Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis

COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. Since there has been a dispute over whether this topic is notable (it is claimed this subject does not "warrant its own article"), and since nobody else wants to make their points at AfD, I figure I'll open an AfD to get a conclusive answer to whether an article may exist at this title. Preceding DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 7 and talk page discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy close This is a WP:POINTY attempt to disrupt the merge proposal I created at Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis#Merge_proposal. I never claimed that the topic is not notable, but that it is better covered at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  Not at all, I requested people make an AfD hours ago. The challenge made is that an article should never exist at this title, regardless of its content. That challenge has been made for months and resulted in countless edit wars. In other words, you are saying it is non-notable, and your proposal is clear in that you want (effectively) a deletion, not a merge (as defined at WP:ATD-M and WP:MERGE). People were happy to make notability/content arguments at MfD and other inappropriate venues, so why not here at AfD, the standard venue for assessing this with discussions being widely advertised? This is the best way to get a conclusive answer with near-guaranteed closure by an uninvolved admin after a week or two, and in a way that isn't going to be challenged or be procedurally dubious. Apologies if I misunderstood your argument, but if someone who actually wants it deleted would've nominated it themselves, they could've made their own case in the nom. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  As I have stated below, the fact is that other conspiracy theory articles DO exist, and we have perhaps to accept notability on this one --- it is just the name which bothers me, having a page for all SARS-CoV-2 conspiracy theories seems more appropriate than continually edit warring over it's existence. Create, control, NPOV. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep There is enough coverage of this to have an article for it. Dream Focus 21:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• It's good to have a proper discussion about the notability of this subject, as multiple editors have overwritten the article by redirects to COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab origin (Special:Diff/1034205198 Special:Diff/1034208436) or proposed moving its content to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Laboratory incident, all of which are disputed measures. This can't be handled by a merge discussion regarding a specific target, as indicated by the earlier pushing for redirects to a different article. What is actually being questioned here is whether the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis topic warrants its own article. AfD is a useful, and probably the most useful, venue to hold this discussion. It also doesn't duplicate the MfD-related review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 7, as we have detailedly determined at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis#Unblanking (permanent link). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to parent We don't have an article on the zoonotic hypothesis, so I see this as a WP:POVFORK. While this clearly isn't a fringe theory anymore, it is still considered unlikely by WP:MEDRS sources, and popular media isn't going to give us the depth and reliability on this highly politicized topic that is enough to write a separate article about. Maybe come back to this topic in a few years once the pandemic finally ends, and probably by then MEDRS will catch up to write about this in more detail. Jumpytoo Talk 22:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  Oh it's still a fringe, just that the fringe is relatively vocal. With less than 5% of scientists (even the ones usually quoted being of fields such as breast cancer research and that mad Russian cosmotologist) thinking it is likely, that is 1 in 20 and so is deffo fringe. Even more so amongst virologists (at least ones that don;t want to get some sort of notariety just in case it is proven in the end). Chaosdruid (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The lab leak hypothesis likely has received the most attention from reliable sources. The Zoonotic hypothesis, on the other hand, has received relatively little attention. WP:POVFORK concerns are valid, but there is enough coverage for the lab leak hypothesis to warrant a stand-alone article. So much about the lab leak hypothesis is missing from the main article. Improvement is needed though, because the current article is not good Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The Zoonotic hypothesis, on the other hand, has received very little attention. Searching for "COVID-19 zoonotic" on Google Scholar retrieves about 28,900 results. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • XOR'easter, I have edited my comment. I meant to do that earlier. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
      • "Relatively little attention" is still a factually untrue statement. It has been studied and discussed thoroughly during the entire duration of the pandemic. XOR'easter (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)r
• Delete There is all ready an article about investigations into the origins of COVID-19 that discusses the different hypotheses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 . It seems strange to create articles for specific hypotheses. Most diseases don't even have separate articles for origin investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Origins . Dhawk790 (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• COVID-19 has dominated all media in the years 2020 and 2021, and is perhaps the most thoroughly covered topic on the entire English Wikipedia. {{COVID-19 pandemic}}, at present, has 1,624 links in it, covering not only every country but many provinces/states, and even individual cities (i.e. Johor, Kuala Lumpur, Sabah, Sarawak, and Selangor in Malaysia alone). There is an article about Moldovan–Romanian collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term care facilities; perhaps this is excessive detail, but a hypothesis about the origin of the virus (for which there's a plethora of in-depth coverage from reliable sources) hardly seems undue. jp×g 02:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete or merge - Notable in culture, but already covered at two other articles, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and COVID-19 misinformation § Wuhan lab origin. This redundant material can either result in a WP:POVFORK or in duplicated text needing unnecessary extra maintenance. A redirect resulting from a merge would also resolve for searches. —PaleoNeonate – 23:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delete topic already covered sufficiently in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and COVID-19 misinformation § Wuhan lab origin as noted above. Worry that this kind of article might demonstrate WP:BIAS considering the topic is covered elsewhere and is among a number of hypotheses that are equally notable. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. First of all, the previous consensus was to allow new draft. Therefore, the recreation is not really a violation. Secondly, given a significance of coverage in press (see this version), it deserves a single separate page that could be linked from pages Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and COVID-19 misinformation § Wuhan lab origin. That would help to avoid duplication of content and properly cover this issue. Note, this is not an outright misinformation, but just something controversial and unproven; whatever views one could hold about it, this should not affect the importance of vaccinations or other epidemiological measures. My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 7#Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis participants: Jweiss11 (talk · contribs), Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs), S Marshall (talk · contribs), CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs), Jclemens (talk · contribs), SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs), Loksmythe (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), SportingFlyer (talk · contribs), Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), and RandomCanadian (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis participants: Britishfinance (talk · contribs), Novem Linguae (talk · contribs), Horizons 1 (talk · contribs), PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs), Arccosecant (talk · contribs), Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs), Billybostickson (talk · contribs), J mareeswaran (talk · contribs), XOR'easter (talk · contribs), ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs), Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs), JoelleJay (talk · contribs), Dinglelingy (talk · contribs), Arcturus (talk · contribs), Dlthewave (talk · contribs), Alexbrn (talk · contribs), Pythoncoder (talk · contribs), JPxG (talk · contribs), Forich (talk · contribs), Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs), Atsme (talk · contribs), Magic9mushroom (talk · contribs), Nil Einne (talk · contribs), David A (talk · contribs), Rosenkreutzer (talk · contribs), Tomruen (talk · contribs), Guest2625 (talk · contribs), Nsk92 (talk · contribs), Chaosdruid (talk · contribs), and Porcelain katana (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• I left notices about the existence of this AfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin? and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:China COVID-19 cover-up. Cunard (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as there's an abundance of coverage of this topic to warrant a stand-alone article (e.g. [1] and [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) Jweiss11 (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Plenty of news coverage, worth a single article, can expand from summary at: Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Laboratory_incident. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - There is more than enough evidence to support an article, except that applying the medically reliable source standard to a question that is not a medical question is imposing a sterile orthodoxy and preventing Wikipedia from summarizing what reliable sources really say. The medically reliable source standard is a lagging standard, imposing a standard of verification that is higher than the reliable source standard that is only needed to protect readers from getting incorrect medical information from Wikipedia (which they shouldn't be using for that purpose anyway). The origin of covid is not medical information. How to test for, diagnose, treat, and prevent covid is medical information. So keep this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. A discussion on Wikipedia repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce, then as.... I don't even know what this is now. It's a mess. There's been a MfD for this page, there's been a DRV for this page, there's a merge discussion for this page, there's been an AN/I argument, a RSN argument, an ArbCom case, a huge argument at WT:BIOMED, more AN/I arguments, a throwdown at WT:MEDRS, more MfDs for tangentially related pages, MfDs for userspace essays agreeing with one of the sides of the argument, et cetera. Most of these discussions have not closed with the consensus that everything about the subject should be purged from the project. I am sick of arguing about COVID. Most sane people on this website are sick of arguing about COVID. There are almost enough sources for the Wikipedia argument about COVID origins to have its own article, for fuck's sake. This is a subject that's been covered by every source you can imagine; are Vox, CNN, Vanity Fair, the Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, and Wired not reliable sources? Okay, it might not be true -- this is an encyclopedia, not a political debate forum. Who cares. If something is covered by every paper of record on the planet, it's notable enough to have an article. jp×g 02:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Suggest procedural close three aspects to my argument on this: A) whether we can have an article about this without it attracting the same kind of disruptive bollocks this topic has attracted since God knows when, B) whether there is enough material here that it would be impractical to cover it with enough context in the other articles on the subject and C) whether this AfD was really necessary.

I'm not too sure about A - but then again, I don't think there's much that we can do about that: talk page semi-protections, topic bans, and even ArbCom have so far been insufficient to quell the shitshow (although it doesn't appear to be quite as bad as before), so one more or less page likely won't matter that much. B is a bit clearer - there is quite a lot of material about it, but writing a good article on this that expands on the existing material found in the misinformation and investigations without getting into issues with FALSEBALANCE and FRINGE stuff, while giving appropriate weight to SCHOLARSHIP and similar high-quality sources will require skillful editing, and is likely to be an even further timesink.

Going back to C, given that there was an existing merge proposal on the article talk page, and that there has been so far some amount of quality work on the article, I'd be inclined to say that this AfD is hasty (the article was re-created just one day ago, FFS) and ill-considered. I'd therefore suggest that we should give some time for interested parties to work on the article and see where it gets. If it doesn't expand much beyond what is there at the present, that will prove the argument that it's an unnecessary, stub-like content fork, and merging it will be easy. If, on the other hand, we can write a more thorough treatment of this particular topic in a dedicated article, then it will prove that this AfD was unhelpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Not real thrilled with AfD being used to address a merge proposal, but the topic easily meets WP:N. There are organizational arguments for merging the article (which I think are wrongheaded...), but notability isn't an issue. keep. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and suggest an early close. As noted above, there's potentially enough coverage to have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia's coverage of the lab leak hypothesis, the suggestion that it is unreasonable to have this as a separate article does not hold water. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Suggest against early closure. We need a firm conclusion to whether a standalone article may exist, otherwise we're going to be dealing with RfCs and merge proposals to different targets for the next few months. Nobody wants to work on an article if their work is at reasonable risk of being deleted. Whatever the consensus here, ideally a strong one, it should suffice for a long period of time and be unambiguous. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Whether this is a hypothesis or conspiracy theory is debatable, however what is clear is that this angle has received significant coverage for a significant period of time and thus is notable in the Wikipedia sense.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Not really, to be a hypothesis there has to be evidence. A theory is when there is no evidence. It is still the big bang theory, as we cannot go back in time to see what happened, and any evidence only takes us back to after the event (if there ever was one). Chaosdruid (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  This doesn't seem like it has anything to do with the post it's a response to. jp×g 07:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  To clarify my point, the title of this article is debatable, however the subject is clearly notable.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, it most definitely is, I am simply saying it is not rreally debatable, as one needs evidence that does not exist, so it currently can only be a theory. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Hypothesis"? Faugh. It's woo, fabricated by US politicians to meet the needs of US politicians. If kept it should not be kept at this title. "Hypothesis" dignifies it far too much: it's a POV name for the material.—S Marshall T/C 08:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - there is no question this article is notable. The fact that it keeps being nominated for deletion speaks more to politics than to its notability. Our time would be much better spent in assuring its accuracy. Atsme 💬 📧 09:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as standalone article, for several reasons:
  1. It clearly passes WP:GNG with hundreds of reliable sources (here is a list of dozens) focused around this angle.
  2. Editors saying it's a fork of existing articles can't even agree upon which article it's apparently a fork of. Here it's claimed it's a fork of COVID-19 misinformation, even though that article has basically one paragraph (perma) on this. Similarly for the content at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19; barely a paragraph (of different information) (perma). And here it's claimed it's a fork of Wuhan Institute of Virology, where there is a similar quantity of (different) information. People have claimed it's a fork of maybe 10 different articles at this point (others include COVID-19 misinformation by China, COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#Government response, etc...)
     How can an article be a fork of (sub-)sections in 10 different articles? Isn't that just "an article" not "a fork" at that point? Maybe we should create a List of sections in Wikipedia articles that contain information about the lab leak hypothesis, and then once a reader reads them all they can consider themselves caught up?
  3. When content that is closely related to this hypothesis (such as aspects of its sociopolitical background) is added to one of those existing articles it is removed with the rationale "not misinformation so doesn't belong here" (or some variant thereof). Such content is perfectly encyclopaedic and has no NPOV etc issues, and the removers agree, they just think it's not within that article's scope. It's true, it often doesn't fit in scope, but what I think is perverse is then voting to delete the article where such information would fit.
  4. This article's scope extends beyond just the factual origin of the virus. It's just as much a cultural issue, defined by the American political context since early 2020, and the media and government response to it. There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss this aspect. That part is critical and doesn't really fit into any other article.
  5. COVID-19 misinformation is at about 100K anyway, which is at the upper limit of WP:TOOBIG. If anything it needs to be split up into separate articles. Similar for the other apparent 'forks'. This is a good start to managing them. We can compile the scattered information into a single article, and trim the others to summaries with a {{main article}}, and that's far better value for readers.
• No good, policy-based argument can be made for why it shouldn't exist. Wikipedia is a tertiary source; it summarises reliable secondary sources. Readers then read that information and make their own conclusions. The status quo of complete exclusion and split information is a great disservice to our readers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  This "keep" comes from the AfD nominator.

  I agree that there's no good, policy-based argument to delete the material, so it should remain, but this does not mean that it must remain at the current title. After this AfD has decided to retain the material, a separate and subsequent discussion about POV should ensue. We do need to be much clearer that this "hypothesis" is based on minimal evidence and a vanishingly small number of properly-qualified virus experts take it seriously.—S Marshall T/C 09:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  As I say, I don't want it deleted. I nominated it because people were edit warring to redirect it, considering a 2 sentence bland stub to be a "POVFORK", and then starting a merge discussion to (as the proposer admitted) effectively delete it, and this comes after other similar attempts months ago. The situation led an admin to ask at AN for 1RR to be added to the article. It's clear a number of users do not want any standalone article to exist about this theory, so a consensus discussion is required so we can put this issue behind us.

  Titles can be discussed on talk, but "lab leak theory" or "lab leak hypothesis" are the COMMONNAMEs for the theory. I think it's already pretty clear in the lead that this is not the working theory, and it's also quite obvious that only the US cares about it which says a lot. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Either Delete, or merge into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and COVID-19 misinformation § Wuhan lab origin.

If this article does end up being kept, it is an absolute requirement that it rely primarily on scientific literature when discussing scientific issues related to SARS-CoV-2, and must accurately convey the now longstanding scientific consensus on the virus' origins, namely that it emerged via natural zoonosis as with all other novel pathogens.

In order to do this, the article must include transclusions about the known ecology of coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2 specifically from the most carefully written and edited article on this topic, SARS-CoV-2. These transclusions are the mechanism by which our article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 was salvaged: it used to be a mess of pseudoscientific nonsense and has remained attractive for editors who are uninterested in the biology and ecology of infectious disease. This article will almost surely become the next focal point for those editors.

The immediate benefit of including text and sources from SARS-CoV-2 is that scientifically naïve readers who come here will learn about the idea of the "lab leak" within the context of what scientists know about zoonosis, both for this virus in particular, and for others. It will help them understand why most scientists consider the lab leak concept to be "extremely unlikely," to quote from the WHO-convened report on the topic.

Lastly I'd like to echo the words of S Marshall: If kept it should not be kept at this title. "Hypothesis" dignifies it far too much: it's a POV name for the material. Either "conspiracy theory" or just "idea" are fine. -Darouet (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed hypothesis makes mostly political accusations sound too scientific, but news articles do reference it informally as lab leak theory Covid: Biden orders investigation into virus origin as lab leak theory debated, or this one says hypothesis The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don’t know, However, a lab leak has not been ruled out, and many are calling for a deeper investigation into the hypothesis that the virus emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), located in the Chinese city where the first COVID-19 cases were reported. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  There is no such scientific consensus. We need to fix that in the COVID-19 investigations article. CutePeach (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Then you should tell all these scientists that they're wrong. I'm sure they'd love to know that they're wrong about what they believe because CutePeach, the SPA lab-leak fan on Wikipedia says so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  @MPants at work: Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that accusations against other editors are generally recommended to be made at a relevant location (WP:AN/I, WP:SPI, WP:AE etc) and backed up with diffs, rather than as vague aspersions during a deletion discussion. jp×g 00:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  The very first edit and the rest of the history with a recent essay, are a lot of easily accessible evidence of a promotional SPA. But yes. —PaleoNeonate – 01:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  Calling someone an SPA isn't an accusation, but an observation. My evidence is CutePeach's literal entire editing history.

  I would note that your response might well be considered as falling into the category of "vague aspersions during a deletion discussion," as there's nothing untoward about pointing out that someone is an SPA in a discussion that concerns their topic, but there's something quite untoward about implying wrongdoing on the part of one making that observation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'll post it here since it's a relevant centralized discussion, but this may also answer to a question on your recent essay's talk page. A list of people who believe things, or public opinion, are very different to scientific consensus. To support claims of scientific consensus one needs to also cite reliable sources that really report about the scientific consensus itself (what most relevant scientists consider to be the most or least likely). —PaleoNeonate – 23:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Given coverage that started when covid started it seems to have lasting notability. It is also enjoying more mainstream acceptance or at least consideration as well. It is no longer an exclusively fringe topic and has enough material to have a stand alone article. PackMecEng (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and move to COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory. Except for a few journalists who did an about-face a few months ago when news that some lab workers were hospitalized came at about the same time Nicholas Wade penned his mostly fact-free article supporting this conspiracy theory, the only support it's gotten has been from the now-usual crowd of conspiracy theorists. With that being said, it's very clearly a quote popular conspiracy theory that looks set to eventually gain the same traction as Pizzagate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know if you've seen this by now, but some in the Biden administration who are reviewing the intelligence also find the theory credible. Now for sure they may not be scientists or experts but they are certainly non-fringe figures. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Intelligence officials are not experts in virology, and furthermore, are professionally motivated to seek out and respond to threats. I'm not unaware of that fact, not surprised by it, and not impressed by it, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  I strongly oppose the suggestion of "conspiracy theory" in the title; it is a blatant NPOV violation. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Except it is a conspiracy theory, so it's not an NPOV violation. A couple of journalists taking it seriously proves nothing, and the connections to QAnon and various other right-wing conspiracy theories are undeniable to anyone who cares about factual accuracy. Before you respond by denying those connections: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

  You may want to take note of how many of those actually refer to the lab-leak claim as a conspiracy theory, and then you might want to read how many strongly imply that it's a conspiracy theory. Hell, even some of those supportive of it admit it's a conspiracy theory. It seems like its only a handful of Wikipedians who object to the term. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  I thoroughly reject your argument. If you exclude journalists, the US intelligence community, a letter in Science, and the head of the WHO, you can manufacture a consensus for your position. The term "conspiracy theory" is derogative and should not be applied when there is a substantive body of scientific inquiry into the topic. Just because your friendly neighborhood QAnon friend likes the lab leak theory does not mean it's a conspiracy theory, and no number of sources making that logical fallacy will make it valid. And while you can say "if there was a lab leak, the Chinese must have covered it up, so there must have been a conspiracy" that doesn't make it a conspiracy theory either. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't exclude any of them, but I certainly value their expertise significantly less than I do that of the vast preponderance of actual experts. Also Most scientists seem to agree that the lab leak is pretty damn unlikely. Note that those sources are all attesting to the broad preponderance of scientific opinion on the matter: not a relatively tiny collection of scientists voicing their dissent. Also note that none of your links actually contain any scientists endorsing the theory; contrary to your implication otherwise.

  So by all means, accuse me of "manufacturing" a consensus that's explicitly supported by the six MEDRS sources I gave above while you "refute" it with two non-MEDRS sources that kinda sorta seem like they might disagree with it if you squint juuuuust right (and you're predisposed to disbelieving it yourself, that is). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not going to argue whether it is "unlikely" or not; if you're saying it's unlikely then you admit it's possible and shouldn't be called a conspiracy theory. Nobody could possibly think you have a neutral point of view here, and your title suggestion is not neutral either. We don't even title Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship as a conspiracy theory. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Well, shit. It remains a possibility that Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings, so I guess that's not a conspiracy theory either, even though the odds are against it.

  If you've got some minimum probability that distinguishes conspiracy theories from legitimate hypotheses, you should introduce the undoubtedly definitive RS you got that minimum from over at Conspiracy theory so we can incorporate that into the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Well said Mjolnir ... when we have lots of newspapers and magazines talking about alien abductions, faked moonlandings and flat earth, does that mean they are hypotheses? No, it does not. The big difference between a hypothesis and a theory, is evidence. A hypothesis is based on evidence, even small amounts, whereas a theory is just someone thinking something. Clearly, as there is NO evidence as yet, it is just a theory. I am also sick and tired of people quoting articles and so called papers by breast cancer specialists and other non-virology based scientists just because they managed to get printed in mainstream press. The mainstream press will print anything they think will get them more attention. If there are enough out there who will pay to read more about the so called lab-leak, then of course they will gladly take their money. We, are an encyclopedia --- we need evidence to support the word "hypothesis". Until then, it is just a theory about a conspiracy to cover up something unproven. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  What you're saying appears to be incorrect: most sources I can find say that a hypothesis is an initial conjectural explanation which becomes regarded as a theory after it's supported by additional evidence (1, 2). Some people define it in a more complex way, like here, where a "theory" is given as a set of statements that explain a broad class of observations. However, all of them define a hypothesis as a putative mechanism that would explain the observation of a phenomenon. Do you have a source for your claim? jp×g 07:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  JPxG is correct. A hypothesis is just an imagined explanation for some observed phenomenon. For example: subatomic particles are just tiny vibrating strings. One can create a model from a hypothesis using the paradigms of that hypothesis. To continue the example: Apply the physics of string vibrations to infinitely thin, vibrating loops to produce interactions between loops which share properties with known subatomic particle interactions. Then, one can take that model, and fine-tune and expand it based on evidence. For example: 4-dimensional spacetime was incapable of producing vibrational patterns that corresponded to all known subatomic particle interactions, but when the model was expanded to 11 dimensions, all known subatomic particle interactions could be described well.

  At that point, one has a theory, which can then be used to make predictions. For example: Gravity is mediated by subatomic particles called gravitons. The results of experimentation to confirm or falsify those predictions then provides evidence which supports or undermines that theory. For example: The LHC is currently attempting to perform experiments that may confirm or deny the existence of the graviton. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  Don't blame me, I used Oxford languages for the definitions: "noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses --- a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." and "noun: theory; plural noun: theories ---a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." Chaosdruid (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  Your comments earlier are categorically not using the terms in the way proscribed by Oxford. If you can read my and JPxG's comments and come away thinking we're not using those definitions, then there's a serious disconnect between what you're reading and what you're taking from it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  Three of those links are from spring or summer 2020, and another disagrees with the point you are trying to make. The last two are a WHO panel that has since been partially walked back on, and a paper citing said WHO panel. This is fairly poor support of the strong claim of a current scientific consensus. Cachedio (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  Assuming that your characterization of those sources as "poor support" is accurate, where's the evidence of any contrary consensus? Where's the evidence of any change in consensus since 2020? Nowhere, that's where. It doesn't exist. All you've got are journalists and intelligence types (both of whom are powerfully and professionally motivated to suspect malfeasance) pointing at vague hints and screaming "connect the dots, sheeple!"

  I'll take "poor" scientific evidence over conspiracy mongering, any day. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Ongoing discussion on talkpage. The proposed justification for deletion that it doesn't meet notability criteria is absolute nonsense; it is clearly notable, and title is appropriate given the dictionary definitions of hypothesis. Aeonx (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as an independently notable topic worthy of a page. There has been a lot of good content that has been deleted from COVID-19 investigations for reasons of WP:DUE and, so it's clearly necessary to have this page. CutePeach (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Now the US have launched an investigation and the WHO are asking for investigation I think it's become mainstream enough. Also while the article is currently short there is a lot of information that could be added. Tim333 (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I have significant concerns that this article, at this time, will serve primarily as a POV-fork. Intentionally or not, it seems like a likely outcome. If there's a good faith effort to ensure otherwise, I'd suggest the first orders of business would be to ensure the page is protected and has sanction notifications to fulfill the discretionary sanctions under effect, and that there are links placed to the article on the two talk pages most likely to have interested editors (so the page doesn't appear as if it's attempting to draw solely from POV editors): Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and Talk:COVID-19 misinformation Bakkster Man (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  The page was extended-confirmed protected all the time; there is no page-specific sanction to mention in a {{Ds/editnotice}}. I guess 1RR is an option, but I'm afraid it might benefit violations of WP:ONUS when two editors disagree about existing content, as has happened in Special:Diff/1034355261 very recently. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete A disruption magnet, an invitation to "civil" POV-pushing, a topic that is better served within exiting articles, and a bad title. The time and energy of Wikipedia editors with medical expertise is a scarce resource that we do not need to waste by creating yet another page to monitor. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• @XOR'easter: I think the ship has long sailed on "yet another page", since there are well over 1,600 links in {{COVID-19 pandemic}}; as for being a disruption magnet, I agree. The multiple megabytes of heavily politicized argument have proven to be a massive time sink; I'm not sure if deletion follows from that (since Donald Trump, Joe Biden, COVID-19 pandemic, etc generate much wailing and gnashing of teeth, for similar reasons that often overlap with this one). Also, it seems like somewhat circular reasoning to say that an article ought to be deleted because a few people keep trying to delete it (or, alternately, because a few people keep trying to argue that it shouldn't be deleted). jp×g 23:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• So, because a problem is bad, we should be content to let it get worse? XOR'easter (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think it's much of a problem. Sure, we have a grotesquely large navbox, but the COVID-19 pandemic is possibly the most wide-ranging and thoroughly documented phenomenon of the 21st century. It really did affect Aruba, Jamaica, wanting to take ya, Bermuda, Bahama, prettiness, mamas, Key Largo, Montego, babies, "why don't we go?" (the fact that this works for any arbitrary song should indicate the breadth of the subject). Surely, it serves the public interest for people to know how many deaths there were in Florida, even if some people were subjected to drama over it: how is this different? jp×g 07:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Given the recent investigation launch into this hypothesis I think it is becoming difficult to argue this article shouldn't exist. — Czello 21:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  A hypothesis needs evidence, otherwise it is just a theory. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what your point is. How much evidence it has is irrelevant; what matters is the notability, and it's hard to argue this isn't a notable topic. — Czello 06:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

    • This sentence was copy-pasted underneath multiple comments; from what the editor has written elsewhere in this AfD, it seems to be an argument in favor of retitling the page. I'm not sure what it has do do with your comment. jp×g 07:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Overwhelming amount of coverage in WP:RS. Loksmythe (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Official investigation is ongoing. Various prominent virologists have publicly stated they kept an open mind. Including Dr Fauci. It's high time obstruction by a few random biased editors is thwarted WP:RS. Alain Pannetier (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The hypothesis is currently being considered by many of the most important governments in the world, even outside the NATO system. Obviously special mention for the seriousness with which he is being faced by the Biden commission. Not keeping and enriching an extremely topical argument like this (that could lead to a better disasters prevention that it happened or not) is a real information crime. --Francesco espo (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  A hypothesis needs evidence, otherwise it is just a theory. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Strong keep as a standalone article. Six months ago I would have said delete or merge as at the time the topic was generally regarded as a fringe conspiracy theory. But consensus among WP:RS can and does change and that's what happened here. Given the massive amount of coverage the subject has received in the last three months in numerous WP:RS and given various ongoing government investigations, continuing to fudge the topic here on Wikipedia is an untenable position. Arguments saying that the article may become a POV pushing and disruption magnet constitute an appeal to censorship, which cannot be justified for a highly notable topic such as this one. We have various mechanisms in place for dealing with disruption and POV pushing that could and should be used here. Nsk92 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - like others, I would've voted prior to delete as it would only be a POV fork - but at this point there's enough useful and due information that wouldn't be POV (ex: politicians talking about it, the reasoning behind it, etc) that I doubt it will fit well in any other article. That being said, I agree with MPants - this should not be called a "hypothesis" or "theory", as the scientific consensus is that it is a conspiracy theory. When scientific consensus is that something is a conspiracy theory (or a pseudoscience, or anything else "negative"), we don't call it something else just because it has a large following among people, nor because there's some "logic" as to why they're "right". See also homeopathy - while hundreds of millions of people believe in homeopathic remedies, that doesn't make it any less of a pseudoscience, and thus it's called such prominently. If people don't like "conspiracy theory", perhaps it should just be titled COVID-19 lab leak claims or similar - without imparting the validity of "hypothesis" onto it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The word "hypothesis" is not a trophy given only to scientifically proven ideas, and reliable sources and existing articles do not make this distinction. The giant-impact hypothesis is widely believed but not proven, the Gaia hypothesis is controversial, the just-world hypothesis is a cognitive fallacy, the abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has little scientific support, the oral polio vaccine AIDS hypothesis is largely discredited, and the Chinese hypothesis was mathematically proven to be impossible. There is no such thing as the Gaia idea, for example, and Homeopathy is not located at Pseudoscience of homeopathy or Homeopathy conspiracy theory. jp×g 02:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A hypothesis needs evidence, otherwise it is just a theory. Here, there is no evidence, just lots of theories about how it MIGHT have been released or created. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Since you have put this same comment under four separate posts, I am not sure where to respond to it. Here, I am not sure what on Earth it has to do with what I said: if the six examples I linked to are all wrongly named, I'd appreciate some sources that demonstrate this. Otherwise, what you're proposing is original research, in addition to being the complete opposite of what sources say (1, 2 and 3). jp×g 06:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No, but it's also not located at Homeopathy science or Homeopathy hypothesis or anything that gives it similar credence. In this case, leaving off a qualifier is inappropriate because it would imply that there was a lab leak that can be discussed - which is not known. The things you mention are also not the same (not to mention WP:OSE) - they all had legitimate logic and scientific following at one point (and some still do) - or are unprovable at all (the just-world hypothesis). Like Chaosdruid said, both theories and hypothesis need to have some backing for them to not be conspiracies - otherwise, the hypothesis that Trump actually won the 2020 election is a hypothesis, and so is that North Korea is ran by a pink unicorn. There's a difference between "unproven", "unlikely", and "considered a conspiracy" - this falls squarely in the third camp, no matter how many politicians claim otherwise for political gain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

To add to this: Real life lab leaks have happened. Real like Homeopathy... Not so much. That's a big factor in these names. Adding context can be important. Pizzagate conspiracy theory is an example of an article where this sort of labelling is used, to good effect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Merge→Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

The article is almost entirely about investigations into the origin of COVID-19, and should be located on that page. It would be ridiculous to give each theory on the origin of COVID-19 their own individual Wikipedia page. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 02:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. The singular relevant question is whether there is enough coverage in RS to sustain a standalone article. The answer to this question is a resounding and unambiguous "yes". The argument that we should delete the article because it will become a magnet for disruption is not convincing: we have protection, like the ECP at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, and the article is obviously going to be carefully monitored. It already looks to be fairly well-developed, and expands on points that are well-covered in RS that would not fit into the "Investigations" summary-style section. — Goszei (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Rename to "SARS-CoV-2 conspiracy theories" or "Covid-19 conspiracy theories" and then put all the rubbish on to this page so we know where it is until it is either proven that it was all just a theory and the real source is found, or until some actual facts support either origination - lab or nature, and either spillover, lab or nature.
  

Until then, let's just call it what it is ... the problem with deleting it is that we have other conspiracy theory pages, such as John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories

The fact is that it IS notable, it's just unproven and gossip. The same is true of the JFK conspiracy theories, but at least they are all on one page where they can be ignored ... Chaosdruid (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chaosdruid: You have copy-pasted the same sentence under four separate people's comments here, and three of your comments are verbatim copies of each other. This is quite excessive; can you please remove (or at least strike) the duplicates? I realize you have strong opinions on this issue, but bogging down the discussion by forcing people to respond to the exact same comment four times is WP:BLUDGEONing (which is a form of disruptive editing). jp×g 06:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I can see why you might think that, but each of those adresses it from a slightly different perspective or topic. As they all seem to have been replied to, I might delete one if you can suggest one? Chaosdruid (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chaosdruid: As you've made the same reply to several comments above I think it's better to discuss your points here instead, just to avoid repetition. First, whether it's a hypothesis or a theory I think is irrelevant: the point is that it's notable for its own article. That also means that your rename doesn't work -- that's too broad and covers all conspiracy theories, where I think it's becoming increasingly clear that the lab leak idea now can stand alone. Finally, I hope you won't mind me saying, but I'm getting the feeling you might have a dislike of the idea of a conspiracy theory being an article in the first place. I don't mean that to cast aspersions or anything, but given what you mention on JFK it sounds like just a begrudging acceptance of these articles existing. I think what's important to note is that whether it's "unproven and gossip" is true doesn't matter (I also don't agree with that assessment), what matters is if it's a notable subject. — Czello 07:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No, you are entirely incorrect, it is the opposite. I want this to be a conspiracy theory page.

And no, it is NOT irrelevant, as there is a difference between a hypothesis and a theory. If people are going to start wanting to call it a hypothesis, they need to be aware of the difference. If they were, they would not need me to remind them.

And lastly, it is entirely workable, it should be, like the JFK conspiracy theories, all the conspiracy theories on one page.

What matters is getting the right name and tone of the page, it's existence is, IMHO, de facto as per notability. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chaosdruid: Yes, there is a difference between hypothesis and theory, but I'm not sure how that pertains to your replies above? For example, I (and several others) voted keep, but you replied by saying it's not a hypothesis -- which is really a separate point (I'm not sure how that's an argument against "keep"?). And I'd disagree somewhat with your view of keeping all conspiracies on one page. The lab leak idea clearly is notable enough for its own article -- and including it under the banner of "conspiracy theory" is becoming increasingly challenged in the media. — Czello 15:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Abstain (I was pinged above). I don't really care whether this is covered on a larger page of origin hypotheses or put on its own page. My only concern is that it not be placed under "misinformation" unless explicitly disproven; "misinformation" is a very strong term and overusing it - especially in cases this controversial - is damaging to WP and to WP's reputation. Magic9mushroom (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep in some form. There seems to be two parts to this lab leak story. Part 1 is the evidence and counter evidence as to its validity. Part 2 is the coverage and reactions, the way it went from being "paints on fire" to a theory the Biden admin (per CNN) puts on equal footing with zoologic origin. I would suggest the part 1 content be merged in with the other origin theories article. Part 2 should be stand alone and perhaps become "Lab Leak Theory Coverage" or similar. Springee (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep clearly this idea have received coverage in reliable sources. This is not an endorsement of any particular form of the article, but there need to be some article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep of course - this is a notable idea in and of itself, regardless of its truth. This could probably be SNOW closed. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. The topic has received far more than enough coverage to warrant its own article. There is a clear gap in coverage and merit between the lab leak hypothesis and less popular hypotheses; an article jointly discussing them would have to be dominated by a single topic to satisfy WP:DUE. As of now, there doesn't seem to be much push for a mega-article solely on the key origins hypotheses (the other being natural zoonotic spillover). Failing something like that, this requires its own topic. Cachedio (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, but the article should note that there is also an alternative COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis advanced by the Chinese Foreign Ministry in which the virus leaked from Fort Detrick[21]. Its much less plausible but at least deserves mention. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong keep - the idea has clearly gathered enough media attention even at the start of the pandemic, and many countries administrations have called investigations into the scenario. Sgnpkd (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Administrative note about early closes It's been suggested a few times, but please don't. A WP:SNOW close would probably be defensible, but in a controversial area, the last thing you want is something which is "probably defensible". What you want is iron-clad consensus, and you don't get that by cutting corners. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)