk 00:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Absolutely. I am amazed that it's not already there. Extremely well sourced from obviously notable groups. Arkon (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• No. As has been stated by others, the FBI and especially the U.S. Department of Energy are not the kind of entities we typically look to for medical claims. Cherry-picking these among all the various government agencies that have weighed in on the matter, in often ham-handed ways, is not informative to the reader and only contributes to WP:FALSEBALANCE. We should be foregrounding WP:MEDRS sources as much as possible here. Generalrelative (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• No absolutely undue. --Masem (t) 00:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• No per Generalrelative. TrangaBellam (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• No, this is a WP:MEDRS article and the FBI is not a WP:MEDRS source. I've seen this mistake over at Havana Syndrome and that experience makes me strongly want to avoid seeing it repeated. Loki (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  FYI there has been another RfC on this. The consensus was that MEDRS sources are only required for the strictly biomedical aspects of the topic, not the overarching COVID origin question. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't believe that is a conclusion that one can accurately draw from that RfC having reviewed it myself given the closer waffled on and did not give a succinct statement anywhere approaching what you have written. The person opening the RfC asked "Should this page be updated to unambiguously define disease and pandemic origins as a form of biomedical information?" and that was opposed. Given the nature of the close, no other inferences can be drawn. TarnishedPath^talk 11:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Refer to Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Origins_of_COVID-19:_Current_consensus point number 2 for further details. TarnishedPath^talk 12:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's pretty much what I said isn't it? Anyway no point arguing, the point is,

  "there is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS." PieLover3141592654 (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  No, that's a bit different from what you wrote. My reading is that WP:MEDRS can be preferred or required when there is any form of biomedical information which is not historical (using common sense about what historical means). TarnishedPath^talk 15:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  WP:MEDRS is a guideline, a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The issue is that the covid origins and the lab leak theory is not a purely medical subject. It involves local and international politics, investigation of possible wrongdoing, and a series of other situations besides virology, pandemics, medicine. Therefore, it goes further from the jurisdiction of just medical researchers and into the field of intelligence investigations. Keep in mind that intelligence agencies have some of the best specialized researchers working for them as well. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Just as I wouldn't take advice from a plumber on fixing my car's engine, we shouldn't look to police or nuclear scientist for expertise on the origins of pathogens. Virologists and epidemiologists are the appropriate professionals to consult. TarnishedPath^talk 00:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  As I stated, Keep in mind that intelligence agencies have some of the best specialized researchers working for them as well. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, the FBI is a domestic intelligence organization. I don't quite understand what anyone thinks it has to do with a research lab in Wuhan. Regards, TarnishedPath^talk 05:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  There is zero evidence that any intelligence agency "researchers" did anything; this is just editor fantasy. As explained in the article, the 'low confidence' qualification from these agencies likely means that they have sources that told them "psst - there was a lab leak in Wuhan" - but that they think those sources are a bit shit. Bon courage (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think what you just did is called projection. I mean you first are talking about "editor fantasy" (which would be more accurately refer to editor expectation of proper investigations of a health concern of global proportions). Then you come up with your own speculative fantasy about the FBI making a statement as a result of sources that "are a bit sh*t". Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Err, I think what you just did is make a inept personal attack, because you hadn't read the sources, which explain that the "low-confidence" assessment of a lab leak is assigned because a source's credibility is “questionable”, “poorly corroborated” or if there are “significant concerns” with the source (aka "a bit shit"). OTOH there is zero evidence in any source that any intelligence agency has done any scientific research on this, so yeah, that's a fantasy from the LL stans. Bon courage (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Due to the challenges posed by a biological threat, an effective response calls for a high level of cooperation between [law enforcement and public health].[1] Thinker78 (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'll take your word that the page at the other end of that link has a sentence that has those words, because your government is seemingly concerned about allowing Australians access to the FBI's website. Not withstanding that, all that says is that public health authorities and local law enforcement should cooperate in order for there to be an effective response controlling the spread of a pantheon domestically presumably. Nothing more. That sentence has not demonstrated any expertise that domestic law enforcement or nuclear scientists might have in regards to biomedical labs in foreign countries, particularly ones which are in countries which are competitors to the US and whose governments probably aren't going to easily cooperate with any investigations because of pesky issues like sovereignty. TarnishedPath^talk 06:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  The FBI might be a law enforcement agency but it has a biological threats division with experts in the field. The Department of Energy might sound like nuclear scientists but do you think nuclear scientists prepared the report? I mean you could try finding out why the Department of Energy made an investigation in the first place and what is its jurisdiction instead of "assuming" hilariously that nuclear scientists have expertise in biomedical labs. I mean, come on. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  "biological threats division with experts in the field", in the field meaning in the US. From DoE's website "The mission of the Energy Department is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions". Yep, that's totally related to biomedical labs which are in competitor nations jurisdiction. TarnishedPath^talk 07:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I now see that the DoE involvement is not clear at all and there is not much immediately clear information. I found a page that can give more clarity to the issue.

  The U.S. Department of Energy National Virtual Biotechnology Laboratory (NVBL) is a consortium of DOE National laboratories, each with core capabilities relevant to the threats posed by COVID-19. The NVBL is taking advantage of DOE user facilities, including light and neutron sources, nanoscale science centers, sequencing and bio-characterization facilities, and high performance computer facilities, to address key challenges in responding to the COVID-19 threat.

  Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  A good idea as far as energy security goes, which leads into their mission. Again that speaks to the US's domestic needs in my reading because the COVID-19 threat is as much domestic as it is international. From the same page there is "Epidemiological and logistics support: Proven capabilities based on data analytics, artificial intelligence, and other decision tools have previously supported many national emergencies including oil spills, hurricanes, DOD supply chains and epidemiology. These capabilities have been deployed for government agencies, such as DOE, FEMA, and DOD. Such tools can yield information for health care providers and government groups on modeling disease spread, collecting/analyzing information and data from open sources world-wide, and providing tools for real-time decision making, risk analysis and prioritization for patient care and supply chain logistics." which is easy to imagine how that has international application in support of the US's neighbours during times of crisis, but investigations of biomedical labs in competitor countries? Sorry you don't have me there. TarnishedPath^talk 10:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  This is from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (emphasis added):

  The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence is responsible for the intelligence and counterintelligence activities throughout the DOE complex, including nearly 30 intelligence and counterintelligence offices nationwide. The mission is to protect, enable, and represent the vast scientific brain trust resident in DOE's laboratories and plants. The office protects vital national security information and technologies, representing intellectual property of incalculable value, and provides unmatched scientific and technical expertise to the U.S. government to respond to foreign intelligence, terrorist and cyber threats, to solve the hardest problems associated with U.S. energy security, and to address a wide range of other national security issues.

  The Department of Energy is responsible for the United States’ National Laboratories, which do lots of biomedical research, pandemic preparedness, and nonproliferation work. In particular, note this center at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:

  LLNL’s Forensic Science Center (FSC) is home to nationally recognized scientists and capabilities that support chemical, nuclear, explosive, and biological counterterrorism. As one of two U.S. laboratories with international certification to handle chemical warfare agents, the FSC analyzes interdicted samples, provides radiological assistance 24/7, and engages in the critical research and development needs of the intelligence community including law enforcement, homeland security, and health professionals. FSC personnel are experts in analytical chemistry, organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, nuclear chemistry, and forensic instrument design and fabrication.

  And another quote (emphasis added):

  In a world where threats are continuously evolving, LLNL works diligently to help the nation prevent and mitigate catastrophic incidents arising from biological, chemical, radiological, or explosive materials. With unparalleled expertise in threat and risk assessment, detection of threat materials, understanding and mitigating the consequences of attacks, and forensic analysis, the Laboratory provides a major component of the nation's defenses against the catastrophic threat posed by the malicious use of weapons of mass destruction. The Forensic Science Center (FSC) serves the short- and long-term needs of agencies responsible for monitoring and verifying compliance with international treaties and agreements, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention through the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

  You’re really underestimating the DOE’s expertise here. They’re exactly who I would expect to be involved in a pathogen attribution effort. —Wulf (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah I don't see anything any in any of that which gives them subject matter expertise over biomedical research facilities in competitor nations. TarnishedPath^talk 23:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• No. Of the agencies surveyed, this wasn't even a majority opinion. Trying to cherry pick this into the lead, when we have extremely good scientific sources saying a lab leak is "highly unlikely", "extremely unlikely", "massive online speculations", "speculations, rumours, and conspiracy theories", "not evidence-based", and "opinion-based narratives", is WP:FALSEBALANCE. A level 5 heading with 3 paragraphs (COVID-19 lab leak theory#Intelligence agencies) is plenty of weight for this without amplifying it further. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae: I get the idea of "not amplifying this further", but surely that ship has sailed. The FBI "endorsement" of the lab leak theory made headlines around the world. It was reported globally by all major papers and national broadcasters (we are citing the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC and Washington Post for this content in the article body). It is already "amplified" as much as can be. Instead, by choosing to stay silent on it in the lead you are giving up an opportunity to put the DoE and FBI view into perspective, e.g. by pointing out that it is a "low confidence" "leaning that way" guess rather than an actual endorsement based on demonstrated scientific fact, or by pointing out that it is a minority opinion even among intelligence agencies. Those are lost opportunities. Lastly, the absence of any mention of this in the lead of this Wikipedia article is fuelling its own conspiracy theories out there "in the wild" as we speak. So I see little effective upsides and significant downsides of the status quo. Andreas JN466 09:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  With all due respect, we should not write our articles based on guesses of how it will affect the real world. (Frankly, I think the current lead does this same mistake the other way; it reads way too defensive to me as it currently stands.)

  We have, frankly, no idea what the ultimate consequences will be of any particular thing we write, and it's not our purpose here to try to predict that. Our purpose is to write the best encyclopedia we can. Loki (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot)Yes. While a minority opinion, they did contribute to the theory's credibility in the eyes of those who believed it, making it quite important for this topic - Though it could be phrased differently rather than just a simple mention. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, of course. Their original dismissal of the theory logically altered the perception of it, and now their backtracking must also be significant.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Comment The two arguments above seem to be based not on actual encyclopedic relevance, and instead on using the article for advocacy to give the theory itself a "fair shake". Googleguy007 (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure why you would accuse me of WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS - I dont have a dog in this race. Perhaps throw accusations a bit more sparingly, would be appreciated. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• No, per WP:UNDUE, as explained by Bon courage and Generalrelative. NightHeron (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• No. Inclusion in the lede would be false balance. Loki makes a good point that we need to be very careful about how we incorporate government viewpoints into articles that fall under WP:MEDRS. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. We should include a comment on the US intelligence agency assessments in the lede (all of them, not just the ones favouring lab leak). IA assessments feature very heavily in news coverage on this topic around the world. We shouldn't blind ourselves to what is being said about this topic in mainstream RSes. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Noundue for the lede. It is a summary of our article, not a leader. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• No undue for the lede. The only organization whos support I would consider relevant enough for the lede would be CDC or the HHS. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would want stronger than that. TarnishedPath^talk 13:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• Strong yes, and also mention that the CCP has actively done everything in its power to be as uncollaborative with international investigations as possible by surgically wiping the Wuhan laboratory clean of all potential evidence before any inspections were allowed very long after the fact. David A (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have reliable sources for that claim? Googleguy007 (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• Noundue for the lede. Beyond what other editors have already stated I don't think the mention of what any US government agency says is due in the lede. This is related to a global event, and the varying political winds in the US don't change any of the underlying facts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• No Neither the US government nor any other government should dictate how facts are presented in a science topic. This article has a bit of an identity crisis-- on the one hand, it covers conspiracy theories and political theater. On the other hand, it covers empirical data (or lack thereof) and scientific scholarship. Since science and scholarship are given more weight in wikipedia's policy, I favor presenting this lede from the perspective of science. Otherwise, I would only support presenting this from the perspective of government if the title is changed to reflect that perspective. For example, Covid-19 lab leak theory (politics). The void century 22:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Uhoh, you're opening a can of worms there by daring to mention the actual problem: this page shouldn't exist as is. What it is, is an article about conspiracy theories, with one aspect of COVID-19 origin#Investigations strategically spliced in to make it all seem more respectable than it actually is. Bon courage (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  I was thinking that actually that there is a strong argument for a massive haircut of this article, because a lot of it is WP:UNDUE, and then merging with Origin of COVID-19. TarnishedPath^talk 16:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Surprisingly, perhaps, I kind of agree with both of you here. This article feels like some sort of POV fork of Origin of COVID-19. Andreas JN466 18:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Bingo. This is indeed the root of the problem. Ask yourself why we don't have an article called COVID-19 zoonosis theory. Wikipedia is privileging the fringe with the way it partitions topics into articles. Bon courage (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would support deleting this article as a POV fork and redirecting to a section of Origin of COVID-19. Either that, or a major reworking of this article's content to only cover the fringe aspects and make crystal clear that it's covering what's considered fringe/political/conspiracy theory. The void century 19:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  This article was a redirect for a long time, then a procedural AFD was created to debate whether this topic should get its own article, and it closed as create a standalone article. I think any attempt to merge would need to go through a new AFD. I also judge a merge AFD as unlikely to succeed so I do not recommend it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  I was having a read through the archives a couple of nights ago and there was a merge discussion a long time ago, however the merge discussion got scuttled by the AfD you mentioned which was then determined to be pointy so no discussion really got anywhere because of someone being pointy. My reading of the WP:MERGE is that discussions are preferably instituted on the destination's article talk pages (unless the discussion is already underway somewhere else). AfDs aren't needed for merge discussions, it's just that they often end up happening there. However my reading of WP:MERGE was also to the effect that for a merge to be possible that both pages would have to be of similar overlap, which I think is doable if this page got a heavy haircut to get rid of a lot of WP:UNDUE material. TarnishedPath^talk 02:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  A delete would never get up. There's no point trying. A haircut followed by a merge is more likely to be agreed upon. TarnishedPath^talk 01:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, while I think this article could use a trim, I don't think it should be deleted or merged. This topic clearly has independent notability. We have articles on creationism, moon landing conspiracy theories, birtherism, flat-earth and all sorts of other kooky ideas. Loki (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  Having a read of Origin of COVID-19 it has a section on the LL theory (named the laboratory incident there) that is of approx what I believe the appropriate length for this article, along with broader areas on "Origins" and "Investigations" which has heavy overlap with material in this article. I don't believe there is independent notability for this. TarnishedPath^talk 02:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  There's independent notability. COVID-19 lab leak theory unambiguously passes WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  While I, again, think this article oughta be trimmed, such a significant trim is definitely not warranted. The section over there is only a few paragraphs long. That's fine for that article, since in the context of that article it's a WP:FRINGE idea that doesn't deserve much WP:WEIGHT, but not for its own independent article.

  This topic unambiguously passes WP:NFRINGE. It's a big political controversy (rightly or wrongly) and has received quite a bit of mainstream news coverage. It also has, as should be obvious from the article, way more dedicated debunkings than your average WP:FRINGE theory. Loki (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  What concerns me are the incremental changes that could shift this article toward greater credibility. I've seen the same faulty arguments resurface many times now. The void century 07:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• WP:SNOW no/bad RFC per most above. Andre🚐 22:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes as a significant/noteworthy development. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. The lede mentions conspiracy theories twice, talks about racial undercurrents and politicisation. Adding this would make the lede more balanced. Alternatively, the balance can be achieved by trimming the lede in which case adding this may not be necessary. Alaexis_¿question? 10:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. These are authoritative sources and should be mentioned. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. is absolutely relevant, with no doubt or ambivalence at all. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• No. Undue. Raises a concern of cherry-picking the views of particular agencies from a particular country. I grant that it is home turf for many editors on English-language Wikipedia, but it is not useful to hyperfocus on particular US agency positions in the lead. This is not even a unitary government position. WP:Global is worth mulling. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984:, can you please sign your vote. Kind Regards. TarnishedPath^talk 00:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• No per GeneralRelative and TarnishedPath. (Summoned by bot) JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes but worded well....we should note that non-medical organizations are still fueling doubt in the general public to the dismay of the academic community.Moxy- 01:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• No Undue. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC).
• No. This is not a subject on which they can be taken as representative of mainstream scientific opinion or placed in the lead as if this is a mainstream opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• no per David Eppstein--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• No It belongs in the body, as do reports casting doubt on the theory. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes This is one of the worst ledes ive ever read. It is so unbalanced and non-neutral that merely adding a mention of the FBI or Dept of Energy's report barely even moves the needle. Investigative bodies' opinions are relevant to an investigation of the origin of a disease and obviously inform the LL theory. Bonewah (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• No: There can be no serious objection to having in the text of the article the fact that U.S. government services and agencies have adopted the "lab leak" version. This has been widely and conclusively reported by a myriad of reliable sources, worldwide too. But that adoption has not been supported by any kind of scientific or other (e.g. intelligence findings) evidence. Therefore, we cannot have that information in the lede, since that would provide the "adoption" with unjustified importance. It becomes actually quite simple as soon as we manage to get away from politics and concentrate on WP:POLICY. -The Gnome (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• No per Novem Linguae. The NYT in June reported that The country’s intelligence community, which includes more than a dozen organizations across the government, has been divided over Covid’s origins: Two agencies believe a lab leak was more likely while five others favor natural transmission from an animal market as the most likely cause of the original Covid outbreak. So not only is it not WP:MEDRS, but it represents a minority view within the U.S. intel community. Another June report, from Reuters, goes in the same direction: US intelligence agencies found no direct evidence that the Covid-19 pandemic stemmed from an incident at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, a report declassified on Friday said.. Keep in mind that since these are intelligence agencies, these assessments are likely Bayesian, not based on hard evidence (if the latter were true, we could expect their assessments to all match). DFlhb (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yup. And actually I think the FBI primarily wanted to keep the investigation going, for reasons I can't entirely fathom. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Being entirely cynical here, however working in a large government bureaucracy I don't think my cynicism is entirely unfounded. Funding of positions? TarnishedPath^talk 06:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• No This should not be in the lead, since these are not authoritative bodies for discovering the origin of the virus, and their views contradict scientific consensus. FBI and DOE advocacy for the leak idea should be mentioned in the article body, with the appropriate framing acknowledging that these bodies have no expertise in this area and their advocacy runs contrary to scientific knowledge. -Darouet (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• No per due-weight considerations and general concerns about what goes in article introductions. Novem Linguae's point above about false balance is right on the money. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Of course. While the rest of the world has accepted that the lab leak is most likely and WIV having zero to do with COVID is a a fringe theory, the usual Wiki shut down discussion pages claim that the lab leak is "almost impossible", "without proof", "fringe" and "conspiratorial", etc. These sources do a lot to show that experts don't think a lab leak is "almost impossible", "without proof", "fringe" or "conspiratorial." Even when similar sources claim that a non lab-leak origin is favored with low or medium confidence, they are saying that a lab leak is not unreasonable. It is precisely this view that the Wiki pages consistently trash. 2601:5C4:4301:217C:2132:4512:2B93:F6E4 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC) — 2601:5C4:4301:217C:2132:4512:2B93:F6E4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Thank you for giving such an extensive rationale for ignoring your !vote as politically motivated. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Not in the lede, no. They are not scientists, and the conclusion was tentative. There is by now a really solid body of science refuting lab origin, and conflating lab origin and lab leak, as the FBI statement does, is confusing. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• No. I think it would be misleading the reader and too far out on a limb to state something such as FBI and DOE "favor the lab leak theory" in the lede and should be very careful about doing so even in the body of the article. There are simply too many unknown about these assessments and we know they are apples and oranges, different reasoning, different research, different laboratories, and we have no real information on their standards, methods, who performed the analysis or who they consulted. As some virologists who have commented on this say their findings are a big unknown and their is now way for them to evaluate them. fiveby(zero) 16:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• No - (invited by a bot) Not worthy (UNDUE) of the lede. Jojalozzo (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• No. The positions of two domestic US agencies without expertise in virology, epidemiology, biosecurity, international politics, or any other relevant field are absolutely UNDUE for the lead of this article, especially given that this posistion is not shared by the vast majority of organisations that do have relevant competence. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• No, undue for the lead due to a lack of medical relevance and expertise. If this was an article about US government policy, it might make sense to list government entities so prominently, but two entities unrelated to health aren't significant enough to go in the lead. Additionally, why would we focus on two entities in the US government, and no other government? This isn't an article about the United States. US government sources are also potentially biased; and while of course we can report on what biased sources say (especially via secondary sources), that bias affects their weight, which can likewise be seen in the limited coverage of their positions. Most of the sources presented only mention them in passing and accord them little weight, which doesn't support the idea that we ought to be putting them in the lead ourselves. --Aquillion (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. This is obviously not undue weight. Heck, this was covered by The New York Times and CNN: [2] [3] [4]. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - This is not undue weight, but an offset against the tone of the rest of the lede that is largely skeptical of the lab leak theory. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

  When the vast majority of reliable sources are sceptical of a theory the lead of the article about that theory should be largely sceptical. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's the problem though. The lead, which essentially portrays the lab leak scenario as a racist conspiracy theory, is completely out of step with the vast majority of reliable sources, which portray is as a legitimate hypothesis. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Such crass elisions do not help. "The lab leak scenario" is not one thing. It's a tiny core of feasible proposition around which has been spun a shit-load of crankery, This is explained in the article. Bon courage (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• No The lead section is not the place. There could be a section that gives views of non-medical government departments but it should give a more balanced view. Please note that simply taking 5 or 7 US departments does not make the discussion balanced. Instead the views of European Union, African, Asian and Oceana nations should be given equal prominence. OrewaTel (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  @OrewaTel Just for reference, we already do have three paragraphs on this, at COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Intelligence_agencies. It would make no sense at all to have something like this in the lead and not in the article. Regards, Andreas JN466 12:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  True. But that section is solely about US Government views. Not Balanced. OrewaTel (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Significant and recent development. Should be included, along with China's rejection to the statement. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. No. In short: The Intercept and the peer-reviewed paper and grant it refers to and USGov bat coronavirus grant R01AI110964 serve as a reliable source of expert opinion reporting what most experts believe doesn't matter. Ditto for BMJ editors. Wikipedia editors are experts and know that the COVID-19 lab leak theory was is and always will be a racist, baseless conspiracy theory so the article should reflect that, irrespective of policies other than IAR. --RudolfoMD (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. The analysts involved are indicating their belief that the "lab leak" is the most plausible explanation, but they just don't consider it to be at the 90% or 95% confidence level. (Admittedly, this is probably not based on any kind of statistical analysis.) Nevertheless, this is based on all the information they have available. More significantly, the implication is that rather than dismiss the possibility that it was a lab leak, we should give due consideration to the possibility it was a lab leak. This is a big turnaround from what was said at the beginning, and that's why it belongs in the lede, even if others don't consider it as the most plausible explanation. Fabrickator (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Lean no. Seems WP:UNDUE for the lead without broader context about the other intelligence agency viewpoints. But adding the other intelligence agency viewpoints in the lead is another UNDUE issue in itself, since the lead should be concise. Not buying the arguments that this violates WP:MEDRS. The origin of COVID is not exclusively a medical issue, so I think it is fine on that front. Prcc27 (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Yes this an extremely significant development that requires a mention in the lede. If those agencies had not stated publicly that this theory is plausible this article would not even exist and this would just be an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Those are the most important intelligence agencies in the world and they believe the theory has merit and is even the most probable. FBI Director Christopher Wray has said that the bureau believes Covid-19 most likely originated in a Chinese government-controlled lab.[5] how could the lede not mention this? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  If those agencies had not stated publicly that this theory is plausible this article would not even exist. This article has been around since 2021-07-18, which is before the intelligence agency reports were released around 2021-08-27. I reject this idea that the intelligence agency reports were such a big microphone that this topic would have not made it into the mainstream without it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  We have been discussing (at least) since February 2021 Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 9#RFC to fix this once and for all if this theory has any merit or not and if it should be labelled a conspiracy theory/misinformation etc. . The assessments of those agencies have clearly shifted the tide significantly from "fringe conspiracy" to "legitimate theory". That is extremely significant. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  US spooks are a bit Mickey Mouse when it comes to this kind of thing. Anybody remember Havana Syndrome[6] ? We really want reliable sources, not ones with so much egg on faces. Bon courage (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that the most important intelligence agencies in the world say something (even if it is completely false) is significant in itself. And that is why all RS have reported on it noting it represented a significant development that even had an impact on international relations between China/US and on the WHO investigation into the origins of COVID-19. (See The Guardian [7] or the BBC [8] or the Wall Street Journal [9].

  The fact that they might be right or wrong is irrelevant here. It was a significant development and the fact that there has been such an international debate on the subject should be mentioned in the lead and then throughly covered in the article. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Gtoffoletto no it wasn't a significant development. WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:DUE. TarnishedPath^talk 15:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Why did all RS cover it so thoroughly then? Something that changes US/China relations is obviously significant. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  RS didn't (for this); news sources did. It's the same as Havana Syndrome or the MMR vaccine scare: a shitload of FALSEBALANCE coverage in "RS" (as it's considered by editors whose usual editing is in politics or current affairs), but less in sources which are reliable for judgement on the matter in hand. Bon courage (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think the misunderstanding here is that this has nothing to do with science. The fact intelligence agencies have made this assessment and have caused an international incident has to do with politics and international affairs. And the BBC, Guardian, WSJ and other similar sources are absolutely reliable and appropriate sources in this area and have thoroughly covered this event. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  "has nothing to do with science" ← wrong, much of the article is about science. The sources you mention are reliable for what they say (which is why we use them), but not for the lede where we rely more on the WP:BESTSOURCES with authority for the topic in hand. Bon courage (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Seconded; we are not trying to use the US government to make a scientific claim. The claim that is relevant here is that some US governmental departments, which are prominent and notable international organisations whose opinions influence many others around the world, have said they believe in this theory, nothing more, nothing less. This is undisputed fact. The article, sentence, and lede need not make a single iota of inference about whether this makes the theory more or less scientific, truthful, or falsifiable. That the rest of the article talks about medical claims is immaterial; let WP:MEDRS do whatever it does with those claims. This RfC is about the insertion of an inherently political, non-scientific claim into the article, due to its immense notability and relevance to the topic of the article. It is not about the insertion of a scientific claim. Fermiboson (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• No just mentioning those two and not other US agency assessments would be evidently non-neutral, and mentioning all of them would give undue weight to US agency assessments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Firefangledfeathers Shouldn't weight be determined by the amount of coverage? WP:DUE means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. I don't think anyone can cogently argue that these views were not extremely widely published by reliable sources, or that they are not significant. They made headlines around the world, being reported by mainstream media and/or state broadcasters everywhere. The only policy-based argument I can see would be to argue that the BBC, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post etc. are not reliable sources for this topic area because they're not WP:MEDRS. But that would mean denying the political dimension of this topic altogether – because for that political dimension, these would be considered some of the most reliable sources available to us. (For the avoidance of doubt, I have always argued in favour of representing all US agency views in the lead, not just those in favour of the theory.) Regards, Andreas JN466 14:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  (By the way, love that name. It led me to disover the poem; I'd been unfamiliar with it and am so glad to have discovered it.) Andreas JN466 14:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I love it too! Absolutely, coverage in the article should be determined by weight in the body of reliable sources. Making headline news for a topic like this means it should be in the article, but not necessarily the lead. I'm not sure there's anything in the article that wasn't either headline news or the subject of academic publications. If there is, we should probably consider removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:LEAD any prominent controversies should be covered in the lead. For me this would make the cut, but reasonable people can differ. :) Regards, and happy editing, Andreas JN466 17:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but it's difficult to see how that applies since the article itself is about a controversy. Every paragraph is about a controversy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE this information shouldn't. TarnishedPath^talk 00:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. This has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE, WP:MEDRS or WP:FALSEBALANCE; the article does not need to present the US's acceptance of the theory as evidence towards it. It is a notable organisation that has made a very notable public stance towards the matter; that's all. One could simply say something like "Despite lack of support in the academia, US intelligence agencies have indicated that they prefer the lab leak theory with low confidence." How political or reliable this is is left entirely up to the reader. This is not a POV, it's just a statement of a fact that is significant to the way people think about the topic. Fermiboson (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'd also like to note that, while I undersand regular contributors may find it fustrating when people flood in to say thing contrary to local consensus, hassling the author to withdraw as WP:SNOW when it is very clearly not snow by either votes or !votes seems to me bordering on incivil, quite frankly. Fermiboson (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• No, happy for it to be in the article, but not sure statements from not-directly-relevant agencies should go in the lede. If this was about a crime, I'd say the same thing about an NIH statement. Red Fiona (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• No. At the moment, the lede just lays out the fringe idea, its status as a fringe idea und the shabby mental environment where it originated. Listing all the idiots and loons who believe in it and all the actors who promote it for some political reason happens in the body of the article. That is how it should be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  There's a considerable amount of WP:TRUTH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS going on here. We are entirely capable of reporting both that the medical community disavows the idea and some government departments endorse it without presenting the latter as somehow overriding medical authority. Both are verifiable, undisputed facts that are important to the way the topic is perceived and the nature of the discussion surrounding it. Deciding, moreover, that the government report is definitely for nefarious political purposes is typical WP:OR. Fermiboson (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  The amount of misunderstanding in that comment illustrates why it would be wrong to include this. It's not religion or sport and the "medical community" does not disavow things, it follows the evidence. Likewise "government departments" do not "endorse" the idea, they have their own (poor) sources. Bon courage (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  The medical community, in following the evidence, has largely achieved a consensus that the evidence available does not support a lab leak theory, which colloquially can be written as "the medical community does not support a lab leak theory", which put in the active voice is "the medical community disavows the lab leak theory". There have been many discussions above about whether this is actually the case; for now, let's assume it is. Even if it was absolutely proven through RS that the government's sources were poor (which in this case would be general, as the quality of government sources of information and/or judgement is a political and not a medical issue), we can still say "despite medical evidence to the contrary, [department] prefers the lab-leak theory with low confidence..." as the fact that [department] has said that is one of the most notable events relating to the lab leak theory and, as a litmus test, one of the first things everyone thinks of when the theory is brought up. It is not up to WP to decide that, despite being clearly notable and significant, the government claims are bogus and should not be included, even if that may be true. That is textbook WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Fermiboson (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is about different cultures: science is a culture of finding out what is true, politics is a culture of trying to win the next election, and military intelligence is a culture of trying to fool the opposite side. Science is clearly the only lede-worthy culture here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  There is no question of cultural superiority here. To reiterate, we do not need to use military intelligence claims to support any stance of the theory. The claim made by military intelligence is clearly notable; that determines its inclusion in the lede. How bogus it is, or not, and how supported it is by actual science, or not, is irrelevant to whether it should be included, only how it should be included. What WP:MEDRS requires us to do is, on the assumption that the statement is to be included, we also need to clearly indicate what the science says about said claim, which (for the sake of this discussion) is that it's bogus. What you are arguing against is using intelligence to support a scientific claim; this is the exact opposite of what I'm arguing for. Fermiboson (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, I am not. Stop telling me what I am saying. I am saying that the people who care about what is true are more relevant and therefore lede-worthy, and the people who care about other things are less relevant and therefore not lede-worthy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  We have RS saying what the DoE says, means it judges its source is poor, as discussed in the article body. Puffing this up into government departments "endorsing" the lab leak is exactly the kind of mistake we need to avoid. Bon courage (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  The relevant departments have endorsed the lab leak theory. That this endorsement is a false claim (assuming we have RS for that) is not relevant to the question of whether to include it in the lede, as I said above; people expect to have such a notable event about the theory in the lede. The only thing this potential falsehood dictates is how we include it. If it is a falsehood, we say it is a falsehood, but that is distinct from just pretending it never happened. Fermiboson (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Trying to give a minority of intelligence agencies equal weight to the scientific community on a scientific issue sounds like WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE to me, not WP:RGW. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. This has been the overwhelming position of a lot of No votes. TarnishedPath^talk 09:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Cursory tally gives 19 yes, 35 no. That's 64%. !vote and all, but under no circumstance except mass sockpuppetry can this be construed as overwhelming. Fermiboson (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  And, as I noted under my own !vote, I don't think that repeatedly claiming that consensus is overwhelming and trying to snow close something with legitimate opposition is a constructive contribution. Fermiboson (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I said that's been the overwhelming position of the No votes. Not that the No votes were overwhelming. All the same 2 to 1 in favour of No after 54 votes is a fairly clear voice. TarnishedPath^talk 10:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies, I misunderstood. Have struck through the comments. Fermiboson (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Fermiboson All good mate, I didn't really expect you to strike. It was a simple misunderstanding which easily happens over text mediums. TarnishedPath^talk 11:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well, you did say and the overwhelming majority have stated NO, NO, NO, over and over but that was last month, when the tally was 19 No, 5 Yes. Probably forgot about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't forget and I did. As you point out at that point it was 19 against 5. 79.17% against and 20.83% for. I also closed it as a consensus was demonstrated and I think I was right in doing so according to WP:RFCCLOSE. There is really no point in engaging in this bureaucratic exercise of keeping it going for the full 30 days until the bot removes the template when we knew what the result was two weeks ago. WP:RFCCLOSE provides us clear guidance on that. TarnishedPath^talk 11:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Despite WP:RFC saying that involved closes are OK, I think that advice is a bit dated and would not recommend it. I would also not recommend an early close of this particular RFC. Sometimes it's best to let folks talk things out. With that said though, I will be making a close request at WP:ANRFC as soon as the 30 days are up, since consensus is quite clear. Just need a neutral closer and the 30 days to be up. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Already done re: WP:ANRFC. It's near the bottom of the que so I don't imagine it will be seen to until it's over 30 days anyway. I really don't see the point of letting things go on longer than they need to. I take in what you're saying, but with limited volunteer resources, things need to be nipped in the butt where they can I think. TarnishedPath^talk 11:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  To reiterate for the third time: nobody is saying to give them equal weight or credibility. Inclusion is determined by notability and their stance is undoubtedly notable; if we have relevant RS or MEDRS saying so, we can very much even say "Some US intelligence agencies have made the claim that they prefer the lab leak theory, which is disproven by available medical evidence". That latter part is about how to include the fact that the departments have this particular stance, but even if we were 100% verifiably sure their claims were bogus and politically motivated they're still notable. Fermiboson (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Then do we cram out the lede with the views of the other US intelligence agencies and then go blow by blow through each country's intelligence agencies?

  WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FALSEBALANCE talk about the precedence we give material even if it is notable and those policies apply. TarnishedPath^talk 10:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Do news sources and media give those equal coverage? Degree of notability is determined, at least in part, to the extent of coverage.

  There's no need for a false dichotomy here; you could still for example say that "While [agency] and [agency] assess lab leak to be likely, this is unsupported by scientific evidence, [other agency] does not, and [chinese agency] has condemned it as [etc]".

  Omitting the one thing everyone knows about lab leak theory just because we can't figure out exactly where the threshold is for a proper presentation of said thing is very much a conclusion against common sense. Fermiboson (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  But we haven't omitted. There is four full paragraphs at COVID-19 lab leak theory#Intelligence agencies. In my opinion that's too much WP:WEIGHT given to the opinions of US agencies, particularly ones who don't have subject matter expertise. This RfC isn't about whether we include the material in the article or not, because it's already been included. This RfC is about whether we should give the material more prominence and include it in the lede. WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FALSEBALANCE say that no we shouldn't give the material more prominence and include it in the lede. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it's about giving equal weight. It's about acknowledging that some dissenting views exist (from serious organisations), even if they're a minority. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  In all fairness, that is what WP:WEIGHT is. The argument is whether the mention is notable enough, and in what manner, to put it in what way or with what qualifier in the lede (apart from content, text positioning is also a weight consideration). Fermiboson (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, per Alaexis. —Wulf (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• No - this is WP:UNDUE and US-centric, as well as emphasizes the leanings of these two organizations which weren't even more than "low confidence" over those of the other 5 intelligence agencies in the US which found the lab leak very unlikely. Why do these two matter more than all the other countries' intelligence agencies? Why do they matter more than the other 5 and the Director of National Intelligence? Answer: they don't. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  No one said the other five should be excluded ... So this is really a strawman argument. Andreas JN466 23:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  all the other countries' intelligence agencies are actually far more than five. You have straw in your eye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Hob Gadling I was responding to Shibbolethink, who spoke of the other 5 intelligence agencies in the US which found the lab leak very unlikely. And The BMJ does indeed say that Five other US intelligence agencies, however, concluded that natural transmission is more likely.

  It's not news to me that there are more than five US intelligence agencies in total; I quoted CNN saying there's 18 on this page just a few days ago, at 18:17, 19 October 2023; nor am I unaware that other countries have their own. However, for better or worse, the US assessments made headlines in most of those other countries, too. Andreas JN466 20:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  The FBI doesn’t have low confidence, it has moderate confidence. And the other agencies didn’t say that it was “very unlikely”. The declassified report said that “All agencies continue to assess that both a natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible hypotheses to explain the first human infection.” The Wall Street Journal reported that all the assessments except for the FBI’s were low-confidence. —Wulf (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  @WulfTheSaxon, a source from February? You might want to get a bit more up to date. In June the intelligence community admitted that they had "no direct evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic stemmed from an incident at China's Wuhan Institute of Virology" further admitting that they "continue to have no indication that the WIV's pre-pandemic research holdings included SARSCoV-2 or a close progenitor, nor any direct evidence that a specific research-related incident occurred involving WIV personnel before the pandemic that could have caused the COVID pandemic". TarnishedPath^talk 03:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is from the June report you are referencing:

  "All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident."

  https://www.intelligence.gov/publics-daily-brief/public-s-daily-brief-articles/1089-odni-releases-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  From the context it's clear that they're using the word plausible as a synonym for possible. There are many, many things in this universe which are possible. Doesn't mean that all of them are anywhere near close to being likely. DOE have said they have low-confidence in the lab leak theory. You can't both hold something to be likely and have low-confidence in it's likelihood.

  In order for SARS-CoV-2 to have leaked from WIV it would have to had been there in the first place and there is ZERO evidence (refer to above) that is the case. There is also ZERO evidence that any close progenitor to SARS-CoV-2 was ever at WIV (again refer to above). TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Without commenting on the other parts of that evidence, a "low confidence assessment" in the intelligence community simply indicates that the threshold of probability is lower. For example, I assert with high confidence that you speak English, with medium confidence that you originate from an Anglophone country, and with low confidence that you participate widely in controversial or politics-related RfCs. The latter doesn't mean I don't think it is likely, it means that it very much could be not the case and I don't have affirmative evidence. Fermiboson (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  You are saying that it is possible to interpret the words "low confidence assessment" in a way that does not actually mean "low" but only "low in comparison with really high things but actually high".

  But Wikipedia articles are not a form of Bible exegesis where you can say things like "oh, those six days are actually six thousand years". That is how people justify crazy ideas, not how they write encylopedias. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  … Yes, because that’s what the term actually means in intelligence circles? I don’t think it has much relevance to this RfC (I’ve made my stance on this clear in my own comment), but just because you aren’t familiar with the way the word is used in this particular niche doesn’t change the fact that that is what they meant. If you absolutely insist on it, I can provide some sources supporting that that is the way the term is used in the field, but as I said, I don’t believe it is relevant to this RfC. Fermiboson (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's already covered in the article that low confidence means they have an untrustworthy source. Bon courage (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t see how that contradicts with what I said. Fermiboson (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Plausible means "seeming reasonable or probable". That's exactly what it means in this context. It's not an exact synonym for possible. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Request for comment)

• For the avoidance of doubt, any mention of the DoE and FBI views in the lead should be accompanied by a statement that five other US intelligence agencies do not agree with them, favouring natural transmission instead. I would not advocate including only the FBI and DoE views in the lede. --Andreas JN466 17:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  But you'd keep China out? Bon courage (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  No, Chinese views should be represented as well in the lede. That's just as much part of NPOV. Andreas JN466 17:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  Do you want to junk this RfC and start again with something that actually proposes a solid end result? Bon courage (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  No – we can't write an entire lede by RfC, but we can discuss whether mention of a particular item is due or not. Mentioning a "resurgence" of the lab leak theory in 2021 in the lede but not mentioning events of this year seems suboptimal. Basically, the lede currently stops in 2022. Andreas JN466 17:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Andreas, this is a WP:SNOW. Do you agree to withdraw this? TarnishedPath^talk 01:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  No, just let it run so we get wider community input here, beyond the regulars. To those saying this is a MEDRS issue, note that The BMJ covers intelligence agency views in its recent (July 2023) summary, both those in favour and those against the theory. As for three paragraphs in the article body being "enough weight", my feeling is that if we have three paragraphs about this in the article body, we should have a sentence summarising those three paragraphs in the lede. Andreas JN466 04:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Um no, WP:FALSEBALANCE. TarnishedPath^talk 04:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  WP:LEDE. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. If NPOV requires us to have three (extremely well sourced ...) paragraphs on the varying views of intelligence agencies in the article body, then it also requires us to include a summary of that controversy, however brief, in the lead section. Andreas JN466 05:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Jayen466 no, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FALSEBALANCE say otherwise. You should read the room and withdraw this RfC, the votes keep piling in against you. TarnishedPath^talk 07:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  We have even more material on other aspects (e.g. furin cleavage) that doesn't make it to the lede. Bon courage (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  What, with that level of global mainstream coverage? Andreas JN466 13:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly, because we adhere to WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FALSEBALANCE. TarnishedPath^talk 13:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  There's a great deal of room between "entire lede" and one specific view from two organisations, and I'd say an RfC is unlikely to be worthwhile that hyperfocuses and effectively doesn't acknowledge that due weight does not exist in a vacuum. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• America was not the only nation affected, not was it the only nation whose agencies looked into this, why does it get prominence? Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Because it got worldwide coverage – including the latest MEDRS like The BMJ ("Did covid-19 come from a lab leak in China?", BMJ 2023; 382 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p1556 10 July 2023), the BBC, German national broadcasters, Italian national broadcasters, broadsheets in South America, Australia, India, China, Indonesia, etc. Pretending that this was not a substantial controversy that deserves mention is likely to fan rather than reduce conspiracy theories in my view. --Andreas JN466 11:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Read wp:lede. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, a substantial part of the article is presently devoted to intelligence agencies' views. The coverage takes up three paragraphs, in their own subsection. Given that the lead section should summarise the article, including any prominent controversies, it's fully in line with WP:LEDE to provide a summary of this content in the lead section. (In fact I just quoted WP:LEDE to that effect myself earlier today, see quoted text in green 05:32 UTC above.) Andreas JN466 13:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but not just the FBI and DOE views, thus putting only those in the lede violates wp:npov. Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  As I have said quite clearly several times, I do not advocate including only the views of the DoE and FBI. I have said I advocate mentioning the views of the DoE and the FBI and those of the other U.S. agencies taking the opposite view (which are in the majority) or not taking any view. Andreas JN466 13:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  That is not what the edit request says. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  That is because a neutral summary of the article content would include the DoE and FBI POVs in some form, even if just to say that U.S. intelligence agencies are split on the issue. Right now, that is the conspicuous lacuna in the lead section. Andreas JN466 13:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  No its not, I am unsure that saying something like "intelligence agencies have disagreed on the likelihood of the lab leak theory" adds anything whatsoever to it. It tells us nothing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Again, no per WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:UNDUE. You really should take note of experienced editors above. TarnishedPath^talk 13:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  That BMJ piece is not MEDRS; it's a feature (editorial). It's not a bad source, but peer-reviewed scholarship, academic textbooks etc. carry more weight than journalism. We already give the payload of what US intelligence found anyway (no evidence of anything). Bon courage (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Lots of things got lots of coverage (Furin cleavage e.g.). But you can't have everything in the lede. Bon courage (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

An RFC is a request for comments on an edit, (as it is worded in the RFC request) it is not a general discussion about how to improve the article. We can only judge the request as asked, if it is wrong, poorly worded, mistaken or altered this should be closed and a new one launched. If the OP did not intend to only mention the FBI and DOE, they should themselves accept their requested edit is flawed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Asking whether the lead "should mention X" (the question people are asked to comment on) is not the same as asking whether it should "mention nothing but X" (not the question people are asked to comment on). In fact, several respondents (myself included) have very clearly stated that they are in favor of a mention as long as the opposing views are covered as well. I am sure whoever steps up to close this in due course will be able to read consensus accordingly. Andreas JN466 14:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

and the overwhelming majority have stated NO, NO, NO, over and over. Yet you keep trying to WP:BLUDGEON this debate. TarnishedPath^talk 15:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, Andreas is not asking an unreasonable question (unlike some on this page) and I can appreciate where it comes from, but I happen to disagree about where the weight lies for this. Quite apart from anything else it's difficult to summarize what the US positions are since this 'low confidence' qualifier seems critical (as we mention in the article) - seemingly meaning that a couple of agencies have sources which have told them there's been a lab leak, but they don't rate those sources as very trustworthy. Unpacking all this would be tricky without giving the misleading impression it is some kind of 5-2 "vote" in the US intel. community. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Sure it would be tricky but in my view it's worth the effort. As I just mentioned to Novem Linguae above, the status quo has significant downsides. Most people only read the lead section. By not saying anything about this we are also giving up the opportunity of, well, saying something about it. Andreas JN466 09:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Remember in an RFC why a person votes is more important that how they vote, let the closer see all the arguments in a person's vote, let them judge its relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Also remember, this is not some tit for tat trade-off, either it stands on its own merits or it does not. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

wp:lede covers the lede wp:undue is about article content, its in the article so not adding it to the lede is not violation if undue. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

From WP:UNDUE "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement ..." TarnishedPath^talk 13:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I would also remind editors there are more than 2 US intelligence agencies, so we can't say or imply that two of them represent the opinion of all of them. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Further than that, the DOE is not an intelligence agency. And the FBI is a domestic agency. Unless Wuhan China has been annexed by US, the FBI has nothing to do with this article. Their opinions have no WP:WEIGHT at all. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That is a rather inane point. There's a reason we use the term "US intelligence community", and not everyone who works on foreign stuff works at the CIA. Moreover, FBI has a long, long, long history of generally meddling around outside US borders. Fermiboson (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I was unsure if the DOE counts, as the US is a very odd place, so in fact its only 1 US intelegence agency, not the "US intelligence community". Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The DoE has a intelligence and counterintelligence arm, because America. Fermiboson (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Covid is related to Nuclear power? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that the DoE does more things than nuclear power, or power in general. Fermiboson (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Have a look at how CNN presented the Energy Department's intelligence report: [10] Among other things, they said: The Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence is one of 18 government agencies that make up the intelligence community, which are under the umbrella of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Reliable sources are quite positive that the Department of Energy is part of the US intelligence community. Andreas JN466 18:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence describes their duties. They are what you would expect from an energy related department. Nothing about virus labs. I know WP is not a source. But, it provides the sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

As the joke goes, they're mostly concerned with generating very large amounts of "energy" in very small periods of time. Bon courage (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. You’re seriously underestimating the DOE’s subject matter expertise here – the National Labs do much more than just nuclear/energy research. —Wulf (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Irrespective. What they do is in the US. They don't have subject matter expertise over biomedical research labs in competitor nations. TarnishedPath^talk 23:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would Biden ask them to investigate if they had no expertise? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant. TarnishedPath^talk 22:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Why? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

What he means (I assume) is that Biden asking them to investigate is not an RS as to the expertise of the department in question. Fermiboson (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.