Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Conspiracy theories vs theories (resurrected from Archive 1)

See original discussion in the archive.

I believe this topic was archived before consensus was achieved. I'd like to offer my support to the topic OP. I'm not necessarily saying the conjecture is correct, but I wholeheartedly agree it's no "conspiracy." Data8504 (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 have been discussed at length: [1]. Fringe theories that do not have significant support within the scientific community should be described as fringe. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Theories yes, conspiracy theories no because that is bias. If a Nobel prize winning virologist and prominent biologists like Bret Weinstein say that the theory is plausible then using the word “conspiracy” is a left wing bias.  Until the Chinese government allow an independent inquiry to rule out beyond a reasonable doubt that Covid 19 did not accidentally leak from a lab, always a theory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.2 (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC) 

At this point, that's not really a conspiracy theory, but a plausible and likely theory. the scientific 'consensus' (which itself have been shattered recently by Luc Montagnier [2]) only concerns the genetic origin of the virus, ie, it tries to debunk the engineered bio weapon theory at best.

It cannot possibly exclude an accidental leak of a natural origin virus, stored or research on in the institute. Coupled with the other facts on the initial spread of SARS-COV2: that patient zero was never found, and that it has been established that the seafood market, was not the origin, but a superspeader event. The WIV leak theory becomes the most likely source. Shturmavik71 (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This page looks very biased towards chinese propoganda

There are important facts and connections being intentionally smothered in this article:

1.the physical proximity of the initial spread at wuhan seafood market, to the Chinese CDC, which collaborated with the WIV.

2.the fact that the institute did gain-of-function studies in 2015, engineering a bat coronavirus to be highly infectious on humans, something which they published in nature. (a type of research the US banned in it's own research in 2014), while the 2015 virus is not SARS-COV2, the fact is that research is being conducted there.

4.That multiple sources, including the diplomatic cables, form experts which visited the place in 2018, claim that the safety standards are not maintained, and that research conducted is very dangerous.

The rebuking paragraph is the 'conspiracy theory' (at this point it's a very valid theory) is laughable at best, citing 2 experts, both with ties to the institute, and personal interest. further, Peter Daszak argument is more of a personal opinion than a fact. the facts that the institute collected, stored and researched, a multitude of highly infectious to humans coronaviruses under improper safety conditions.

There are multiple experts in [[3]] Which openly say that an accidental release, is not only very possible but is quite probable. Shturmavik71 (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"Chinese lab conducted extensive research on deadly bat viruses, but there is no evidence of accidental release" Koncorde (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at the work of leading virologists such as Jonathan Latham [4] and Yuri Deigin [5] (those ones are at the top of my head) and Milton Leitenberg a scureity researcher [6] that expose 2 possible routes how SARS-COV2 was formed and reached human population. both of these theories have far more supporting evidence (both genetic and factual) than the natural formation hypothesis. they are not addressed in Wikipedia, due to an obvious pro-ccp bias. -regarding your line about lab-release, you should be aware that SARS1 was accidently released no less than 6! times all well documented (2 of them with fatalities) from research labs.Shturmavik71 (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

And keep in mind that medical subjects (such as CoVID-19) have stricter sourcing requirements than usual: WP:MEDRS. A Medium blog and independentsciencenews.org do not meet those requirements. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

BSL-4 dates and accerdiation and relation to research

I've corrected a number of errors on the page regarding the BSL-4 status and it's implications.

1.The 2015 opening date is imprecise and it's unclear what kind of milestone it represents, with the construction going on from 2003. But the Nature source reports the actual accerdiation date as Jan 2017 (with the article being from 2017).

2.Xinhua article dates the lab as "put into operation" in Jan 2018.

while the lab got it's BSL-4 accreditaion in 2017. the WIV also has lower safety labs. another important disinction I've made regarding the coronovirus research. and It has been confirmed by Shi Zhengli in the ScienceMag article that it was carried in BSL-2 and BSL-3 labs. Shturmavik71 (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Profoundly biased (toward no chance of lab escape) article

This article needs to be updated. The idea that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab is no longer a fringe "conspiracy theory". See this Washington Post article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-coronaviruss-origins-are-still-a-mystery-we-need-a-full-investigation/2020/11/13/cbf4390e-2450-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html

Peter Daszak, who is quoted on this wiki page, has a massive conflict of interest in this matter. He *did research* with the the WIV, and as such would be a prime subject of investigation:

https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1197631383470034951

The "leading virologists" who came out with a letter in opposition to the idea of a lab escape -- that letter was *written* by Peter Daszak and EcoHealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.199.8.56 (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The editorial pages of the Washington Post (or any other newspaper) are not WP:MEDRS. The Washington Post's opinion section previously published a now-discredited claim that American diplomats had raised alarm about the WIV. It turned out that the author of the opinion piece had selectively quoted from diplomatic cables in a way that misrepresented their meaning. We go by what the scientific community finds, rather than by what opinion columns or editorials in popular media claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The Editorial Board of the Washington Post was discredited by whom? Source? WP:V takes precedence over WP:MEDRS on this article anyway.

And what does this page have to do with Falun Gong?

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

And crickets! Apparently nothing. Fixed.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

FV

"Leading virologists have disputed the idea that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the institute". A match to the sources would be "cast doubt on". Likewise "Leading virologists" doesn't match; 'Some leading virologists' would match. I think these changes are warranted.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL for "some" and WP:FRINGE for "cast doubt". That idea was doubtful from the start. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, if you read the full text and not just the headlines, the sources cited there are actually stronger than 'disputed'; while most other sources (especially newer ones) are more direct. I've updated it to reflect the sources at the top of the section - 'disputed' isn't strong enough when even the most equivocal sources say things like "virtually no chance" and when the sources almost uniformly describe it as a fringe conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• You're wrong to assert I didn't read the full text after I indicated I had and you misrepresent the source flagged. Of course if you choose sources that ignore the bulk of the Gain of Function (GoF) research that was being done that is consistent with lab involvement and pretend the one type of GoF research that isn't consistent with the evidence is the only kind there is, and just set up and attack straw men like, "No human using a computer could do this," you get unbalanced contributions like yours. It helps to leave out other appropriate sources, or sources that debunk claims in the ones you've used, and avoid even mentioning terms like GoF and "serial passage".

And crickets.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Also, "Leading" (is synth): NPR said that over 6 unidentified scientists concurred. NPR said 10 leading scientists were consulted. So actually "7/10 leading scientists" would be reasonable , and simply "Leading scientists" falsely implies consensus. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

"More than half-a-dozen scientists" means anything above six. Seven is only the bare minimum and, for all we know, it could have just been another way of saying ten. The article doesn't mention any dissenting opinions so there is no basis to assume three of them disagreed. CowHouse (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources provided say that the theory was "debunked", they say the theory has been disputed. A Washington Post fact-checking analysis concluded that no scientist has been willing to completely dimsiss the idea that the virus escaped from the WIV. The New York Times reported that Richard H. Ebright has argued that the probability of a lab accident was "substantial," pointing to the lab's lax safety standards and a history of such occurrences that have infected researchers. The Washington Post reported that Shi Zhengli thought it was possible that the virus leaked from the WIV, but she later denied that it did. All of this information should be included in the Conspiracy Theories section, because as it stands, this section clearly violates WP:NPOV. That sentence should be changed to say "Leading virologists have disputed the idea that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the institute, saying that there is "virtually no chance" that it could have happened." JustStalin (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The broad scientific consensus is that the virus most likely emerged in nature, and not as the result of lab experiments or escape. See, for example, Andersen, K.G., Rambaut, A., Lipkin, W.I. et al., The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2, Nature Medicine, 26, 450–452 (2020). With all due respect to Richard Ebright, he's not a virologist, and he's made his claims in the popular media - not in scientific journals. Any discussion of the theory that the virus escaped from a lab needs to also make it clear that this is a WP:FRINGE view in the scientific community. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

But nobody here is arguing against the scientific consensus that the virus most likely emerged in nature. Your claim that there is a scientific consensus that the virus did not leak from the WIV is unsubstantiated, and according to Ebright "is not credible", so WP:FRINGE does not apply here. JustStalin (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the following information should be added to the Conspiracy Theory Section: Ebright said the claim that the Wuhan Institute of Virology could not have been involved in the virus’s release "is not credible." An assessment by the U.S. intelligence community declined to rule out the possibility that the virus had escaped from the complex of laboratories in Wuhan. An anonymous U.S. intelligence official said, "There’s been speculation: Did it come from a market? Did it come from a lab? We just don’t know." In a 2019 paper published in the Journal of Biosafety and Biosecurity, Wuhan chief scientist Yuan Zhiming described widespread systemic deficiencies with training and monitoring of high-security laboratories where disease-causing pathogens are studied. In addition, U.S experts and scientists who reviewed experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology said the precautions taken by scientists would not necessarily have protected them from harmful exposures. The experiments prompted Chinese scientists to issue repeated warnings about the possibility of a new SARS-like disease transmitting from bats to humans. In a 2019 article published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Lynn Klotz, a senior science fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, argued that incidents causing potential exposures to pathogens occur frequently in the high security BSL4 laboratories, mainly due to human error, and that releases of potential pandemic pathogens are fairly likely over time. In April 2020, she further elaborated, "Even if a lab is mechanically safe, you can’t rule out human error. Accidents happen, and more than 70 percent of the time it’s due to the humans involved." JustStalin (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Proven: there's no support for "debunked", in the context it's in in the article. So I second that request. Urgent: REMOVE IT NOW; this is defamatory; restoring it surely warrants administrator sanctions. And reiterate my initial ones.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

How is it defamatory? Who is being defamed? CowHouse (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

What part of None of the sources provided say that the theory was "debunked", they say the theory has been disputed. A Washington Post fact-checking analysis concluded that no scientist has been willing to completely dimsiss the idea that the virus escaped from the WIV. is unclear? WP:IDHT much? The WashPo isn't bloody fringe. FS. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You are not describing defamation. Please don't use legal terms without knowing their meaning. CowHouse (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I am. I haven't. Right back at you. Read defamation. When wikipedia falsely claims, "debunked[:] the idea that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the institute" wikipedia defames everyone who has argued that it may well have leaked from a Wuhan lab, especially when it directs readers to those arguments, especially when they are identified by name; they don't need to be quoted directly in the article. If wikipedia doesn't falsely claim that, which is your (apparently fundamentalist) belief. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on defamation is a helpful start but I suggest you find other sources if you want to improve your understanding of the legal terminology you are trying to use. It would be more productive for you to suggest reasonably uncontroversial changes to that sentence rather than waste editors time talking about non-existent defamation, e.g. Leading virologists have said there is "virtually no chance" that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the institute. CowHouse (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Instead of sarcastic comments, you could suggest editing the page with my example wording and cite WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." CowHouse (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Aside: It's funny, you were Wikilawyering by writing Please don't use legal terms without knowing their meaning. The page in a nutshell: Using the rules in a manner contrary to their principles in order to "win" editing disputes is highly frowned upon by the Wikipedia community.. Are you saying you're hearing the

I've started a section below specifically escalating these defamation concerns. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Repeated/republished defamation

The Times just wrote last month: "[B]razen political lies [by] Fox News Channel, Newsmax and OAN [that is, news media, which admittedly isn't exactly what wikipedia or the WMF are --.170] [resulted in] a planned defamation lawsuit [that is], legal experts say, an unusually strong case" <ref=NYT-defamation>Smith, Ben (21 December 2020). "The 'Red Slime' Lawsuit That Could Sink Right-Wing Media". The New York Times.</ref>. Wikipedia is legless with respect to "debunked", etc.

WP:NLT promises, "A polite report of a legal problem, such as defamation [such as this one], is not a threat and will be acted on quickly." I'm not going to file suit, but I'd strongly urge that a staff member take action on the defamatory bits identified in this page (not just including #FV) or being edit warred over. most recent example since admins are failing with respect to "will be acted on quickly"; I reiterate my request for admin help of the 3rd, above. Surely application of WP:DS are warranted. Act. Primarily because it's the right thing do. "[L]ots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right.-Jimbo. Court ruling: "Internet service providers and users are exposed to liability if they republish a statement with notice of its defamatory character." So, promises made... Promises... ___________?

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is to use a legal term "nonsense". Utter and complete nonsense. There is no defamation. No person is harmed. And most importantly, Wikipedia has well-established policies on reliable sources including the now repeated several times WP:MEDRS. Slywriter (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin here, this is just silly. This is not defamation, and no admin action is needed here. Trying to insinuate that the current wording defames people who support a different wording?? Thats nuts. Defamation is a clear and serious issue, which occurs when we publish libelous information about specific real, living people. If folks continue to throw around legal terms without understanding them or in an attempt to Wikilawyer, I will absolutely apply DS to block them from editing this page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Conspiracy Theory or Theory?

The possibility of an accidental lab leak has been the subject of controversy that has been reported on by a number of publications in the last few weeks, and has been described as "credible", "plausible" and even "likely". It is most certainly not a conspiracy theory, and should not be described as such. The section should be renamed to "lab leak theory", to avoid the conspiracy label, and cleaned up to reflect the latest reports on the topic. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to support the change you wish to make - just saying "a number of publications" is not sufficient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless actual scientific sources take this theory seriously, it remains WP:FRINGE. An essay by a non-expert in the popular press does not make this scientific. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please can you discuss the contents of the references provided before you revert my edits. I cited a number of sources, including the BBC, National Review, and the Times, all of which satisfy WP:RS, as you must be aware. The New York Magazine too is a reputable source and the author is well qualified to write on the subject, and the article cites a number of reputed scientists, including an interview with Ralph Baric who said "Ralph Baric “Can you rule out a laboratory escape? The answer in this case is probably not.” ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

When newly added content is disputed and removed, it stays out until there is a consensus to include it. The onus is on the person who wants it included to achieve consensus for inclusion, not on anyone who disputes it to justify its removal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

When newly added content is well cited, then you can either discuss the contents and verifiability of the materials cited, or request a comment from an administrator to mediate in the matter. There have been numerous comments from other editors in this regard going, some of which have already been archived, without consensus. I am restoring the content I contributed to this page, as I believe that the sources I cite do indeed satisfy WP:RS and you haven't taken up the issue or countered that. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your addition and have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

New York Magazine, National Review and even BBC are not WP:MEDRS. They are popular sources, and where they make scientific claims that go against the scientific consensus, they are not reliable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the New York Magazine article was written by a novelist with no formal scientific training. Is that right? The scientific opinions of novelists, political commentators and other non-experts writing in non-peer-reviewed outlets should not be presented as a counter-weight to peer-reviewed scientific literature. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The subject of this article and the specific section we are discussing does not class as Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and therefore WP:MEDRS does not apply. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is the subject of a controversy that has been covered extensively in a number of reputable sources, including but not limited to The Boston Magazine, the The BBC, The Times, Le Monde, and the The Washington Post. You are not wrong to say that the author of the New York Magazine piece is a novelist, but you would be wrong to say that this disqualifies the piece as a reliable source as per WP:RS. According to the NY Post, Baker worked on the piece for over three months, interviewing tens of reputed scientists (including Ralph Baric), and cleared a pretty stringent editorial process in order to get published. Novelists can be journalists too. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussing the views of journalists is irrelevant since your paragraph specifically mentions scientists. In this discussion we need to keep in mind that the text that you added was this: Several scientists have hypothesized that the origin of the COVID-19 virus could have been as a result of an accidental leak from a laboratory in the Wuhan, such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology, rather than the more widely held view that the virus made a ononotic jump from animals to humans. A limited but increasing number of scientists have asserted that without concrete evidence of a zoonotic jump having occurred, an accidental lab leak cannot be ruled out as an origin scenario, while a third scenario involving laboratory manipulation and deliberate release as a bioweapon is considered to be very unlikely. There are a few problems with WP:WEASEL words in this paragraph. Firstly, in order to be verifiable it has to be based on the views of "several scientists" / "a limited but increasing number of scientists" (Who are these scientists? Are they virologists? Which source says they are increasing in number?). Secondly, "could have been" and "cannot be ruled out" only tells us that they believe it is not impossible, but says nothing about whether or not they consider it likely. For example, one of your talk page comments mentioned Ralph Baric, but you omitted this part: Baric said he still thought the virus came from bats in southern China, perhaps directly, or possibly via an intermediate host ... The disease evolved in humans over time without being noticed, he suspected, becoming gradually more infectious, and eventually a person carried it to Wuhan “and the pandemic took off.“. Since you mentioned WP:RS, there is consensus that the the New York Post is generally unreliable (see WP:RSP). CowHouse (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There are numerous scientists cited in the sources who consider an accidental lab leak to be plausible. Whether the leak is likely or unlikely, is not the topic of discussion here, rather that it is considered plausible, and cannot be ruled out, and is not a conspiracy theory. The second Times article goes further than "plausible", saying that the theory is "credible", quoting US government officials Matthew Pottinger and UK MP Iain Duncan Smith, among others. If you've read all, or even only some of the articles from the sources I provided, which I hope you have, then you will have read comments from scientists interviewed, such as David Relman, Etienne Decroly, Alina Chan, Nikolai Petrovsky, Daniel Lucey, Botao Xiao, Lei Xiao, Fang Chi-tai, Rahul Bahulikar, Rahul Bahulikar, Filippa Lentzos, Richard Ebright, Jonathan Latham, Allison Wilson, Rossana Segreto and Yuri Deigin all of whom have varying backgrounds in virology and microbiology, and have only come out over the past few months and weeks (hence "increasing"). Baric said he "thought" the virus came from bats directly or via an intermediate host, but there is no evidence for the zoonotic jump theory, which is why he doesn't rule out the accidental lab leak theory (absence of proof is not proof of absence). Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a science journal, and it's not our job as Wikipedians to decide which theory is likely or unlikely, but only that the theory is considered plausible and credible by reliable sources, and should be reflected as such in this article. As for the New York Post article, I didn't provide it as a source to support changes to this for this article, but in response to comments about the author of the New York Magazine piece. According to the New York Post article, Baker worked on the piece for over three months, interviewing tens of reputed scientists, and cleared a pretty stringent editorial process (for which we don't need the NYPost as a source, as New York Magazine is considered a reliable source, but I thought you might like to know). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

To make it easier for people in this discussion, it would be helpful for you to link to specific sources and then include the scientists mentioned per source. Otherwise it is citation WP:BOMBARDMENT, considering the number of lengthy articles you have mentioned. Whether the leak is likely or unlikely, is not the topic of discussion here, rather that it is considered plausible. Plausible means "seeming reasonable or probable". Do the sources use the word "plausible"? Regardless, the topic is about likelihood since your text contrasts the lab leak with the "very unlikely" laboratory manipulation / bioweapon scenario. Likelihood is mentioned for one scenario but not the other, giving readers the impression that the lab leak is not considered very unlikely. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a science journal, and it's not our job as Wikipedians to decide which theory is likely or unlikely. According to policy, likelihood is certainly relevant, as is whether or not it is a minority view. WP:FALSEBALANCE: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." The second Times article goes further than "plausible", saying that the theory is "credible", quoting US government officials Matthew Pottinger and UK MP Iain Duncan Smith, among others. You seem to be arguing in favour of a different paragraph than the one you originally added. Your original text was about scientists, not government officials. [S]cientists interviewed ... all of whom have varying backgrounds in virology and microbiology, and have only come out over the past few months and weeks (hence "increasing") You are acknowledging that "increasing" is original research and not contained in any of the sources. Baric said he "thought" the virus came from bats directly or via an intermediate host, but there is no evidence for the zoonotic jump theory. Baric never said there was no evidence for the zoonotic jump theory. Can you also clarify how there is a lab leak without a zoonotic jump? Your text says laboratory manipulation was a different scenario to a lab leak. As for the New York Post article, I didn't provide it as a source to support changes to this for this article, but in response to comments about the author. My point was that when another editor disputed the quality of a source you provided, you cited an unreliable source to justify the quality of the previous source. CowHouse (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll take your advice on linking to specific sources and paraphrasing scientist quotes. I think the main topic of discussion in this section is whether the accidental lab leak theory should be considered a conspiracy theory or not. The sources I provided quote a number of scientists who propose that no origin theory can be ruled out, with the current dearth of evidence. Many of the sources I provided, source their information from scientific literature, like this article from David Relman (it also explains why deliberate engineering and lab release are unlikely), and all, or at least most of these articles, assume the reader already knows that there is currently no evidence for any origin scenario (as is the current consensus in the scientific community). The fact that Covid-19 has unknown origins is also mentioned in articles that I provided from mainstream sources, such as the Bloomberg article, and is explained at greater length in Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory. As such, that Baric didn't say there was no evidence for the zoonotic jump theory isn't relevant here, as it is common knowledge in scientific circles that no intermediatory host or virus has been found, and doesn't need to be further stated. To clarify on a lab leak without a zoonotic jump, the New York magazine cites the preprint by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson proposing a link between an obscure but deadly coronavirus collected from the Mojiang miners in 2012/2013, and the serial passaging in human cells at Wuhan Institute of Virology by Shi Zhengli and Ralph Baric who collaborated extensively, with funds from the NIH's PREDICT program and the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency, via EcoHealth Alliance (not that Baric is implicated in any way and is said to be advising the US government on its investigation). Baric himself, who is perhaps one of the world's foremost experts in viral engineering is on record as telling Presa diretta that using mordern assembly methods, one could build a synthetic virus that is completely indistinguishable from a natural one (a Swiss lab made the first synthetic clone of SARS-CoV-2 in just one month). So to clarify, laboratory manipulation with deliberate lab release is a different scenario to laboratory manipulation and an accidental lab leak. It's an important distinction. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is also a distinction between a lab leak with laboratory manipulation and a leak without it. We should not conflate the views of scientists who are talking about the possibility of one and not the other. My understanding of the scientific consensus is that the available evidence suggests zoonotic origins. The available evidence means different origin scenarios are much more or less likely. Having incomplete evidence about the details of the virus' origins is not the same as having no evidence at all. I also don't think we should cite a preprint before it has been peer reviewed. CowHouse (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is also a distinction between a lab leak with laboratory manipulation and a leak without it. This statement is untrue in the context of Covid-19 lab leak theory, and its really important for you and other editors with a contrarian view to understanding this, as it is the very crux of the issue we are discussing. Central to the Covid-19 lab-leak theory is that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was known to have collected deadly coronaviruses (such as the ones from the Mojiang mineshaft which a few miners fell ill with and some died from) and performed gain of function research on them to make them even more transmissible among humans, which is well documented not only in all the sources provided, and is well explained in the Boston Magazine and New York Magazine pieces. It is also well documented that Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric, who have been collaborating for a number of years, in once instance built a chimera with the spike of the bat virus attached to a mouse-adapted SARS virus (called MA1 virus]), obtained by Baric some years earlier (source) and tested it on human cells, showing effects similar to those of SARS, thus demonstrating that this spike too could potentially attack humans (source). This kind of research isn't nefarious in any way, but it does carry risks as were these chimeric pathogens to leak, they would be better adapted to spread, and this is why the US government yielded to the pressure of the Cambridge Working Group (a group of scientists especially concerned about lab leaks) and issued a Moratorium on such studies, though they didn't apply to research being carried out with partners abroad (such as the research being carried out between funded by US scientific organizations and the Wuhan Institute of Virology). It's important for you to understand that without gain of function research or "lab manipulatoin", a lab leak wouldn't be of huge concern, and if the original virus/es that was/were collected in the Mojiang mineshaft had leaked, it/they probably wouldn't have caused much of a pandemic, and like most of the hundred billion trillion pathagons in the natural world, they were likely not well suited for human transmission. This explains the statement of Richard H. Ebright in the New York Magazine piece that likens virus hunting and collecting to “looking for a gas leak with a lighted match,”, as most viruses in nature do not cross from one species to another without some help along the way (which he infers as gain of function studies). My understanding of the scientific consensus is that the available evidence suggests zoonotic origins. The available evidence means different origin scenarios are much more or less likely. Having incomplete evidence about the details of the virus' origins is not the same as having no evidence at all. No there is currently no "evidence" of a zoonitic jump having occurred and there is no scientific consensus on this at all, so it is but a theory, and perhaps a likely one, but a theory nonetheless. It is certainly possible for a virus to make a zootic jump from one species to another in a once in a century event, but to do so in the case of a bat virus, it would have to mutate in order to successfully transmit between humans, otherwise, it would just die out with the first few hosts it infects, and currently, there is no known intermediatory host or virus. Instead, what is known instead is that from the start of the virus spreading in Wuhan, as noted by the above-mentioned preprint from Alina Chan in biorxiv, that was quoted by all the reliable sources of above, is that the virus was well adapted for humans (indicating that underwent mutation in a human population for a number of months without any trace, or that it may have undergone this process in some other way, such as gain of function research in a lab). This is highly unusual, as with most other viruses that made the jump zoonotic, intermediate hosts were found, and observations were made of the mutations they underwent from the first few hosts they infected to later stages hosts. I also don't think we should cite a preprint before it has been peer reviewed. I agree that we cannot reference it in the article, but the preprint is of note, in that it was quoted by a number of reliable sources, and I am mainly referencing it in our discussion, and not in the article, where we should reference just the reliable sources that referenced it. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No there is currently no "evidence" of a zoonitic [sic] jump having occurred. The World Health Organization disagrees: "All available evidence for COVID-19 suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has a zoonotic source. Many researchers have been able to look at the genomic features of SARS-CoV-2 and have found that evidence does not support that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory construct. A constructed virus would show a mix of known elements within genomic sequences – this is not the case." (source) CowHouse (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I explained the distinction between a lab leak with laboratory manipulation and a leak without it, which I hope you have read, because the World Health Organisation Report is dated and isn't relevant. The particular excerpt from the World Health Organisation situation report you provided which is from back in April does appear to conflict with the more recent sources I have provided, but it doesn't negate my statement that there is currently no evidence of a zoonotic jump, demonstrating only that there is a controversy. The situation report states a "constructed virus would show a mix of known elements" which does not take into account modern methods, and which is in direct contradiction of what Ralph Baric (perhaps the foremost expert in the world on viral engineering and coronaviruses) told Presa diretta on Nov 11 2020, that when using assembly methods recently developed, one could "build a virus that is completely indistinguishable from a natural one". The methods that Baric is referring to are known as "seamless cloning", such as Gibson assembly, Golden Gate Cloning, which are now commonly sold in commercial kits available online. So to reiterate my point, there is currently no evidence of a zoonotic jump having occurred, and the lab leak theory which has received significant media coverage by a number of reliable sources, can be considered possible, and according to some sources, even quite credible. It certainly cannot be considered a conspiracy theory, and I hope our discussion has brought you to understand my position so that we can reach a consensus among ourselves as how to edit the relevant section in this article. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If there is a newer WHO report which contradicts the old one then feel free to provide a link. Otherwise, the report not being new doesn't help your case. It tells us that even at that time "all available evidence" suggested a zoonotic source, which refutes your point that "there is currently no "evidence"". Hand-waving and dismissing the WHO report as irrelevant, while citing the opinion of a single person (Baric) and continuing to incorrectly refer to the popular press as a reliable source on scientific information, is not productive. If you are representing Baric accurately, then his views are still undue unless you can provide reliable sources indicating his view is uncontroversial in the scientific community. CowHouse (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we cannot reference it in the article, but the preprint is of note, in that it was quoted by a number of reliable sources, and I am mainly referencing it in our discussion, and not in the article, where we should reference just the reliable sources that referenced it. Your comment assumes the sources are reliable, contrary to policy. WP:MEDPOP: "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. ... Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters." CowHouse (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't plan to cite any sources that don't measure up to WP:MEDPOP, and I cited them only for our discussion here on this talk page as you asked me to explain you some of the finer points of the accidental lab leak theory. The case I am making here is for renaming the conspiracy to controversy or accidental lab leak, and reflecting the position of scientists on the theory based on reliable sources. Do you accept or reject the use of any of the reliable sources I have provided to support these changes so that we can reach a consensus on this matter? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you accept or reject the use of any of the reliable sources I have provided to support these changes so that we can reach a consensus on this matter? If you mean the preprints and popular press, then you are not talking about reliable sources. CowHouse (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Your position is not consistent with WP:NPOV, and it seems we are unable to reach a consensus, so we must make a request for a dispute resolution. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory and a scenario that cannot be ruled out are not mutually exclusive. It is not an endorsement of a theory to say it cannot be ruled out. Conspiracy theories don't have to be impossible, just without evidence. The text you added says nothing about whether there is evidence of a lab leak. CowHouse (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your general statement that a conspiracy theory and a scenario that cannot be ruled out are not mutually exclusive. However, I think you might be missing something here, as indicated from your previous post. The origin of the virus is still unknown. All that is known is that it that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a type of horseshoe bat, but no plausible virus intermediate nor a confirmed animal intermediate host has been found to date, and it's been over a year now. With SARS and MERS, the animal intermediate, namely the civet cat and camel, respectively, were identified within a few months. Moreover, there are many questions about why Covid-19 first emerged in Wuhan, which is over 1,400km away from where the horseshoe bats are found in Yunan, and how well adapted the virus was for human transmission (which is unlike SARS and MERS or any other virus first passing the species barrier). These questions and many others are the subject of numerous scientific preprints under review, such as this one. Can it really be a coincidence that the only Biosafety level 4 lab in China, completed only a few years prior, and which was collecting coronaviruses and performing gain of function studies on them, is in Wuhan, the epicenter of the virus outbreak? Is it really such a far stretch to think that an accidental leak may have occurred, perhaps through hazardous waste not being disposed of correctly, or a scratch from a humanized mouse? These questions and many others, made a number of publications like the BBC give air to the theory. If Covid-19 was an accidental leak, it would not even have been the first. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The paper you linked to says this: A reminder: these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information. We should wait for these preprints to be peer reviewed before even considering referencing them. CowHouse (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the standard disclaimer of biorxiv for any preprint undergoing peer-review, but that does not stop the news media from interviewing their authors and citing their studies, especially while a worldwide pandemic is raging and there is a dearth of evidence for any origin scenario. Given that paper's coverage by other publications, such as the Boston Magazine piece, they can be referenced together. There are other preprints, like this one which are awaiting review by Journals since June, but which haven't been picked up by any reliable sources and referenced as part of a story, so on those we can wait. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDPOP. We don't have to reference papers that haven't been peer reviewed just because they were mentioned in news articles, especially when the preprint's disclaimer actively discourages it. CowHouse (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

As per WP:MEDPOP I agree we don't have to reference it in the article, but it is useful for conversation among editors on the topic, in establishing the veracity of the lab leak theory. It is especially relevant to this discussion for those editors unaware that the virus has been adept for human transmissibility from the start of the outbreak in Wuhan, as reported in the reliable sources provided. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are you describing them as reliable sources when WP:MEDPOP specifically says they are generally unreliable in this context? CowHouse (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't describe them as reliable. I said they are useful for this conversation. I agree we should cite articles only the sources considered reliable according to WP:MEDPOP. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The opinion piece in The Washington Post (link) says Most likely, the virus was a zoonotic spillover, a leap from animals to humans. Relman is mentioned but he says nothing at all about a lab leak. He says “the ‘origin story’ is missing many key details,” including a recent detailed evolutionary history of the virus, identity of its most recent ancestors and “surprisingly, the place, time, and mechanism of transmission of the first human infection.” The portion about the Lancet Commission is the most relevant: The Lancet Commission, formed by the British medical journal in July, has made a primary goal identifying the origins of covid-19 and averting future zoonotic pandemics. The journal declared “the evidence to date supports the view” that covid-19 “is a naturally occurring virus rather than the result of laboratory creation and release.” But the commission says, “The possibility of laboratory involvement in the origins of the pandemic should be examined with scientific rigor and thoroughness, and with open scientific collaboration.” However, I'm not sure it belongs on this page since the commission never specifically mentions the WIV. CowHouse (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The Washinton Post piece also says Beyond the blame game, there are troubling questions in China that must be examined, including whether the coronavirus was inadvertently spread in an accident or spill from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which had previously carried out research on bat coronaviruses. The institute collected samples from the Mojiang mine in Yunnan province in China in 2012 and 2013. Earlier in 2012, six miners at Mojiang exposed to bats and bat feces were hospitalized suffering from an illness similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and three died. The disease was similar if not identical to covid-19 and may have been a previously unrecognized parent virus. Conspiracy theorists have proposed more outlandish scenarios of a deliberately created pathogen, but they do not hold much water., which is very much relevant to the WIV. As for the Lancet Commission, and its now-famous letter attempting to discount a lab leak as a possible origin scenario, it been criticized by numerous scientists and was also mentioned in the BBC and other articles as a controversy. It is telling that both Ralph Baric and Linfa Wang's names had been taken off the list of co-signees. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The opinion piece mentions the WIV, but the Lancet Commission does not. Your earlier comment said this: So to clarify, laboratory manipulation with deliberate lab release is a different scenario to laboratory manipulation and an accidental lab leak. It's an important distinction. Is laboratory manipulation different to a "deliberately created pathogen"? If not, the piece describes that as an "outlandish scenario" proposed by conspiracy theorists. CowHouse (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The Lancet Commission's letter, is at the center of the controversy, as its author Peter Daszak as mentioned by the BBC article, has "previously called the lab-leak theory a "conspiracy theory" and "pure baloney" and has statedly absconded any duty he has to consider a lab leak scenario as a possible origin and investigate it accordingly. The BBC questioned Daszak on conflict of interest, and the sources also not this concern (such as the Le Monde, New York and Boston Magazine pieces), given that his organization EcoHealth Alliance funded the WIV's gain of function research on coronaviruses. Even the US government, according to The Times article is concerned with his involvement with the WHO investigation, which has agreed to the Chinese government's terms, and they have cut his funding for that particular project and asked him to help procure the original virus specifying which the WIV first sequenced SARS-CoV-2 from, along with genetic sequences of another eight samples of coronaviruses that were collected along with RaTG13 which have not been shared. Concerns that the Lancet letter omits the WIV and any possibility of a lab leak occurring is the subject of further media reports, such as the US Right to Know article here. Given this controversy, the Lancet letter cannot be considered a reliable source to disprove the lab leak theory, as it doesn't not represent a consensus by scientists and even Ralph Baric and Linfa Wang (the two foremost caronavirus experts in the world) withdraw their signatures, and have said that a lab leak theory cannot be ruled out. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The article in The Times says a "majority of scientists believe that the Covid-19 virus originated in nature." One American national security adviser, who is not a scientist, is quoted in the article supporting a lab leak. According to the article, Iain Duncan Smith told the Daily Mail that Mr Pottinger’s comments showed the US was doubling down on the theory that the virus came from a leak at the laboratory. It is therefore completely false to say The second Times article goes further than "plausible", saying that the theory is "credible", quoting US government officials Matthew Pottinger and UK MP Iain Duncan Smith. CowHouse (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The statement that the Covid-19 virus originated in nature does not contradict the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a lab. As I clarified above, the lab leak theory entails the virus being collected from a patient, who caught it from a horseshoe bat, underwent gain of function studies, and accidentally leaked, either through the sewer system, garbage disposal, a hole in the wall, or an infected human carrier. Other than that, I am unsure how the National Security official not being a scientist is a concern, as I didn't add it as a source. We should add it if we add government officials along with scientists, as they marshal a lot of scientific human resources. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be contradicting your own sources. The BBC article you cited says: "Those three deaths are now at the centre of a major scientific controversy about the origins of the virus and the question of whether it came from nature, or from a laboratory." CowHouse (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

How is that a contradiction? As I explained, there is more than two scenarios. The BBC is but one of multiple sources I provided, and it didn't delve into the finder details of each scenario. I explained the scenarios above, and nature vs laboratory conundrum is better explained in the Boston Magazine, New York Magazine and Le Monde pieces. talk (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Your original text included a reference to the National Review ("There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review". See WP:RSP). The article presents the views of journalists rather than scientists. It only contains speculation that "many scientists" had suspicions/concerns but they "didn’t want to speak publicly about the possibility of a lab accident while the Trump administration was touting the same idea". CowHouse (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I thought that the National Review was more respected than it is, apparently. I will leave it out as a source. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to make a very general point about this discussion: scientific sources are all that matter for determining the weight of scientific opinion. Regular news outlets are often not particularly good at reporting on scientific topics. The general standard that's been followed on Wikipedia for SARS-CoV-2-related material is WP:MEDRS. Arguing back and forth about what the Washington Post's editorial board thinks about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 or what a writer for The Times thinks about the illness that struck the Mojiang miners is not a productive use of anyone's time. Any discussion should focus on high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific literature. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You have made your position quite clear many times before, but I countered your point, saying that WP:MEDRS applies primarily to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, a point which was also brought up by another editor. The subject of this article is that of a laboratory in China which is subject to a controversy related to a possible accidental leak, that has been reported by numerous reliable sources, including but not limited to the Washington Post, the BBC, Bloomberg, The Times, Le Monde, RAI, the New York Magazine and the Boston Magazine, which quote numerous reputed scientists, including but not limited to David Relman, Etienne Decroly, Alina Chan, Nikolai Petrovsky, Daniel Lucey, Botao Xiao, Lei Xiao, Fang Chi-tai, Rahul Bahulikar, Rahul Bahulikar, Filippa Lentzos, Richard Ebright, Jonathan Latham, Allison Wilson, Rossana Segreto and Yuri Deigin all of whom have varying backgrounds in virology and microbiology. Notwithstanding, there are a number of scientific preprints that are undergoing review on the topic of an accidental lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, such as the piece from Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson here, and some which are already peer-reviewed, such as this one. With or without peer-reviewed scientific papers, WP:RS takes precedence over to WP:MEDRS to establish that there is indeed a controversy here over a possible accidental lab leak of one of the coronaviruses undergoing gain of function studies at one of the institute's labs. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411 I 100% agree with you. However, I think if you review the WIV subsection titled "Conspiracy theories" you will find that this methodology has never been applied, except for the one recent source identifying a Dec 2019 sample in Italy. I think ScrupulousScribe has legitimate NPOV concerns about both entries he is trying to edit in that it's a one way street with respect to using non WP:MEDRS sources. I don't agree with his approach but I sympathize with his frustration. My suggestion for WIV is that the "Conspiracy theories" subsection be renamed to "Lab link theory" and the paper identifying the Dec 2019 sample in Italy be used as a possible counter factual source with NPOV wording. Everything else should be tossed and any future updates should be held to the standard of 'high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific literature'/WP:MEDRS. Let's get back to basics, and quit wasting everyone's time on politics. Dinglelingy (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Regular news outlets account for almost all of the references in the conspiracy theories section at the moment. I agree with your point that if WP:MEDRS is going to be invoked we need to apply it consistently. CowHouse (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You're both right. We should just mark WP:V as a guideline. Will make it easier to use MEDRS iff it suits our agenda. </sarcasm>. SMH. WWJD? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

CowHouse Exactly. And they all need to come out, as does any reference to the term conspiracy theory under the topic of WIV, as it no longer applies, if it ever did. Or, as 50.201.195.170 is suggesting, any other similarly sourced material such as that provided by ScrupulousScribe needs to be included, provided it has a NPOV. Calling this topic a conspiracy theory is not a NPOV and serves no purpose other than political. I think it meets the qualification of "Alternative theoretical formulations" under WP:Fringe and should be given appropriate but not undue weight, until the science prooves otherwise. I support either approach if it is consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy (talk • contribs) 08:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The weight of scientific opinion has to be determined by WP:MEDRS sources. That's a consistent policy. I agree that we should quit wasting everyone's time on politics, which is why I do not think that conspiracy theories should be included on the basis of coverage in the popular press. Above, ScrupulousScribe is arguing, for example, that we should use an essay written in New York Magazine by an erotic novelist with no scientific training. ScrupulousScribe has also repeatedly touted independentsciencenews.org. A recent title from that website: "Messengers of Gates’ Agenda: How the Cornell Alliance for Science Spreads Disinformation on behalf of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation". As for the out-of-context lists of names that ScrupulousScribe has been giving, I'll just make this point: If I wanted to introduce WP:FRINGE climate-change denialism into Wikipedia, I could also assemble an impressive-looking list of scientists from outside of climatology. Excuse me, but big claims, like a lab leak, require solid backing, and this isn't it. Peer-reviewed scientific literature, as laid out in WP:MEDRS, is what counts in determining where the weight of scientific opinion lies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the relevant topic of conversation is whether the "conspiracy theory" description comes from WP:MEDRS sources or only the popular press. CowHouse (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Skimmed, but too lazy to read all of the above. An opinion piece in WaPo is unconvincing. If this is a legitimate theory, you should be able to link a couple of reliable sources, and say no extra words, letting the sources speak for themselves. If nobody can do so, it's probably a conspiracy theory. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are too lazy to read the sources, then of what value is your input in this conversation? In addition to the WaPo piece, there are also articles from the Boston Magazine and the New York Magazine, both of which are over 1000 words, explaining why some reputable scientists think an accidental lab leak is a possible origin scenario of SARS-CoV-2. There is also the BBC and while it says the theory is unsubstantiated (which any theory is, until its proven), this is in light of the fact that the no origin scenario has full scientific consensus, including a natural zoonosis. Yes, there is no scientific consensus on the origins of the virus, and how it made a zoonitic jump from bats to humans, as you can see stated here in this Nature article and many others like it. There are also articles covering a possible lab leak as an origin scneario, from the The Times, Bloomberg, Presadiretta and Le Monde. Frankly, if you are not going to read these articles, your input is of little value and can't be factored into a consensus. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I replied to your sources in the below section. I am too lazy to read the WP:WALLOFTEXTs, which are a lot of words and very little substance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not the first user who has brought up this issue. If you made the time, you can find numerous other users and "walls of text", which have not resulted in consensus on this issue. What has changed in the lat few weeks, is that a number of sources meeting WP:RS have reported on an accidental lab leak as a possible origin scenario, and I am seeking to make changes to this article to better reflect that, and also spint it off as a new article. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What constitutes a reliable source varies by subject matter. For the origin of a novel coronavirus, an erotic novelist writing in a popular magazine is not a reliable source, even if he writes over 1000 words. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The New York Magazine is considered by Wikipedia to be a Wikipedia:reliable source, not just because of the quality of its writers, but because of its editorial process. Are you going to attempt to discredit the reporting capabilities of journalists from the other sources I provided? That is not based on Wikipedia policy. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to talk about policy, how many times do I need to link to WP:MEDPOP and quote it? "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles." Let me remind you of your own previous comment: I didn't describe them as reliable. I said they are useful for this conversation. I agree we should cite articles only the sources considered reliable according to WP:MEDPOP. For your information, this is what WP:RSP says about New York magazine: "There is consensus that New York magazine, including its subsidiary publication Vulture, is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements." CowHouse (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, let's talk about policy, and specifically WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDPOP. As another editor has pointed out, the conspiracy section of this article as it is now doesn't comply much with WP:MEDRS, and I don't see any WP:MEDRS sources provided indicating that the accidental lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory, and instead draw from the popular press, such as NPR from back in April (long before new studies and media reports of them surfaced). I see an article from sciencemag.org from back in Feb, which cites the Lancet letter from Peter Daszak which is of ambiguous credibility, based on the BBC, The Times and the Le Monde article I provided. All I see are a few popular press items to support your position that it's a conspiracy theory. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• "On the basis of our analysis, an artificial origin of SARS‐CoV‐2 is not a baseless conspiracy theory that is to be condemned[66] and researchers have the responsibility to consider all possible causes for SARS‐CoV‐2 emergence." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000240#bies202000240-bib-0001 (17 November 2020)
• "It seems ill‐advised to rule out the possibility that gain‐of‐function techniques such as serial passage may have played a role in the creation of SARS‐CoV‐2 until more definitive data are collected, and when the Center for Arms Control and Non‐Proliferation has calculated that the odds that any given potential pandemic pathogen might leak from a lab could be better than one in four" https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000091 (12 August 2020)
• "Even though strong opinions abound, none of these scenarios can be confidently ruled in or ruled out with currently available facts. Just because there are no public reports of more immediate, proximal ancestors in natural hosts, doesn’t mean that these ancestors don’t exist in natural hosts or that COVID-19 didn’t began as a spillover event. Nor does it mean that they have not been recovered and studied, or deliberately recombined in a laboratory." https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246 (November 24, 2020)

CowHouse and Thucydides411 - Is there any disagreement that these 3 sources meet the criteria for WP:MEDRS? All three? Again, no one is arguing for undue weight here. The argument is for consistency in sourcing requirements and NPOV, until the scientific research says otherwise. I don't have anymore time to add to this topic but I think CowHouse understands the problem, and I would support any solution that he and ScrupulousScribe both sign on to. Dinglelingy (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue with the conspiracy theories section at the moment is that almost every reference is to the popular press. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems WP:MEDRS sources don't specifically mention the WIV. At best they will talk about a hypothetical lab origin but don't specify a particular lab. The sources that do mention the WIV are from the popular press and are, according to WP:MEDPOP, generally unreliable for scientific information. So that leads me to wonder if the question should be whether the conspiracy theories section belongs on this page at all, instead of merely renaming it. It may be relevant on other pages but unless the WIV is mentioned by MEDRS sources it is WP:SYNTH to include in this page. CowHouse (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a totally valid approach too and it makes sense to me. Looks like Forich is going to re-open discussion on this RFC given the published thought in the science community over the last few months, so I think guidance will come out of that. Dinglelingy (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dinglelingy: The first two sources do not appear to be WP:MEDRS. I'll start with the second source, Sirotkin & Sirotkin (2020), in the journal BioEssays. The first red flag is that the lead author, Karl Sirotkin, appears to be a bioinformatics person, rather than a virologist. Looking at his list of publications, it's mainly about database software for biology: [7]. In other words, it's unclear what expertise he has in virology, much less coronaviruses. The second red flag is that the 2nd author on the paper, Dan Sirotkin, is Karl Sirotkin's son, and does not appear to have any expertise at all in biology. He appears to be a blogger with a bachelor's degree in political science. This led me to wonder about the journal that published this work, BioEssays. I don't know much about them, but they do appear to be publishing articles by non-experts. The actual argument being made in this paper is similar to one of the arguments made by Li Meng-Yan in her widely criticized document. You can read the peer reviews that MIT organized of that document here. Among other things, the reviewers criticized its claims about the furin cleavage site - arguments which are very similar to those made in Sirotkin & Sirotkin (2020).

The first source on your list is in the same journal, BioEssays. Again, the two authors do not appear to be virologists. Based on her publication record, the first author appears to be a botanist: [8]. The 2nd author appears to be an entrepreneur who wants to cure aging: [9].

I don't think we should be using papers by people who don't appear to have much to do with virology to represent the scientific view of the origins of a novel coronavirus. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

break

None of the three proposed sources (PMID 33200842, PMID 32786014 and PMID 33144498) is WP:MEDRS. Whether MEDRS applies to this story depends on which aspect of it is being considered. A claim that a researcher accidently dropped a flask is not in the realm of WP:Biomedical information; a claim that a virus has telltale signs of being human-engineered, most certainly is. Alexbrn (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, but I’d go further in saying that the strange lawyering over whether MEDRS applies seems to miss the point. If one can’t find high quality sources to make the claim, why should we be making it at all? Giving legitimacy to a conspiracy theory falls under the same tree; if it wouldn’t be accepted at COVID-19, the same content shouldn’t be accepted here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. There seems to be a problem here with a "I have the POV, now let's find the sources!" Instead, the approach should be first to find the WP:BESTSOURCES that are relevant, and then to summarize then. It seems to me, that way, that the response of science to the lab leak "theory" is kind of meh. Alexbrn (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

On what basis are you claiming that none of them are WP:MEDRS? Each one and why, be specific. I think the claims in the medical journals are that there is not yet enough data for anyone to make the claim of nature or lab, and therefore both possibilities should be investigated. Do you have any current WP:MEDRS sources refuting that claim? If you were in charge of investigating the origin of a global pandemic, would you put any resources into inventorying lab viruses and verifying safety protocols or would you just call it a conspiracy theory and move on? Dinglelingy (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

None is a secondary source. The right sort of source for this in general would be something more in the realm of sociology/psychology/history - but we'll need to wait a while for that. In time a university textbook is likely to cover it in examining the conspiracism/panic/hysteria spawned by the pandemic. People need stories. Maybe for now something like this[10] which frames the lab leak narrative as a manifestation of people's need to find an agent of blame. I suspect that's how RS is going to end up framing this. Alexbrn (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to perform such investigations (WP:NOTJOURNAL). If it becomes a concern for mainstream sources, then it may be WP:DUE for the encyclopedia. —PaleoNeonate – 12:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't the WP:BESTSOURCES be from virologists or another relevant scientific field, rather that sociologists/psychologists/historians? That paper's publication status is also under review which, unless I'm mistaken, means it is still undergoing peer review. CowHouse (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that paper is still under review which I why I suggested we might use "something like this". I don't expect the sourcing to settle for some time. As to WP:BESTSOURCES we'd need to see what's out there. So far as I know there is no WP:MEDRS on the virology aspects of this topic. There is however quite a bit of RS on the misinformation aspects. Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, tell us how you really feel Alexbrn :) So you are claiming all three are primary sources? I'm sorry, but that claim doesn't hold water. They are ALL secondary sources "summarizing one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies." The scientists in these papers are aggregating primary and secondary sources to support their position. I'd even suggest that they are each doing so to one of three different audiences, each with a different level of detail. The goal in any of this research is not to assign blame but root cause analysis in order to prevent it from happening again in the future. In case you or anyone else did not follow the discussion here, the consensus I think what most of us are aiming for is consistent requirements for sources and a NPOV on the subject but not any undue weight. Right now it is a one way street with respect to non WP:MEDRS sources claiming 'conspiracy theory' and it does not reflect new thought in the scientific community reflected in the three more recent WP:MEDRS sources I mentioned. My vote would be to throw them all out in favor of only WP:MEDRS sources and leave it up to the scientists to determine origin. Or have two sections in a page somewhere appropriate, with one referencing media debate and the other referencing scientific debate. If everyone just chills and tries to implement a consistent policy approach to both past and future content on the matter I think everyone will be happy. No one is pushing anti-mask or anti-vax conspiracy type ideas here, we're talking about the current state of scientific inquiry. My views are clear and have been consistent in that approach, but the goalpost keep moving. Dinglelingy (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS (and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS) if you want to understand what a secondary medical source is. Essays and opinions piece aren't. In general we want reviews. For making any assertions about specific WP:Biomedical information we would need WP:MEDRS, however for the lab leak conspiracy theory in general the sourcing requirement is different, and indeed WP:PARITY may be necessary as sometimes such nonsenses are only debunked properly in niche skeptical sources. I think general lay/news sources are best avoided; using them one could easily do a web search and trawl up a bunch of "RS" that showed that questions remain over who shot JFK.[11] A WP:REDFLAG surely flies over this topic, so claims entertaining the notion that a leak occurred require multiple super-strength sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn I understand WP:MEDRS. What are you claiming? Are you claiming these are all 3 primary sources or are you claiming these are all 3 opinion pieces like the NY Times? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy (talk • contribs) 14:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not "claiming" anything, just pointing out that none of these three sources is WP:MEDRS, contrary to what has been claimed. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice logic. Basically they are not WP:MEDRS because, well, I don't know why, but I don't like what they say.Dinglelingy (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to read and understand MEDRS. A shortcut is to look at how the publisher classifies a paper. The first two papers (PMID 33200842, PMID 32786014) are published in the journal Bioessays. Now, this journal does publish some secondary material – they seem to call such papers "Review Essays" e.g.[12]. Both these papers are by contrast categorized as "Problems & paradigms" papers: the authors are proposing novel explanations based on material they have assembled to support their argument. To cross-check, it's also possible to look up how PUBMED classifies a paper. What we really want is "Review", "Systematic review" or "Meta-analysis". The third paper, PMID 33144498, is categorized by the publisher as "Opinion". These sources may have some use, but they are not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a real stretch. It's secondary research under WP:MEDRS. I'd reminder you we are talking about whether or not this is a conspiracy theory. It's not two paper's in no man's land, it's not some pre-print, and it is not primary research. Papers classified as 'Problems & Paradigms' in Bioessays are peer reviewed and are "Essays presenting difficult/puzzling problems or open questions, current thinking in the field, existing and changing paradigms." Exactly what we are discussing.Dinglelingy (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The question of whether or not something is a conspiracy theory is not a biomedical claim, so WP:MEDRS is irrelevant in that case; it would be better to use a source that habitually dealt with conspiracy theories. But for any kind of bold biomedical claim (e.g. that the virus is the result of human engineering) a proper review would be required, not a paper in which the authors are presenting a novel argument. It seems to me that much of this talk of WP:MEDRS is irrelevant in any case since no editor is proposing to include a biomedical claim are they? Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe that's the disconnect. Whether or not the lab leak scenario is a 'conspiracy theory' or a 'plausible scenario', seems best handled by the scientific community and not the 'media'/politics. Right? If WP:MEDRS sources say it is plausible and should be investigated, it's hard to argue it is still a conspiracy theory. That's the point of the scientists in those papers, they claim a lab leak scenario should be investigated and not be considered a conspiracy theory. Are you waiting for Time magazine to discuss the lab leak scenario before it is no longer considered 'conspiracy theory'? Or does the fact that there are peer reviewed WP:MEDRS papers on the subject mean it is no longer a conspiracy theory? Dinglelingy (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes there is a disconnect. We require WP:MEDRS for biomedical claims. For other types of claims MEDRS is irrelevant ... and in fact biomedical publications might be actively bad to consider topics outside the field of biomedicine, such as whether a particular idea is bunk or not. Remember there is a shed-load of evidence-based-medicine publication around (e.g.) homeopathy, which disregards the fact that it is a ludicrous pseudoscience at base. Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the two BioEssays papers we're discussing appear to be written by a botanist, an entrepreneur, a bioinformatics person (specializing in database software) and a blogger with an undergraduate degree in political science. In other words, these papers aren't even written by virologists. In my mind, that raises questions about the journal BioEssays itself, and it certainly means that we should not be using these papers. What matters here is what the mainstream view in virology is, and a paper written by a botanist or a blogger does not tell us anything about that. I have a feeling that these papers were cherry-picked, out of the thousands of papers that have now been written about SARS-CoV-2, because they promote a particular point of view, and not because they represent any sort of mainstream view within the field of virology. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The lady you call a botanist, Rossana Segreto, is a molecular biologist at the University of Innsbruck, is eminently qualified to write an academic paper on the genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, BioEssays is a prestigious journal, and if she and her bioinformatics friend could get peer-reviewed and published there, then that absolutely qualifies it as WP:MEDRS, and is even obligatory to reference as per WP:MEDDATE. The paper is absolutely worth reading for those with a true interest in the origins of SARS-COV-2, and not just debating Wikipedia Policy. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I've looked into this again, and I think it's accurate to call her a botanist. Her published works are primarily in journals like American Journal of Botany and The Bryologist (bryology being a subfield of botany). Her work does appear to involve microbiology. However, her discipline is very far from virology, let alone coronaviruses. This looks like an example of someone publishing a paper on something extremely far removed from their normal field of research. I don't know if BioEssays is prestigious, but the two papers that have been listed above from that journal are by people who don't normally publish on virology. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

And why is her paper discounted under WP:MEDRS for the fact that she mostly writes on microbiology? She specialises in genetically modifying fungus, which is not "far" from the subject matter here, especially as this coronavirus is alleged to have been modified as part of gain of function research. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed. The problem here is that we seem to have some WP:PROFRINGE types, and possible socks,[13] who have a POV and are casting around to try to find sources to support that POV, rather than more disinterestedly looking for good sources as an initial step. Alexbrn (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn Unbelievable you are resorting to this tactic again after I spend all this time trying to walk you through an argument that's over your head. What a waste. Thucydides411 It's peer reviewed and I have not seen anyone attack it's integrity. If you want to attack their credibility, that's your prerogative. What am I going to do, I got nothing.Dinglelingy (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn The complaint you linked to has been updated with your 2nd violation of wikipedia policy. Gooday. Dinglelingy (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any point in engaging in further discussion with Alexbrn as he has nor demonstrated Wikipedia:Goodfaith from the start of this discussion, and has instead made personal attacks. I also do not believe there is any point in engaging in further discussion with Thucydides411, as though he isn't as condescending as Alexbrn, he too has not demonstrated WP:GF and he is highly vacuous in respect to the use of WP:MEDRS relating to content that does not qualify as Wikipedia:Biomedical information. Better would be to request a dispute resolution based on violations of WP:NPOV, for discounting reliable sources provided that offer a view different to their own, and WP:NOR for claiming that specific sources provided make claims that they do not, in order to suit their views. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

What part of WP:MEDRS says "if Wikipedians dislike the authors of a study and see them as lacking the requisite pedigree in their discipline, a publication in an otherwise reliable journal can be rejected" ? I'm afraid the discussion has veered a bit off the rails. Let's bring it back to topic. It's about whether certain studies published in a reputable publication are WP:DUE, not whether their authors are to anyone's liking. Fa suisse (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

break

"Conspiracy theory" is a loaded term. It's defined by Wikipedia thus; "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence." (see Conspiracy theory).

Two points from this definition. First, who are the "sinister and powerful groups with political motivations" in this case? Maybe Donald Trump and various clandestine agencies in the US State? Second point; "...when other explanations are more probable." (Occam's razor). What's more probable, that the virus emerged from a wet market in Wuhan, or it emerged (somehow) from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a place where bat coronaviruses are being investigated, and which is a stones-throw from the wet market. I'd call the latter a more plausible explanation. Going back to the first point, maybe the Chinese Government is the "sinister and powerful group". In this scenario the conspiracy theory is the one that maintains the virus originated in the wet market. Of course, we'd need a reputable source for this. There are plenty, but here's an interesting one [14] (this might qualify as WP:MEDRS). Now I'm not suggesting the scenario of the wet market source is a conspiracy theory, but I don't think the lab leak theory in conspiratorial either.

Anther point to consider is that the virus may well be zoonotic in origin, but it could still have come from the Wuhan lab. In the fast-moving situation we have with Covid-19 we need up-to-date sources. Some of those used in the disputed section are old; they cannot now be relied upon. And incidentally, none of them seem to be WP:MEDRS-compliant. Conspiracy theories are things like 5G causing COVID. The origins of the coronavirus are under investigation and the lab origin has certainly not been ruled out, per the source I mention, so it's disingenuous to use the word "conspiracy" here. Actually, it's blatant POV. If agreement can't be reached to remove it - and I don't expect it will be - then we need to move to an RFC. Arcturus (talk)

I'd call the latter a more plausible explanation. And this puts your views in opposition to the mainstream view in the field of virology. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

So? It doesn't make them conspiratorial; non-mainstream (at the moment) - maybe. Arcturus (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus among scientists or virologists on the origins of SARS-COV-2 and the two WP:MEDRS you cited do not attempt to establish a consensus and leave other possibilities open. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Systematic bias and unfair ban

Yesterday, I made some edits to this article, addressing the controversy relating to the accidental lab leak theory that has been reported on by a number of reputable sources. Issues of bias in this article have been brought up by numerous users on this talk page, which can be found in all three archived talk pages, but armed with newly published sources, I took a crack at it. My edits were deleted, and when I reverted the deletion, I was met with a ban for "edit warring" from Boing! said Zebedee, despite explaining my position on this talk page before (directly above). When I contested for the ban to be lifted, NinjaRobotPirate declined, questioning New York Magazine as a reliable source, based on the fact that the author of the piece is also novelist (which does not contravene WP:RS), and he/she further threatened to topic ban me (not very nice). Thucydides411, a longstanding editor of this page has taken it upon himself to counter any claims of the possible accidental lab leak by invaliding the reliability of any sources provided, as per WP:MEDRS, which applies primarily to Wikipedia:Biomedical information. And so, any proposals to include the controversy surrounding the Wuhan Institue of Virology relating to a possible accidental lab leak have been stifled with RP:MEDRS, over and over again.

So far, a number of reputable publications have reported on the accidental lab leak theory, including but not limited to The Boston Magazine, the BBC, Le Monde, Bloomberg The Washington Post, The Times 2 and the The New York Magazine. No Wikipedian would deny that these publications meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and those Wikipedians that have read the contents of these articles, will surely understand why some scientists consider an accidental lab leak to be a possible origin scenario of Covid-19 (not a conspiracy theory). Have users Boing! said Zebedee, NinjaRobotPirate and Thucydides411 read the contents of these publications? We can't know, because they discount them as sources, and aren't willing to discuss their inclusion here on the talk page. Any edits made to the article itself will result in a ban, apparently. This contravenes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Going forward, can we assume good faith and discuss my proposals for making changes to the current "conspiracy theory" section, renaming it to the "lab leak theory" or "controversy", and better reflecting the issues of bias that I and other users have complained of? If we are unable to reach a consensus through discussion, I will have to make a dispute resolution request. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You were not banned, you were blocked (which is different). Your block was for edit warring. Please read WP:EW and adhere to it. I will also remind you (again) that disruptive editing in the Covid-19 topic can lead to sanctions, including bans. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is a block ok, when I explained my reversion here on the talk page, and didn't contravene The three-revert rule? Who gets to decide what is disruptive, and being that you have blocked me once already, please can you indicate whether you will participate in the subject matter of this conversion, instead of blocking me based on rules and sanctions without any explanation? I have a genuine concern about the neutrality of this article and I am not the first user to bring up this matter on the talk page. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The block was not for WP:3RR, it was for WP:EW. You really should read it, especially the part that says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". Merely explaining your reversion does not justify edit warring. And no, I will not participate in the content discussion, and will only act in my admin capacity in upholding Wikipedia policy plus the special restrictions imposed by the community covering Covid-19 topics. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe After getting sucked into this topic and following it for the last day I think there are some real nuggets of good information you should heed if you want to make good edits. CowHouse has some excellent ones and there are others mixed in the other Talk page, along with the inappropriate remarks and policy violations of some other reviewers. I would nail down those good suggestions by implementing them all exactly as requested, and then ask for another review. For instance, there was a concern about copy violation that I don't know if you addressed. Get rid of all the rifraff policy/wording issues so that other reviewers can focus on agreement/disagreement with your primary argument.

I think there are more than enough legitimate and authoritative references within many of the articles you referenced for the subsection here to be changed from "Conspiracy theories" to "Lab leak theory". Refer to them individually if necessary. WP:FRINGE defines "Alternative theoretical formulations" as scientific process and not fringe/pseudoscience. But let me support you in this effort by first alleviating the concerns of reviewers here that are providing you good feedback. I know it's not easy but these pages have sanctions because they are under continual assault. Maybe there are some reviewers that are a little quick on the trigger and time constrained in reading references, but I think you can get your edits in if you do this right, piece by piece if necessary. I find it difficult to believe anyone would support suppressing the hypothesis of a lab leak scenario if scientists in the field say it can not be ruled out. Dinglelingy (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I am working on fixing the copyright issues in the draft on the lab leak theory, so that I can resubmit it again for review. I am concerned that there is a problem of systematic bias by editors of this article, and I am shaken by the unfair 24-hour block. I feel that if we cannot reach a consensus through a discussion on this talk page, then I must request a contest the neutrality of this article through a dispute resolution, as any edits I make will be reverted and my account continually blocked. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I just clicked on the BBC. The opening paragraph says: A Chinese scientist at the centre of unsubstantiated claims that the coronavirus leaked from her laboratory in the Chinese city of Wuhan. A bunch of RS' commenting that a conspiracy theory exists doesn't legitimise the conspiracy theory, especially when they say themselves that it's unsubstantiated.

So I clicked another name I like, The Times: From the start of the pandemic, they have been dismissed as conspiracy theorists. Dr Daszak has been prominent among those attacking the idea and those who promote it., plus Publicly, many extremely senior scientists have opposed this idea. “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin,” wrote one group in the Lancet, back in February.

I suspect the others are the same. Please read your own sources before sending links to them. This is currently not respectful to everyone else's time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are not willing to read the sources provided, then your input here is of little value. As for the Lancet Commission's letter, it at the center of the controversy and it does not qualify for WP:RS, as its author Peter Daszak has been questioned by the BBC and a number of other sources listed above (such as the Le Monde, New York and Boston Magazine pieces) on conflict of interest, and the sources also not this concern, given that his organization EcoHealth Alliance funded the WIV's gain of function research on coronaviruses. Even the US government, according to The Times article is concerned with his involvement with the WHO investigation, which has agreed to the Chinese government's terms. Concerns that the Lancet letter omits the WIV and any possibility of a lab leak occurring is the subject of further media reports, such as the US Right to Know article here. Given this controversy, the Lancet letter cannot be considered a reliable source to disprove the lab leak theory, as it does not represent a consensus by scientists (while I have provided a number of very reputable sources that do meet WP:RS). Ralph Baric, the foremost coronavirus experts in the world, withdrew his signature, and has said (in Presadiretta) that a lab leak theory cannot be ruled out. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe Unless you cite high-quality scientific sources, you're not using anyone's time productively. Even the US government: US government officials' statements are noted in the article, but US government officials are not reliable sources for determining scientific opinion. About Ralph Baric, a lot of unlikely things cannot be ruled out with 100% certainty, but that's not how science works. Baric has consistently said that he believes the virus spilled over naturally. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There are only two or three origin scenarios, which zoonosis or lab origin, or a mix of the two, and Baric saying that none of them can be ruled out is significant in that it cannot be considered a conspiracy theory, implausible or uncredible. Baric is not the only scientist on record as taking this position as reported in reliable sources meeting WP:RS, with some scientists saying that lab origin + accidental leak are more likely, and the issue we are discussing is whether we should factor that into this article, as per WP:NPOV. No one is claiming that an accidental leak happened, but this article is very much biased to the zoonosis origin scenario, without any evidence, other than a few articles which meet the criteria of WP:RS no less than the ones I provided. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Baric hasn't made any statements supporting this conspiracy theory or presenting it as plausible. Unless you actually present WP:MEDRS sources, there's nothing more to discuss. An essay by an erotic novelist in NY Magazine or by a food critic in Boston Magazine are not reliable sources about virology. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Like I said above, the fact that Baric and other scientists won't rule out an accidental lab leak as a possibility means that it should not be considered as a conspiracy theory, and this is significant given the fact that there is no evidence for any alternative theory, and the origins of the virus remain unknown. WP:MEDRS applies to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and like other editors have pointed out above, the conspiracy section cites mostly non WP:MEDRS sources. Can you tell me which WP:MEDRS source in the conspiracy section specifically calls an accidental lab leak a conspiracy theory? The NPR one isn't WP:MEDR and is from back in April. Any? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Two WP:MEDRS sources that say that the lab leak hypothesis is heavily disfavored by the available scientific evidence:

1. Andersen et al. (2020), in Nature Medicine: We offer a perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome and discuss scenarios by which they could have arisen. Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.
2. Baric et al. (2020), in Immunity: In light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2, Andersen et al. theorize about the virus’ probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence.

If you want to claim that this is a theory that has real traction within virology, then present WP:MEDRS sources that support it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

My question was "which WP:MEDRS source in the conspiracy section specifically calls an accidental lab leak a conspiracy theory?" Neither of the two WP:MEDRS sources you linked to call distinguish the accidental lab leak theory a conspiracy theory. Those papers were published before CoV/4991 was linked to RaTG13 and the addendum made by Shi Zhengli to her Nature article, clarifying that they found RaTG13 in the Mojiang mineshaft in 2012-2013. The articles that I provided were published in the past few weeks, refreshing the accidental lab leak theory with this information. Keeping this section named "conspiracy theory" is in violation of WP:NPOV. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, If you want to claim that this is a theory that has real traction within virology, then present WP:MEDRS sources that support it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

To repeat myself, you do not have any WP:MEDRS sources that allege that the lab leak theory can be considered a conspiracy theory and you are in violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, WP:MEDRS applies primarily to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, which is more relevant for entries like Coronavirus disease 2019, not this article which is related to a laboratory, subject to a controversy covered by sources meeting WP:RS. I have repeated this point to you multiple times, and I am in the process of requesting a dispute resolution. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It comes under WP:FRINGE. The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that the "Lab Leak theory" has real traction in the scientific community, beyond a handful of cherry-picked papers. Your entire edit history on Wikipedia is dedicated to WP:ADVOCACY of this idea, suggesting that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to WP:POVPUSH your own beliefs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of reliable sources that have reported on a possible lab leak as an origin scenario, including the BBC, CNN, PBS, Bloomberg, The Washington Post 2, The Times, 2, the South China Morning Post, The Boston Magazine, the New York Magazine, Le Monde, RAI. Given the sheer volume of coverage from reliable sources, on what basis can you say a lab leak theory as an origin scenario of SARS-COV-2 constitutes WP:FRINGE? As I have repeatedly said to user:Thucydides411 directly above, there are no WP:MEDRS sources provided in this article that allege that lab leak theory can be considered a conspiracy theory, and the two provided say only that the scenario is unlikely (and even then they do not rule it out), so the title and contents of the conspiracy theory section of this article are misleading and is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Moreover, WP:MEDRS mainly applies Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and should not apply to an article about a laboratory subject to a leak controversy. You have joined this conversation, immediately asserting that the lab leak theory is WP:FRINGE, without addressing any of my above two points in order to bring us to a consensus. The main topic of discussion here is whether the lab leak theory should be classed as a conspiracy theory or not, and I would appreciate if you can stay on that topic. I would like to ask you to scroll higher up in this talk page as well as the archives, and note that I am not the first user to bring up the matter of a plausible theory being labeled a conspiracy theory, yet no consensus has been reached on renaming and editing the section. I would also like to ask you to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, as I am a relatively new user (I used to contribute a lot but I've been away for nearly ten years), as I still have a lot more to contribute to Wikipedia. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

People have been pushing to include the "lab leak theory" in this and related articles for many months. This isn't my first rodeo. Your entire contribution history to wikipedia so far is solely to advocate for the inclusion of this theory. Per WP:MEDPOP "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles". Whether or not the virus leaked from a lab is a scientific issue, and requires high quality sourcing. The Washington Post article doesn't even support the theory. It just states that "Trump officials", said that it is, but the veracity of anything said by the Trump administration is questionable. The piece states that a natural origin is the "apparent consensus" of virologists, and that there is "no evidence" to support the Lab Leak idea, ergo, it is fringe. The Washington Post article cites a "politicized and conspiratorial atmosphere" surrounding the viruses origins, which wikipedia should avoid furthering. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Things have changed since your last radio, with new information and sources that have been published. None of the sources provided in this article (including the two sources that qualify under WP:MEDRS) specifically say that the theory is a conspiracy theory, which is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and constitutes Wikipedia:original research. There are numerous reliable sources that give air to the lab leak theory as plausible, including The Times piece quoting Mathew Pottinger (not Donald Trump), which should not be considered any less reliable than the dated Vox or NYT pieces provided. The Washington Post article, which you selectively borrowed a three word phrase from also says: "Even if the virus was not spread as a result of a “gain of function” experiment, its rapid spread raises questions about the risks involved in such experiments". ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to remove the ban on ScrupulousScribe so that we can restart the discussion on the points he is making? It seems like his inputs may be valuable. Forich (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Forich, What ban are you talking about? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC) PM

Aside from being quite vocal, they have failed to show evidence of their claims despite multiple requests. Sourcing that doesn’t say what they are trying to say with it, and frankly comes across as if they just googled “Wuhan lab theory” and pasted links without reading them, does not count. The uninvolved editors who have commented here appear to not have bought in, but understandably do not have the time to reply to each and every comment. SS should build a convincing argument and then test it in a {{rfc}}. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

When looking at the currently used sources, the Vox and NYT do express that most scientists discredit the theory, with Vox citing a statement about an unwarranted related conspiracy theory of coverup. —PaleoNeonate – 04:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Neither Vox, nor the NYT pieces can be considered WP:MEDRS, and as user Dinglelingy in a message on 02:59, 8 January 2021, and as a by CowHouse, and 50.201.195.170, WP:MEDRS is being applied inconsistently here. ProcrastinatingReader has suggested that I have just Googled "Wuhan lab theory" to furnish links, which is both untrue and irrelivent, as there are a number of news items on the topic that were published in the last few weeks, and more pieces keep getting published, such as this opinion piece from the Washington Post just yesterday (paywall), which was also syndicated to MSN (no paywall). The discussion is ongoing. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Opinion piece... The author isn't even close to an authority on the matter, either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's been stressed before that MEDRS is expected to make biomedical claims, not necessarily to remind of the mainstream view (there's even WP:PARITY IRT WP:FRINGE topics). —PaleoNeonate – 14:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is subject to a controversy relating to a possible lab leak is not a biomedical claim. No one is claiming that a lab leak definitely occurred, but a number of reliable sources have reported on the possibility being plausible and likely, and those sources need to only meet the criteria of WP:RS, not WP:MEDRS. Furthermore, neither of the two WP:MEDRS sources currently references on this page distinguish a lab leak theory to be a conspiracy theory, and the author of the second source (Ralph Baric) has been interviewed in a number of sources I provided, where he indicated clearly that a lab leak remains a possibility. As such, this is not WP:FRINGE. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

All the best sources (WP:MEDRS too) call this a conspiracy theory, and won't be undercut by lesser sources. The two Bioessays articles are not WP:MEDRS - we want review articles (and we've got them). Yet again, ScrupulousScribe you have got this entirely wrong. You have a POV and you're trying to find sources to fit it. Instead you should go to the top of the sourcing tree (see WP:MEDASSESS) and see what you find there. Alexbrn (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a false statement. There are not more than two WP:MEDRS sources (this and this) on this page which favor the theory of a zoonotic jump over that of an accidental lab leak, but they do not completely discount the possibility of an accidental lab leak, with Ralph Baric's paper saying lacking evidence for a zoonitic jump scenario, an "accidental laboratory escape", does in fact "remain reasonable" (they certainly do not call the theory misinformation or a conspiracy). Furthermore, one of the Bioessay articles provided by Dinglelingy, is a peer-reviewed paper and does, in fact, meet WP:MEDRS, and makes the case for a possible lab leak (without seeking to "prove" it, because as we all know, unless the Chinese give the WHO unfettered and immediate access to the WIV, it is but a theory). Repeating your position over and over, without providing any WP:MEDRS is just making this discussion into a Wikipedia:Wall of text, discouraging new editors passing by from weighing in and enabling us to reach a consensus. Unless you have WP:MEDRS sources clearly distinguishing the lab leak theory as misinformation or a conspiracy theory, you have nothing more to add to this conversation. As for the popular press, there are more recent articles from reliable sources proposing the theory than there are those discounting it, and most of them are focused on the WP:MEDDATE source relating to professor Shi Zhengli addendum to her Nature article. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This is hopeless, ScrupulousScribe. I have now told you several times that these sources you keep saying are MEDRS, are not MEDRS. Total WP:IDHT. You need to read and understand WP:MEDRS - maybe look at WP:WHYMEDRS and WP:MEDFAQ too for background tips. Alexbrn (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I find that Alexbrn has pretty much said what I was going to say here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What precisely are the MEDRS sources claiming to be a conspiracy; a non-natural origin of the virus, or a lab leak (the two are not the same)? Arcturus (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

See #MEDRS sources. Alexbrn (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That involves a hell of a lot of reading, much of which will be as dull as ditchwater. Would the simple question be answered by doing so? Arcturus (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's all sorts. From PMID 32920565:

“there are speculations, rumours, and conspiracy theories” that SARS-CoV-2 could be of “laboratory origin” or “artificially”, or “intentionally made by humans in the lab” or a “laboratory-engineered CoV” that have “leaked directly from a laboratory in Wuhan where a bat CoV (RaTG13) was recently reported”, or “even for the purpose of use as a bioweapon”. Some authors in their article have directly termed the virus as the “Chinese coronavirus”.

Alexbrn (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak theory discussion, revisited

The status of the lab leak theory as of mid 2020 was that mainstream science considered it as fringe; a conspiracy theory without evidence. This status was validated by wikipedians in this Rfc at the Covid 19 pandemic entry, from May 2020.

However, as part of the closing of the Rfc, an open door was left to revisit the topic:

"By number of votes and strength of argument, it is clear that the oppose votes have it, thus I affirm that consensus was reached to not mention the lab accident theory. This should not be read as a consensus to keep the theory out of other articles, merely this one. Obviously, should a MEDRS be published that supports the theory, this RfC would become moot."

The objective of this thread is to bring to the light a few new sources that allegedly support the lab leak theory. I propose that we scrutinize the new evidence to assess whether a mention of the lab leak theory in Wikipedia deserves a mention. Although the theory is already mentioned in Wikipedia, it is relegated to a section in the Covid 19 Misinformation entry. If the alleged mentions on MEDRS sufficiently support the theory, I think we should consider mentioning it in the Covid 19 pandemic entry, or removing the "conspiracy" adjective in the Covid 19 Misinformation entry, or both.

I propose that we present in this thread the specific claims cited by MEDRS since June 2020 that support the theory, and assess the usual stuff: due weight, verifiability, notability, etc. Forich (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS would only apply for biomedical claims (e.g. "the virus bears the hallmarks of being human-engineered") but not other types of claim (e.g. "the lab has a poor record for biosecurity"). I am wary of the approach of looking for source which "support" the "theory". Look and you shall find. The same would be true of sources that "support" that there is doubt about the events surrounding JFK's assassination. Better, would be to find the WP:BESTSOURCES on the topic, and summarize them.

With that in mind, these are the sort of sources we should be aspiring to (per-reviewed articles in reputable journals). It would be great to lose the reliance on news, lay-press and other lesser sources:

• Nie, Jing-Bao (2020). "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency". Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 17 (4): 567–574. doi:10.1007/s11673-020-10025-8. ISSN 1176-7529.
• Bolsen, Toby; Palm, Risa; Kingsland, Justin T. (2020). "Framing the Origins of COVID-19". Science Communication. 42 (5): 562–585. doi:10.1177/1075547020953603. ISSN 1075-5470.

Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, thanks for bringing up the issue of allowing some RS into this thread. Some of the aspects of the theory may not be related to biomedicine, and only in such cases a non MEDRS should be accepted as reference. However, I believe many of the statements used to understand the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 inevitably resort to genomic perspectives, which involve specialized molecular or cellular based arguments, and therefore demand the use of MEDRS. I propose that, for purposes of organization, we deal with MEDRS and RS separately, perhaps as subthreads of the discussion.Forich (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS sources

To ensure high quality sources, I suggest searching for journal articles using the following criteria:

• The journal must be indexed by PUBMED and unambiguously classified there as a secondary source (Review, Meta-Analysis or Systematic review)
• The journal must be MEDLINE-indexed as a quality control criterion
• The journal must not be predatory/suspect (e.g. listed at WP:CRAPWATCH).

Here are two sources meeting these criteria:

1. Zoumpourlis V, Goulielmaki M, Rizos E, Baliou S, Spandidos DA (October 2020). "[Comment] The COVID‑19 pandemic as a scientific and social challenge in the 21st century". Mol Med Rep. 22 (4): 3035–3048. doi:10.3892/mmr.2020.11393. PMC 7453598. PMID 32945405.

   The genomic and bioinformatic analyses of the aforementioned studies, as well as the results of previous studies, confirm that the virus originated in bats and this way put an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue.
2. Barh D, Silva Andrade B, Tiwari S, Giovanetti M, Góes-Neto A, Alcantara LC, Azevedo V, Ghosh P (September 2020). "Natural selection versus creation: a review on the origin of SARS-COV-2". Infez Med. 28 (3): 302–311. PMID 32920565.

   ... some “conspiracy theories” have arisen on the origin of this virus due to the lack of a “definite origin” ...

Alexbrn (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, please can you clarify why you think those two WP:MEDRS sources meet WP:BESTSOURCES over the two provided by Thucydides411 above, namely the Anderson et al paper and Ralph Baric et al paper. Is it because they were returned in search results on Pubmed for the search query "Covid-19 + conspiracy", or were they widely cited and authored by authoritative experts on the topic? I recall you accusing me of having a POV and "casting around" to try to find sources to support said POV, but now it looks like kettle pot black.

If asked, anyone favoring the zoonitic jump theory, would consider the Anderson et al and Baric et al papers to be far better qualified as WP:BESTSOURCES, considering that they are the most widely cited and authored by the most authoritative experts on the subject (the only small issue with them being that they do not support your labeling of the Covid-19 lab leak theory as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory"). The two papers you hooked and the conspiracy excerpts you gleaned from them directly contradict Anderson's paper which clearly says that "Allthough the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin" and Ralph Baric's paper, which expressly says that until an "open scientific investigation" in undertaken and "forensic evidence" is found; "speculation about accidental laboratory escape will likely persist" and "remain reasonable". This leaves us in a difficult predicament, as we now have multiple papers from WP:MEDRS sources making contradictory claims, which we must now reconcile (in order to resolve the small etymological matter of how you want to label the Covid-19 lab leak theory), but as PaleoNeonate rightly says above, "Wikipedia is not the place to perform such investigations" as per WP:NOTJOURNAL.

If we are to adhere to WP:MEDRS, we would reference Anderson and Baric's paper, and tell Wikipedia readers that despite it being over a year since the outbreak of Covid-19 in Wuhan, the origin of the virus remains unknown and that the scientific community has not reached a consensus, and different scientists favour different origin scenarios, as per different WP:MEDRS sources. However, for you to make false claims like "all the best sources (WP:MEDRS too) call this a conspiracy theory; and won't be undercut by lesser sources", and then "cast" up two papers which contradict each other, as well as others already referenced on this page (the Anderson and Baric papers), and then try to tell me to go read WP:MEDRS when I question you on, is a serious case of WP:CREEP. I have spent quite a bit of time reading WP:MEDRS, and from what I can tell, you have been working yourself further and further into a corner, as you do not have any WP:MEDRS sources to use without violating WP:NOR, and I don't think this discussion will come to an amicable close without a dispute resolution unless you are willing to concede my point. And this point is: You do not have any WP:MEDRS sources that can be considered WP:BESTSOURCES which support your position, which is that Covid-19 lab leak theory should be considered as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory", as per their definition in misinformation and conspiracy theory.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Either you haven't read the WP:MEDRS links I have given you, or you don't understand them in which case there is a WP:CIR problem. I will now support you being banned. Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Either you should explain what I missed in WP:MEDRS, or you should read WP:CREEP. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, none of the WP:MEDRS sources here support the claim that the lab leak hypothesis is misinformation or a conspiracy theory. They only refer to the claims that the virus was engineered or deployed as a bio-weapon as conspiracy theories and misinformation. In addition to your WP:MEDRS sources, even Alexbrn's WP:MEDRS sources support the assertion that the lab leak hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory or misinformation:

"Yet, the fact that the virus is not human-made does not necessarily excludes the possibility that the virus escaped the lab by accident (Field 2020; Guterl et al. 2020). This remains an open question; without independent and transparent investigations, it may never be either proven or disproven. The leakage of dangerous pathogens had already occurred more than once in other labs, as will be discussed in the fourth section of this paper." *Nie, Jing-Bao (2020). "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency". Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 17 (4): 567–574. doi:10.1007/s11673-020-10025-8. ISSN 1176-7529.

"...so far no evidence from independent investigation is available to assure the world that SARS-Cov-2 was totally disconnected to the relatively new PSL-4 lab in Wuhan." *Nie, Jing-Bao (2020). "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency". Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 17 (4): 567–574. doi:10.1007/s11673-020-10025-8. ISSN 1176-7529. JustStalin (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The purpose here is just to gather the best WP:MEDRS sources, not to argue about what they say. Once we have some excellent sources, they can be summarized. PMID 32840850 is not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Hu, B, Hua, G, Peng, Z, Zheng-Li, S. "Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19". Nature Review Microbiology. doi:10.1038/s41579-020-00459-7.

   ... Currently, our knowledge on the animal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains incomplete to a large part. The reservoir hosts of the virus have not been clearly proven. It is unknown whether SARS-CoV-2 was transmitted to humans through an intermediate host and which animals may act as its intermediate host ... it cannot be excluded that viral RNA recombination among different related coronaviruses was involved in the evolution os SARS-CoV-2...

Forich (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd be a little bit wary of that because it's out of China - see WT:MED#Chinese research on COVID in China. Alexbrn (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It's in Nature Review Microbiology, which is a reputable journal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

For sure, but it may have been bollixed up by politicians before it got there, so caution is advisable. Alexbrn (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a clear example of how you discount sources as WP:MEDRS merely because they don't suite your POV. It's almost pointless having any discussion with you on this topic. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

What POV does the article have that I wouldn't agree with (I didn't read it)? Alexbrn (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Salajegheh, S, Magalhaes, P, Rahimi, P, Shahabinejad, F, Dhakal, S, Malik, Y, Shehata, A, Lama, J, Klein, J, Safdar, M, Rahman, T, Filipiak, K, Rodríguez-Morales, A, Sobur, A, Kabir, F, Vazir, B, Mboera, L, Caporale, M, Islam, S, Amuasi, J, Gharieb, R, Roncada, P, Musaad, S, Tilocca, B, Koohi, M, Taghipour, A, Sait, A, Subbaram, K, Jahandideh, A, Mortazavi, P, Abedini, M, Hokey, D, Hogan, U, Shaheen, M, Elaswad, A, Elhaig, M, Fawzy, M. "Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to animals: an updated review". Journal of Translational Medicine (18). doi:10.1186/s12967-020-02534-2.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

   ... Though SARS-CoV-2 has most likely originated from bats, it is not yet clear which animal served as an intermediate host and contributed towards the evolution of the virus before the spillover to humans occurred... In another study, it was demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 was a chimeric virus between a bat coronavirus and a coronavirus of unknown origin... The studies performed on the interaction between the viral RBD with host cellular receptor (ACE2) revealed snakes, pangolins, and turtles as the potential intermediate hosts. Turtles, along with other animal species, are favored animals in the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. However, extended studies are needed to prove their associations scientifically... One of the probable intermediate hosts for SARS-CoV-2 is a pangolin... These findings suggested that pangolins can be the intermediate host for SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Further research is necessary to confirm the origin and transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2...

Forich (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This is good! Alexbrn (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This next three references I am unsure to be MEDRS, but I'll cite them anyway, please feel free to object to them:

1. Burki, T. "The origin of SARS-CoV2-2". The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 20 (9). doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30641-1.

   ... A paper published in July, 2020, traced the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers concluded that it came from a virus with relatively generalist properties circulating in horseshoe bats. “Everything points to a bat sarbecovirus reservoir; we are very confident about this”, said David Robertson, head of bioinformatics at the Medical Research Council–University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, Scotland, UK, and co-author of the paper... Some have posited that the pangolin could be this missing link. Pangolins have reportedly fallen sick as a result of coronavirus infection, which would mean they are not a natural reservoir. But that leaves the possibility that the pangolin is facilitating transmission to humans... Still, there is one theory that can be dismissed. From the earliest days of the pandemic, there has been speculation that the new virus had escaped, or even been deliberately released, from the Wuhan Institute of Virology... “If the virus had been human-made, that would show in its genome”, counters Robertson...

2. Lundstrom, K, Seyran, M, Pizzol, D, Adadi, P, El-Aziz, T, Hassan, S, Soares, A, Kandimalla, R, Tambuwala, M, Aljabali, A, Azad, G, Choudhury, P, Uversky, V, Sherchan, S, Uhal, B, Rezaei, N, Brufsky, A. "The Importance of Research on the Origin of SARS-CoV-2". Viruses. 12 (11). doi:10.3390/v12111203. PMID 33105685.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

   ... The self-assembled COVID consortium, consisting of international experts in bioinformatics, structural biology, molecular biology, immunology, and virology, has just published a Letter in the Journal of Medical Virology in response to publications on the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. It stated that despite the consensus of SARS-CoV-2 originating from bat CoV RaTG13, SARS-CoV-2 had demonstrated significant discrepancies to other human Coronaviruses related to host tropism... As the current consensus within the scientific community strongly indicates, it is improbable (though not zero) that the SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulations...

3. Peng, Z, Zheng-Li, S. "SARS-CoV-2 spillover events". Science. 371 (6525). doi:10.1126/science.abf6097.

   ... the direct source of the COVID-19 causative agent, SARS-CoV-2, is still undetermined... Besides mink, multiple species of wild or domestic animals may also carry SARS-CoV-2 or its related viruses. Experimental infections and binding-affinity assays between the SARS-CoV-2 spike (a surface protein that mediates cell entry) and its receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme II (ACE2), demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 has a wide host range. After the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, several groups reported SARS-related CoVs in horseshoe bats in China and in pangolins smuggled from South Asian countries, but according to genome sequence comparison, none are directly the progenitor virus of SARS-CoV-2. Domestic cats and dogs, as well as tigers in zoos, have also been found to be naturally infected by SARS-CoV-2 from humans, but there is no evidence that they can infect humans, and so they are unlikely to be the source hosts of SARS-CoV-2... In addition to animal-to-human transmission in farms, cold food supplier chains are raising substantial concern. In various cities in China, several small-scale COVID-19 outbreaks caused by virus-contaminated uncooked seafood or pork from overseas countries have been documented... The RNA genome of SARS-CoV-2 seems relatively stable during transmission within human populations, although accumulated mutations have been detected. It is generally accepted that coronaviruses tend to exhibit rapid evolution when jumping to a different species... There has been debate about whether bats or pangolins, which carry coronaviruses with genomes that are ∼90 to 96% similar to human SARS-CoV-2, were the animal source of the first human outbreak. Evolutionary analyses of viral genomes from bats and pangolins indicate that further adaptions, either in animal hosts or in humans, occurred before the virus caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, an animal species that has a high population density to allow natural selection and a competent ACE2 protein for SARS-CoV-2—mink, for example—would be a possible host of the direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2... Another debate concerns the source of SARS-CoV-2 that caused the COVID-19 outbreak at the end of 2019. The current data question the animal origin of SARS-CoV-2 in the seafood market where the early cases were identified in Wuhan, China. Given the finding of SARS-CoV-2 on the surface of imported food packages, contact with contaminated uncooked food could be an important source of SARS-CoV-2 transmission...

Now that we have a proposed list of 6 MEDRS (see list above), please vote on which ones we do not consider valid for citing purposes regarding biomedical claims and otherwise. Feel free to express any doubts on the authoritativeness of these sources, this is the place and moment to reach a consensus on this issue. Forich (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

For these last three:

• PMID 32860762 is a news piece, so not WP:MEDRS but maybe otherwise useful
• PMID 33105685 is an editorial, in a MDPI journal - avoid, powerfully
• https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6525/120.full does not appear to be on PUBMED yet; it's a "Perspective" piece and it's Chinese.

There are probably some more MEDRS out there ...

Alexbrn (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

(Add) having said that, I've just spent a good hour searching and can't find anything more. I expect we're going to see a steady trickle of new viable sources over the coming months, but for now I think we've got what there is. Alexbrn (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

According to MEDRS, position statements published by major health organizations are also recommended. I suggest we use the WHO and CDC official statements about the origin of Covid. Forich (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, good stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

How do we feel about this source?: Andersen, K.G., Rambaut, A., Lipkin, W.I. et al., The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2, Nature Medicine, 26, 450–452 (2020). I no longer feel it is an appropiate MEDRS (it is not even a research article, it is a "correspondence", it has been criticized by later sources, and it was published way early in the pandemic). Forich (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a letter to the editor. So obviously not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Having read all of the sources suggested here, I must admit I'm impressed by Andersen 2020, for its depth of analysis and clarity, although as a letter-to-the-editor, it doesn't meet our standards for the highest quality MEDRS sources. It is important to make the point, however, that whatever sources we decide to use, we must summarise the entire source, and not just cherry-pick phrases that we empathise with. A very clear example exists in Andersen 2020, where we cannot simply quote

Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here.

without also including the next sentence,

However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.

I'm pretty certain that the mainstream view as represented by the other sources cited here is well-encapsulated in those conclusions, and I wouldn't spend much time trying to present a different view on the subject of a laboratory-based origin. There just aren't the serious sources to support that as anything more than a fringe theory. --RexxS (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Please beware that Andersen et al (2020) was found to have an important flaw: for SARS-CoV-2 to transit from RATG13 to its current state, it had to naturally develop its Furin Cleavage Site. If it is natural, we should see ocurrences of this FCS naturally all over the place in other Sarbecovirus, but the one from SARS-CoV-2 is very rare, almost unique. This critique can be found in Seyran et al (2020) and I hope Andersen is planning on responding by writing an article, like all good scientists do. Forich (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: Again, we see the problems of amateur analysis of reliable sources. Andersen 2020 has not been found to have "an important flaw". Seyran 2020 raises questions, but that is a finding of nothing, and their letter-to-the-editor concludes with "These unique features of SARS‐CoV‐2 raise several questions concerning the proximal origin of the virus that require further discussion." Please be careful about assigning strength of argument to sources that do not justify it. This is one of the reasons why we insist on MEDRS-sources. --RexxS (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

First, I am not an expert. Second, maybe you're right, it may not be a major problem to have a lineage B coronavirus with a Furin Cleavage Site; Andersen et al refer to this point as "puzzling", which is very different from my "important flaw" characterization. I apologize for my sloppy interpretation, good thing you spotted it at the Talk page, before anyone made an actual edit based on it.Forich (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Graham, R, Baric, R, S. "SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence". Immunity. 52 (5). doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016.

   Nevertheless, speculation about accidental laboratory escape will likely persist, given the large collections of bat virome samples stored in labs in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the facility’s proximity to the early outbreak, and the operating procedures at the facility (Zeng et al., 2016). Transparency and open scientific investigation will be essential to resolve this issue, noting that forensic evidence of natural escape is currently lacking, and other explanations remain reasonable.

JustStalin (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

PMID 32392464, classified a "comment". Not WP:MEDRS. (And it's from May?) Alexbrn (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Shortlist

So it seems there are three relevant good MEDRS:

1. Salajegheh Tazerji S, Magalhães Duarte P, Rahimi P, Shahabinejad F, Dhakal S, et al. (September 2020). "Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to animals: an updated review". J Transl Med (Review). 18 (1): 358. doi:10.1186/s12967-020-02534-2. PMC 7503431. PMID 32957995.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
2. Zoumpourlis V, Goulielmaki M, Rizos E, Baliou S, Spandidos DA (October 2020). "The COVID‑19 pandemic as a scientific and social challenge in the 21st century". Mol Med Rep (Review). 22 (4): 3035–3048. doi:10.3892/mmr.2020.11393. PMC 7453598. PMID 32945405.
3. Barh D, Silva Andrade B, Tiwari S, Giovanetti M, Góes-Neto A, Alcantara LC, Azevedo V, Ghosh P (September 2020). "Natural selection versus creation: a review on the origin of SARS-COV-2" (pdf). Infez Med (Review). 28 (3): 302–311. PMID 32920565.

Alexbrn (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This next two references I am unsure to be MEDRS, please comment:

1. Lau, S, Luk, H, Wong, A, Li, K, Zhu, L, He, Z, Fung, J, Chan, T, Fung, K, Woo, P. "Possible Bat Origin of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2". Emerging Infectious Diseases. 26 (7). doi:10.3201/eid2607.200092.

   ... Despite the close relatedness of SARS-CoV-2 to bat and pangolin viruses, none of the existing SARSr-CoVs represents its immediate ancestor... Potential recombination sites were identified around the RBD region, suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 might be a recombinant virus, with its genome backbone evolved from Yunnan bat virus–like SARSr-CoVs and its RBD region acquired from pangolin virus–like SARSr-CoVs... Because bats are the major reservoir of SARSr-CoVs and the pangolins harboring SARSr-CoVs were captured from the smuggling center, it is possible that pangolin SARSr-CoVs originated from bat viruses as a result of animal mixing, and there might be an unidentified bat virus containing an RBD nearly identical to that of SARS-CoV-2 and pangolin SARSr-CoV. Similar to SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2 is most likely a recombinant virus originated from bats... The ability of SARS-CoV-2 to emerge and infect humans is likely explained by its hACE2-using RBD region, which is genetically similar to that of culturable Yunnan SARSr-BatCoVs and human/civet-SARSr-CoVs. Most SARSr-BatCoVs have not been successfully cultured in vitro, except for some Yunnan strains that had human/civet SARS-like RBDs and were shown to use hACE2. For example, SARSr-Rp-BatCoV ZC45, which has an RBD that is more divergent from that of human/civet-SARSr-CoVs, did not propagate in VeroE6 cells ... Although the Wuhan market was initially suspected to be the epicenter of the epidemic, the immediate source remains elusive. The close relatedness among SARS-CoV-2 strains suggested that the Wuhan outbreak probably originated from a point source with subsequent human-to-human transmission, in contrast to the polyphyletic origin of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. If the Wuhan market was the source, a possibility is that bats carrying the parental SARSr-BatCoVs were mixed in the market, enabling virus recombination. However, no animal samples from the market were reported to be positive. Moreover, the first identified case-patient and other early case-patients had not visited the market, suggesting the possibility of an alternative source... Because the RBD is considered a hot spot for construction of recombinant CoVs for receptor and viral replication studies, the evolutionarily distinct SARS-CoV-2 RBD and the unique insertion of S1/S2 cleavage site among Sarbecovirus species have raised the suspicion of an artificial recombinant virus. However, there is currently no evidence showing that SARS-CoV-2 is an artificial recombinant, which theoretically might not carry signature sequences ...

2. Leitner, T, Kumar, S. "Where Did SARS-CoV-2 Come From?". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 37 (9). doi:10.1093/molbev/msaa162. PMID 32893295.

   ... it seems likely that either there are other, closer, coronaviruses in bats as yet unsampled, or another host species has acted as an intermediary between bats and humans. In either case, because SARS-CoV-2 spreads so acquired the necessary mutations in the RBD to make it transmissible between humans before its zoonotic transfer... Several candidates for the intermediary host have been proposed. Early circumstantial evidence pointed to snakes sold at the Wuhan market where the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak started, as the codon usage of SARS-CoV-2 was similar to that observed in snakes. However, no coronavirus has been found in snakes. Turtles were subsequently proposed based on predicted spike RBD and ACE2 interactions. Both snakes and turtles were later rejected as candidate intermediate hosts as stronger spike RBD–ACE2 interactions were predicted in ruminants and rodents (Luan et al. 2020). Pangolins were implicated based on the identification of several SARS-CoV-2-related viruses, including one with a similar RBD to SARS-CoV-2 (Lam et al. 2020), and 90–100% amino acid identity to different SARS-CoV-2 proteins (Xiao et al. 2020)... Recently, feral dogs were proposed to be the intermediary host of SARS-CoV-2 (Xia 2020)... The hunt for the source is far from over, and the origin of the pandemic will likely only be revealed through more extensive sampling and careful phylogenetic analyses ...

These last two are primary research and an editorial. So neither is WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Shortlist v.2

We found six relevant good MEDRS:

1. Salajegheh Tazerji S, Magalhães Duarte P, Rahimi P, Shahabinejad F, Dhakal S, et al. (September 2020). "Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to animals: an updated review". J Transl Med (Review). 18 (1): 358. doi:10.1186/s12967-020-02534-2. PMC 7503431. PMID 32957995.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
2. Zoumpourlis V, Goulielmaki M, Rizos E, Baliou S, Spandidos DA (October 2020). "The COVID‑19 pandemic as a scientific and social challenge in the 21st century". Mol Med Rep (Review). 22 (4): 3035–3048. doi:10.3892/mmr.2020.11393. PMC 7453598. PMID 32945405.
3. Barh D, Silva Andrade B, Tiwari S, Giovanetti M, Góes-Neto A, Alcantara LC, Azevedo V, Ghosh P (September 2020). "Natural selection versus creation: a review on the origin of SARS-COV-2" (pdf). Infez Med (Review). 28 (3): 302–311. PMID 32920565.
4. Hu, B, Hua, G, Peng, Z, Zheng-Li, S. "Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19". Nature Review Microbiology. doi:10.1038/s41579-020-00459-7.
5. WHO official position
6. And CDC official position

Now we can quote any direct mention of the lab leak theory in these sources, and then summarize and discuss whether it is considered: a) conspiracy/fringe; b)legitimate but minor; c) legitimate and mainstream, or d) some other. Please proceed. Forich (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

They all seem pretty much aligned. Using the most recent (and on-point) source, PMID 32945405, I think we can simply say something like "in the early stages of the pandemic conspiracy theories spread that the virus make have originated in a laboratory, but these have been refuted by subsequent study". I can't see any need to dress it up much more. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we first finish compiling the non MEDRS source on non-biomedical claims, and then draft the consensus paragraph to use. I know this may seen unproductive but it had to be done with attention to detail. Forich (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

From the WHO official position published on March 2020:

... At this stage, it is not possible to determine precisely how humans in China were initially infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, all available evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural animal origin and is not a manipulated or constructed virus...

From Salajegheh et al (2020):

...This provides strong evidence that such insertion [the Furin Cleavage Site] events can occur naturally in animal βCoV...

This conclusion goes against the Furin Cleavage Site being too odd to be natural, a claim often cited by the lab leak theory proponents as evidence of artificial recombination in a lab. Forich (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

From Bahr et al (2020):

... Nonetheless, it is also reported that the SARSCoV-2 did not originate due to any recombination event, and that the alterations in the Spike-RBD and -PRRA- insertion at the S1/S2 Furine cleavage site is probably due to a combination of complex recombination and natural selection ...

This conclusion also contradicts the artificial recombination argument of the lab leak theory.15:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

More from Bahr et al (2020):

...Therefore, Liu et al. finally concluded that, currently, they do not have any credible evidence to support SARS-CoV-2 is a “laboratory-engineered CoV" ... The authors show that the 1378 bp Spike sequence of SARS-CoV-2 (as claimed by James Lyons-Weiler) is not “unique” and is found in naturally occurring other CoVs and, thus, the SARS-CoV-2 is not generated in the laboratory. Besides, the “unique” sequence of Shuttle-SN vector that James Lyons-Weiler claimed to have been used in developing SARS-CoV-2 is not true since the Shuttle-SN having a fragment of the spike gene from SARS-CoV, is a common expression vector for laboratory use...

This part apparently opposes the hypothesis of some blogger called James Lyons, I am not aware of it in the first place.

...Nevertheless, it was claimed that the mutations in RBD are possible during adaptation to passage in cell culture. However, Andersen et al. suggested that, nearly identical Spike-RBD of Pangolin-CoV with the SARS-CoV-2 supports a recombination or mutation event in the development of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-RBD probably from Pangolin-CoV. It was previously reported that, insertions and deletions near the S1/S2 of Coronavirus Spike can occur due to natural evolutionary process (or prolonged passage or sub-culturing. However, in order to generate such virus through passage, a “progenitor virus with very high genetic similarity” needs “prior isolation”. Introduction of a polybasic cleavage site specific to hACE2 requires repeated sub-culturing of this virus in cell culture or animals with hACE2. But neither such progenitor virus nor sub-culturing based polybasic cleavage to hACE2 has “previously been described”. Hence, Andersen and colleagues concluded that SARS-CoV-2 is not generated or released/escaped from laboratory...”

I honestly don't know how to summarize this quote regarding Andersen, the two "howevers" lost me.Forich (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This part from Bahr et al (2020) worries me:

... However, there is no knowledge in the public domain as a peer-reviewed publication supporting that the SARS-CoV-2 responsible for COVID-19 is a “synthetic” or “engineered” virus as of April 30, 2020. ...

This seems outdated, a few new sources have appeared since April 30, 2020. Forich (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a danger of getting too into the weeds. This is an article on the Wuhan Institute of Virology, not on the virus. The only intersection is the conspiracy theories claiming that the virus was made in this lab. All we really need to say is that, and that it's not true. Deeper content about the viral origin, not specific to this lab, should be elsewhere. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, we can try to focus more on the subject matter, and later move the discussion elsewhere if it seems fit. By the way, in my mind the logical connection is: plausibility of artificial recombination in a lab -> plausibility of lab manipulation -> which one is the nearest lab? -> Wuhan Institute of Virology. Forich (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

From the Ben et al (2020) review:

... Detection of RaTG13, RmYN02 and pangolin coronaviruses implies that diverse coronaviruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 are circulating in wildlife. In addition, as previous studies showed recombination as the potential origin of some sarbecoviruses such as SARS-CoV, it cannot be excluded that viral RNA recombination among different related coronaviruses was involved in the evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Extensive surveillance of SARS-CoV-2-related viruses in China, Southeast Asia and other regions targeting bats, wild and captured pangolins and other wildlife species will help us to better understand the zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2. ...

This tangentially concerns the artificial recombination possibility. They admit a plausible recombination origin, but do not specify whether natural or manipulated. The discovery of RATG13 was a huge push for the claim that SARS-CoV-2 is not that rare when compared to natural viruses. Note that Shi Zheng-Li is a coauthor of his review, just for transparency. Overall, they have nothing to say on the lab leak theory. Forich (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

From the Zamporius Zoumpourlis et al. (2020) review:

...The genomic and bioinformatic analyses of the aforementioned studies, as well as the results of previous studies, confirm that the virus originated in bats and this way put an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue...

This quote is out of context, it refers to a conspiracy theory that linked a SARS-CoV-1-derived chimeric virus (published in 2015) with SARS-CoV-2 (read the three paragraphs directly above this quote to get the context right). It does not refer to, for example, using RATG13 or some other sister strain as the starting point, as the lab leak theory proposes. Forich (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't think so: this is explicitly a reference to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue, not just one detail. Alexbrn (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I read it again. Although the conclusion concerns only the previous paragraphs, they did start by grouping together many hypothesis:

Scenarios for a laboratory construction of the virus are based on the work entitled ‘A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence’...

With this benevolent interpretation, its perfectly possible that the quoted conclusion does meant to include all the scenarios for a laboratory construction of the virus. In that case I would see this being a valid debunking of the lab leak theory. At least with respect to a version of it available before July 2020, the date of publication of this review (they don't cite a source for what exact version they are addresing, unfortunately a sloppy omission in my opinion). Forich (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me end by quoting the specific parts used to debunk the laboratory manipulation, for the record, because I suspect many editors will want to revisit this discussion (the comments in brackets are mine):

... Viruses can acquire these adaptations [referring to the final changes a virus need to be highly infectious to humans after being manipulated chimerically á la Menachery et al (2015)] selectively, as for example when a bat virus crosses the species barrier and is passed on to an intermediate host. In the new host, the spike protein acquires the necessary adaptive mutations to facilitate improved infection and eventually the ability to infect humans. Another possibility is that humans are directly infected by the horseshoe bat virus and human contact with other animals that also carry the virus eventually leads to continuous human re-infections until, due to random mutational events, the deadly variant emerges... Most likely, however, horseshoe bat viruses have the potential to infect humans. And since coronaviruses are well-known for their ability to easily recombine in nature, this recombination is suggested to take place in an intermediate host and to pass on to humans thereafter.

In my opinion this rebuttal does not aknowledge the plausibility of artificial recombination via gain of function procedures, and so fails to address the proper version of the lab leak theory, but we have to follow Wikipedia rules, and it looks like a strong MEDRS against the lab leak. Forich (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-MEDRS sources

I propose we post here the list of best RS sources regarding the aspects of the lab leak theory that are not biomedical claims. In order to keep these short and of high quality, follow these guidelines:

• Only 1 reference per news agency
• Only these top news agencies: BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International, and Associated Press
• Only references from the last 6 months (since July 2020)
• (Optional) We can squeeze a report from the news branches of Science or Nature if it is relevant to the discussion

Do not provide summaries or interpretation yet, just propose the references Forich (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55364445
• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-who/china-doubles-down-on-covid-narrative-as-who-investigation-looms-idUSKBN29A0LU
• https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-coronavirus-pandemic-china-only-on-ap-bats-24fbadc58cee3a40bca2ddf7a14d2955

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sciencemag, associated with Science, the journal: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/after-aborted-attempt-sensitive-who-mission-study-pandemic-origins-its-way-china

Forich (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

What is not biomedical information?

I propose that we use Non-MEDRS sources only for the following specific claims:

• Which organization or laboratory is investigating the virus' origin
• What laws regulate related biosafety protocols of labs
• Names, dates, and economic figures on wildlife trade
• Culinary habits of people involving the consumption of wild animal meat
• Anti-chinese sentiment in the general public related to the investigation of the virus' origin
• Evidence from Intelligence Agencies of secret bioweapons research programs related to SARS (satellite pictures, tapped or leaked communications, etc)
• Names and dates of previous accidental lab leaks related to viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 or not similar but ocurring in Wuhan
• Information on notable rogue scientists from secret bioweapon programs, (here we should follow BLP guidelines)
• Names and dates of thefts of viruses samples related to SARS-CoV-2
• Results of formal investigations conducted about proven cover ups of the pandemic origin. I repeat: proven cover ups, not speculations.
• Results of journalist investigation from reputable international news agencies denouncing overwhelming evidence of apparent medical coincidences and viral structure anomalies (odd genetic sequences, no signs of previous infection on humans, absence of antibodies to the virus on people, etc).

Please comment and discuss. Forich (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I request:

• You should not use non-MEDRS sources for any topic when MEDRS sources exist without exceptionally good reason.
• You should not synthesise any claims not specifically stated in a reliable source. This is particularly pertinent to "Names and dates of previous accidental lab leaks related to viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 or not similar but occurring in Wuhan".
• You should not accept investigative journalism as a reliable source for biomedical claims. These require the expertise of MEDRS sources. Journalist are not qualified to judge the appropriate weight that should be ascribed to "overwhelming evidence of apparent medical coincidences and viral structure anomalies (odd genetic sequences, no signs of previous infection on humans, absence of antibodies to the virus on people, etc)." for example.

I would consider breaches of our MEDRS guidelines to constitute a breach of the general sanctions applicable to all pages related to COVID-19 broadly construed. If any of the editors contributing here feel unaware of those requirements, please feel free to ping me and I'll drop some useful links on their talk page. --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

RexxS, this page makes mention of the lab leak theory, making the claim that it is considered as misinformation and conspiracy theories, which is unsubstantiated by MEDR sources provided. A discussion has been ongoing with multiple editors with different POVs, without any consensus reached on the matter, and the neutrality of content in this article (and the Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic article) remains disputed. This requires input from editors with your level of experience and I would be keen to gauge your response on the matter. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@ScrupulousScribe: I do not agree there is a lack of consensus here. Progress has been slow but there's apparently agreement on what the best sources are and (reading them) an evolving understanding of how to summarize. There has, on the other hand, been likely disruption, as is being discussed at the ongoing ANI filing.[15] I think so long as we all stick to faithfully summarizing the best sources, all shall be well. That would represent a big advance over previous discussions with their morass of poor sources in play. Alexbrn (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Other than me, there are a number of editors here (like Dinglelingy), who do not agree with your characterization of the Covid-19 lab leak as a conspiracy theory, and the ANI was started after you insinuated that he may be a sockpuppet of mine (for the fault of sharing what you consider to be my "fringe" POV). There are editors like DavidGeorge1977 who go as far back as February, bringing up the same point that I do; that the possibility of a lab leak as an origin scenario of Covid-19 should not be labeled as a "conspiracy theory" on Wikipedia, and just yesterday one of the WHO investigation team members said he will keep an open mind to it. I would like to see how you answer to JustStalin below about conflating the lab leak theory with conspiracy theories. I would also like to see your reply to Forich about taking a particular source out of context. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus requires arguments rooted in the WP:PAGs, argument not so rooted are discounted and have little effect on shaping consensus. As to "conflation", it is not an editor's job to conflate (or separate) ideas found in the best sources, in any way which misrepresents them. To repeat: if we find the best sources and summarize them well, then our job is done. It is the wrong approach to come at this topic with a pre-held POV; instead the basis must be really good sources. Alexbrn (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The claim of a possible accidental leak of a naturally occurring virus is different from the claim that of a deliberate release of synthetic or chimeric virus created as a bioweapon. In summarising sources, these two separate claims should not be conflated in any way. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Source? Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It is basic common sense. Must I also provide a source to explain the difference between an accidental lab leak of a naturally occurring virus and conspiracy theories about Jews spreading the virus? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What's this about Jews? It seems there is some kind of intricate lore among the conspiracy theorists: in the usual way for WP:FRINGE topics, the fringe view continually morphs into new variants to avoid refutation. Wikipedia really is not interested in topics unless there is coverage in RS. It is really very simple: if you want Wikipedia to say something, say what it is, and what the source is. And make sure the source is a good one. Everything else is beside the point. Alexbrn (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, RexxS, are you and Admin? Is this an admin warning or a regular comment? In case it is a regular comment, I believe we can adjust the list of claims that are not biomedical and continue. I or even other editors, can provide a new version later when we receive further feedback. Forich (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: Yes I am an admin, and it is both a reminder and a warning. I don't believe there is anything controversial about what I asked the editors here to observe, but everyone must be aware that the community has zero tolerance for sub-standard behaviour on pages subject to general sanctions. I have no intention of interfering in content debates, but I am prepared to step in if any behavioural issues arise. I hope that there will not be any need for me to do so. --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

AP reference

These are the main relevant claims I gathered from the RS AP, which we can use only to reference non-biomedical claims. If we need assistance to sort them into biomedical and non-biomedical, I prepared a useful list of items above based on WP:Biomedical information:

1. AP assigned its Global Investigative Team to launch an investigation on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 "based on dozens of interviews with Chinese and foreign scientists and officials, along with public notices, leaked emails, internal data and the documents from China’s cabinet and the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention"
2. "Plaincloth police" obeying the chinese government restricted road access in November 2020 to a team of AP journalists in search of information on the virus origin. Origin, in this case means the ecological habitat of bats hosting ancestor strains of SARS-CoV-2.
3. Little has been made public from chinese-government-sponsored research into the origins of SARS-CoV-2
4. There is a big gap in the chinese epidemiological research of the spillover event and the index case, specifically in the analysis of cases of early patients

The use of these statements should be attributed to AP, as in "According to AP, bla bla bla". Please comment and discuss these statements, or add new ones if needed. Forich (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Of these, claim 4 seems biomedical to me, it requires expert knowledge in epidemiology, IMHO. Forich (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Reuters reference

I picked the following claims out of the RS Reuters. The same caveats apply.

1. Senior diplomatic Wang Yi said “more and more studies” show that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in multiple regions of the world.
2. Chinese State Media used an Italian study which suggests that COVID-19 might have been in Europe several months before Wuhan's index case "to support theories that COVID-19 originated overseas and entered China via contaminated frozen food or foreign athletes competing at the World Military Games in Wuhan in October 2019."

Comments and additions are welcome. Forich (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Do the sources mention the Wuhan Institute of Virology? This is more about Chinese misinformation in general? Alexbrn (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No relevant mention to WIV (at least none that can not be derided as cherry-picked): they interviewed a biosecurity expert that in passing commented that China was unlikely to investigate tha lab leak hypothesis. Forich (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sciencemag reference

I extracted the following, read the caveats for the references above that continue applying here:

1. The Chinese government has received criticism for not earlier allowing a transparent probe of SARS-CoV-2’s origin
2. Scientists feel pretty confident that SARS-CoV-2 came from bats
3. Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health said that the WHO mission investigating SARS-CoV-2 origin in China needs to consider the hypothesis that the virus was accidentally released from the lab, because "Otherwise, the report won’t have done its job."
4. Chinese officials have promoted the theory that the virus did not originate in their country at all

Please comment and discuss these statements, or add new ones if needed. Forich (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Claim 2 of the list above from Sciencemag seems to me to be biomedical. Now, Claim 3 is an indirect support of the lab leak theory by a non-MEDRS source that implicitly gives it credibility instead of denying it as a conspiracy. Under usual conditions this RS would be enough as a reference to an edit in Wikipedia; however, Thucydides411 has argued here that a RS does not count for an inclusion of a fringe idea, that only a MEDRS source counts. What do you think of Thucydides position?, please type either "Support" or "Oppose" and follow it with a brief explanation. If the Admins overseeing this debate want to step in, please participate with your guidance, too. Forich (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

To make it clear: "Oppose" = oppose requiring MEDRS = support using just RS; "Support = support requiring MEDRS = oppose using just RS. Forich (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There is at least two more points that can be extracted from the Science Magazine article. First, team member Peter Daszak observed that the lab-leak speculations have been mingled with "anti-China rhetoric". And second, the idea that the virus was "concocted there" is underlined as being a conspiracy theory. XOR'easter (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Daszak may be right that lab-leak speculations is being mingled with Sinophobia, but that should not bar legitimate scientific inquiry into the matter. Also, "concocted" is not a scientific term, and there are legitimate concerns here, given the extensive history of gain or function research that Wuhan Institute of Virology has been doing with coronaviruses for years, with US gov funds he funneled to them. He tweets about their achievements in creating novel coronaviruses here, and discussed it in this interview here (timestamped). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Forich. Claim 3 (what should be investigated by WHO) is not a medical claim, but opinions by experts, such as Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and even more importantly by Peter Daszak who was the NIH grant recipient for the collaborative project with Wuhan lab. Daszak argued that there is no way it could be leaked from Wuhan, but even he strongly agree this must be investigated by 3rd reliable parties to have some clarity. One could not find a better source about it than this article in Science. Claiming that Science is not a good RS here is absurd. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Hmm, at the risk of making absolutely everyone mad at me, I'm going to go with "require MEDRS" out of an abundance of caution, but other issues are more significant. I think that claim #3 is a medical claim — saying that something deserves investigation, even if only to eliminate a remote possibility, is a claim about what's medically possible. It's not like "the theory that X happened spread on social-media platform Y after being promoted by politician Z". I also have WP:DUE and WP:SIGCOV concerns: the story isn't really about any particular origin hypothesis, but rather the difficulty of organizing and investigating at all. Having to zoom in and stare closely at two short quotations out of a whole news story is a clue that it's not really a useful source for the particular topic in contention. XOR'easter (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• The question is of weight I think. We should be talking about this topic in the same way as the best sources, and these are WP:MEDRS sources. It's debatable whether claim 3 implies something biomedical. Alexbrn (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

BBC reference

Here are the excerpts, usual cautions apply:

1. "Plain-clothes police officers and other officials in unmarked cars "attempted to stop" the investigations of a team of BBC journalists travelling to a "copper mine in which, back in 2012, six workers succumbed to an illness that eventually claimed the lives of three of them" and to a "cave where Prof Shi carried out her ground-breaking research on Sars". BBC interprets this blocking attempt as a sign that "[Chinese authorities] are working to control the narrative [about the origin of SARS-CoV-2]" (brackets added by me)
2. There is scientific controversy about the origins of the virus and the question of whether it came from nature or a laboratory.
3. Prof Zheng-Li Shi has been in the vanguard of a project to try to predict outbreaks coming fron zoonotic diseases.
4. Wuhan is home to the world's leading coronavirus research facility, the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
5. Many scientists believe that by far the most likely scenario is that Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, jumped naturally from bats to humans, possibly via an intermediary species.
6. The terms of reference for the WHO inquiry make no mention of the lab leak theory.
7. Dr. Peter Daszak, a British zoologist, who is part of the WHO team because of his leading role in a multimillion dollar, international project to sample wild viruses, previously called the lab-leak theory a "conspiracy theory" and "pure baloney". Elaborating on this point, Daszak respondend to BBC saying: "I've yet to see any evidence at all of a lab leak or a lab involvement in this outbreak" and "I have seen substantial evidence that these are naturally occurring phenomena driven by human encroachment into wildlife habitat, which is clearly on display across south-east Asia."
8. The Chinese authorities appear to have already discounted the Huanan Seafood market as a source of the virus. (Origin here means location of the zoonotic event), parentheses mine
9. The Wuhan Institute of Virology has sampled and tested bats in Yunnan to research avoiding future zoonotic risks (animal-to-human "spillovers"), parentheses mine
10. Little has been published about the viruses collected by the WIV on its trips to sample bats in a Tongguan mineshaft where, back in 2012, six workers succumbed to an illness that eventually claimed the lives of three of them.
11. RaTG13 is a hotly contested scientific subject.
12. There have been well-documented cases of viruses leaking from labs.
13. The first Sars virus leaked twice from the National Institute of Virology in Beijing in 2004, long after the outbreak had been brought under control.
14. Sars-Cov-2 has a remarkable ability to infect humans.
15. Andersen et al (2020) results suggest "that if there had been a leak, Prof Shi Zhengli would have found a much closer match in her database than RaTG13."
16. Andersen et al (2020) found that RaTG13 " is still too distant to have been manipulated and changed into Sars-Cov-2."
17. Sars-Cov-2, Andersen et al. concluded, "was likely to have gained its unique efficiency through a long, undetected period of circulation in humans or animals of a natural and milder precursor virus that eventually evolved into the potent, deadly form first detected in Wuhan in 2019."
18. Daniel Lucey, a physician and infectious disease professor at the Georgetown Medical Centre in Washington DC, said that Chinese scientists "have the capability, they have the resources and they have the motivation, so of course they've done the studies [searching for evidence of precursor viruses] in animals and in humans," (brackets are mine)
19. Lucey sais that to investigate alternative explanations [with respect to the mainstream scientific view] is reasonable because "here we are, 12, 13 months out since the first recognised case of Covid-19 and we haven't found the animal source,", (brackets are mine)
20. Dr. Peter Daszak, a British zoologist, who is part of the WHO team researching SARS-CoV-2 origin in China, has "never seen the slightest hint of something untoward" in "over 15 years" working closely with WIV.
21. Chinese state propaganda has many stories suggesting the virus didn't start in China at all.
22. Prof Zheng-Li Shi told the BBC that the WIV's website and the staff's work emails and personal emails had been attacked, leading them to take their online public database, offline, for security reasons, and that WIV's work remains transparent because "All our research results are published in English journals in the form of papers," she said. "Virus sequences are saved in the [US-run] GenBank database too."
23. In 2013, RATG13, the closest known ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 was discovered, yet the WIV, according to the published information, did little with it.
24. The Chinese government, the WIV, and Prof Shi have all angrily dismissed the allegation of a virus leak from the Wuhan lab.

Please comment and discuss these statements, or add new ones if needed. Forich (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Restart

The discussions above are getting out of hand concerning their length and complexity. We are in danger of losing sight of the original issue. In the light of the discussions, and recent developments as reported in various sources, WP:MEDRS or just WP:RS, does anyone object to the removal of the word "Conspiracy" from the section heading? I can't see how it adds value. Arcturus (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion seem fine, but some effort of reading is required. Some chaff from WP:PROFRINGE types is cluttering the page up, but hopefully admin action will tamp that down from now on. I would certainly object to the removal of conspiracy because per the sources this now seems more than ever just an accepted, factual, characterisation. Per WP:PSCI Wikipedia has a requirement to call out nonsense as nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree w/ Alex ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about the bio-engineered virus theory, or the accidental lab leak of a naturally-occurring virus? Arcturus (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

What does that even mean? We are considering the concepts discussed in reliable sources. It is disappointing just when progress was being made focussing on actual sources, we've got a re-start of the POV-pushing. Please ensure any future contributions are grounded in strong RS (see above for some so identified). Alexbrn (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

From the very start of this conversation, the concept of an accidental lab leak of a naturally-occurring virus has been proposed, as per reliable sources like the BBC. And from the very start of the conversation, you have deliberately conflated this theory, considered by many scientists to be plausible, with other theories, rightly classified as WP:FRINGE. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It's getting old. I'm not sure if he's doing it on purpose or not, but it needs to stop. JustStalin (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Australian just published an piece confirming that the WHO will consider a lab leak as part of its investigations: Asked whether it was possible that the virus escaped from the lab, Professor Dwyer said: “I’ve got an open mind about this sort of thing. Historically we know that the most likely thing is from animals into humans. That happens all the time with viruses. But that doesn’t mean you discount the other alternatives.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@JustStalin: Please remember this page is under sanctions; I will not "stop" editing, on your instructions. Alexbrn (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Once again you are misrepresenting our argument. Nobody is instructing you to "stop editing"; you are being instructed to stop conflating the two ideas. I suggest you read up on WP:TALKNO. JustStalin (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how the discussion is getting out of hand, we are making steady (although admitedly, slow) progress. It is important that we settle this comprehensively, at least until the next wave of results, which will probably come from the WHO mission sent to China to investigate the origin. Forich (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

20,700 words of discussion (from the start of 'Conspiracy theory or theory' section), multiple sections, disjointed, and a large number of external links leading to highly technical mateial. I'd call that "getting out of hand". Arcturus (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Accidental leak of a naturally occurring virus? Something along the lines of the Institute experimenting on cv in bats (or other hosts), and the virus escaping somehow or other. I don't see how WP:MEDRS would be exclusively applicable here. Arcturus (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The question is on the origin of the virus. That is a biomedical question. If a virus is "naturally-occurring" its origin is ipso facto "natural". We know from the best sources there is a range of conspiracy theories about the origin, and that is what the article can discuss. Not the woo found in poor sources or the stories in editors' heads. Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It can be natural and still leak from the lab. The problem is, we seem to be conflating 'bio-engineered' with 'lab leak'. I can see how a bio-engineered virus being the source of the pandemic would fall under the conspiracy banner, but not the accidental lab leak. An option would be to have two sections, one covering the bio-engineered hypothesis, and another one covering the lab leak hypothesis. Both scenarios are well sourced, and as I said, the latter is not really a WP:MEDRS issue. Arcturus (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Anything well-sourced will be in the 5-6 WP:BESTSOURCES so far identified. If something's already out there in nature, then its origin is known to be natural. Lab leak hypotheses are conspiracy theories, as per the sources. If you want to make a claim for a nonsensical concept against them you will need WP:EXCEPTIONAL sourcing, at least several countervailing WP:MEDRS. Since there is obviously no such RS, this is just editorial POV-pushing. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no point in promoting undue speculation unless strong evidence was found (which if happens, will precipitate other events and become notable, which a number of reliable mainstream sources will report about). —PaleoNeonate – 14:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you clarify your opinion on what, in the current discussion, should be sourced from MEDRS as opposed to just RS? Arcturus (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The whole point of MEDRS sources is to encourage the use of the best quality sources for biomedical content. If MEDRS sources exist, then by definition they are higher quality than non-MEDRS sources and should by preferred regardless of whether the content is biomedical or not. That's simply a consequence of our general sourcing policies.

Nevertheless, if you want to suggest using non-MEDRS sources for content where higher quality sources do not exist, then I advise you not to attempt to use them for content that could reasonably be construed as biomedical. MOS:MED #Content sections gives a reasonable survey of the sort of topics we would find in medical articles and for the most part, they would be expected to meet MEDRS, although I've seen some slack being given to the sourcing for sections such as History, Society and culture, and Research directions. I certainly would expect any epidemiological claims to be supported by MEDRS sources, if that is any help in this case. --RexxS (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@RexxS: okay, thanks for the explanation and clarification. I'll add further to the discussion below. Arcturus (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

RexxS What do you feel about the current status of the page and the ongoing discussion on lumping in the accidental lab leak theory, which some scientists have written peer-reviewed papers on, with other conspiracy theories, which are unsubstantiated sources? Forich gives an example above of content from a MEDRS source that has been taken out of context, to support a view conflating the accidental lab leak theory with conspiracy theories. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@ScrupulousScribe: I prefer not to impose my personal views about the content on the debate, in case I need to act in an administrative capacity. However, I'm happy to draw editors' attention to the policies that I think most relevant, namely WP:PSCI, WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. You will need to reach a consensus about whether the sources describing the theory as a conspiracy theory are reflective of a mainstream scientific view, and I'd advise against removing sourced content while the debate is open. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, please provide quotes from the MEDRS sources that you believe call the hypothesis of an accidental lab leak of a naturally occurring virus a "conspiracy theory". JustStalin (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to do. Our task is to find the best sources and summarize what they say. Not to try and hold them up against the weird pet theories that Wikipedia editors are interested in. Alexbrn (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, if you cannot provide sources, MEDRS or otherwise that support your POV that an accidental lab leak of a naturally occurring virus should be considered a conspiracy theory, such as those propagated by the likes of Li-Meng Yan and Luc Montagnier, then it should immediately be removed from this page. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand. If there are crazy ideas in unreliable sources, we ignore them unless they get some coverage in reliable sources. I don't know how many times I can say it: find the best sources (high-quality MEDRS) and summarize them. Removing content verifiably sourced to such high-quality MEDRS would be problematic, especially in the light of the sanctions for this topic area. Since there seems to be some doubt, here is some hard policy which is relevant:

Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

—WP:GEVAL, my emphasis.

Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that policy, which is why I think that until you furnish sources supporting your POV that an accidental lab leak of a naturally occurring virus should be considered a conspiracy theory, and a consensus has been reached, it should be removed from the page. Alternatively, distinguishment should be made between the accidental release of a naturally occurring virus, and the deliberate release of a pathogen as a bioweapon. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You're not making sense. If you want to propose an edit, please say what it is and what source (make sure it's a good one) verifies it. Alexbrn (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't say things like "you're not making sense", or "this is hopeless", as it shows you are not taking this conversation seriously and it is upsetting. If you would have taken care to communicate with me in a more collegial manner, especially considering that I am a new user, this conversation would not have become so contentious. I genuinely don't know if you are acting in good faith, as you have yet to acknowledge that you understand the difference between the accidental lab leak theory/hypothesis and other kooky conspiracy theories, as they are vastly different and I never proposed any of the latter. If you can make that acknowledgment, I would be willing to apologize for any harsh words I may have directed at you and continue this discussion in good spirits.

The edit I would propose is to rename the "conspiracy theories" section to "controversy", and trim it down only to make claims which are sourced in MEDRS, and which are summarised accurately. The first claim, is that there was a controversy in the scientific community surrounding the timing and sequencing of RaTG13, as detailed in a a paper that Shi Zhengli and her colleagues at the Institute sent to Nature on February 3 2020, as it was in fact sequenced in 2017-18 and not in 2020 as implied in her paper, which was admitted only in the Addendum published on 17 November 2020, and which gave rise to many further questions as to the provenance of the virus. If Shi's Nature article does not meet MEDRS, and there are no other MEDRs to tell of this saga, then we drop this section.

The second claim I would make, if the Deigin and Segreto paper (cited by these papers) and/or similar sources are accepted as MEDRS, would be that scientists have noted concerns that one of the Institute's laboratories working on coronaviruses could have been the site of an accidental leak. If the Deigin and Segreto paper does not meet MEDRS, and there are no other MEDRs to explain the accidental lab leak scenario, then we drop this section.

The third claim I would make, which I am sure you can help with, relates to allegations of bioweapons from Li-Meng Yan, and HIV inserts from Luc Montagnier, and any other such conspiracy theories there are allegations of, for which there are MEDRS sources, and summarised accurately. If the first two claims aren't accepted then, this section can remain named "conspiracy theories" but should not conflate any conspiracy theories with the theory of an accidental leak (unless you have an MEDRS that specifically rules out all accidental leak scenarios).

Have a great weekend!

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No reliable sources there (rather, the opposite); so no action to take. See above where editors have found 5-6 really good sources, and focus on those. Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Your claim that the hypothesis (of an accidental lab leak of a naturally occurring virus) is a "conspiracy theory" is unfounded according to WP:MEDRS. The "Conspiracy Theories" section should be immediately renamed to "Controversy". JustStalin (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not claiming any such thing. I want editors to move away from making claims for themselves (including about absurd idea that RS ignores), and focus instead on what the best sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the beginning of this discussion you have been (purposely?) conflating the two completely separate ideas as if they were the same thing and then calling it a "conspiracy theory". We can still refer to the ideas that the virus was genetically engineered or used as a bioweapon as "conspiracy theories", because the MEDRS sources support that assertion. But that section title has got to go, along with any other implication that the hypothesis (of a naturally occurring virus accidentally leaking) is a "conspiracy theory". JustStalin (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I am ignoring ideas not in reliable sources, as Wikipedia must, and as you should. Please stop talking about fringe notions and focus on what reliable sources are saying - WP:FOC. Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It hasn't yet been established that that hypothesis doesn't exist in reliable sources or is a "fringe notion". We haven't even finished compiling our list of sources, let alone discussed their content in depth. Please stop distorting the facts surrounding this discussion. Several of us are getting very tired of it. JustStalin (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Progress! Yes please do continue to work on expanding the list of top-quality MEDRS, and/or discussing their content "in depth". But please stop using this page to talk about notions which do not appear in such sources. This is WP:NOTAFORUM Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Messy Terminology

This is my attempt to disentangle the terminology used in this talk page:

• Origin = Whether the Progenitor Virus comes either from:
  • Animals (as in SARS-CoV-1)
  • Humans (as in hepatitis B)
  • Laboratory construction from scratch (a.k.a Man-Made)
• Evolution = This is either
  • Natural
  • Artificial recombination by gain of function
• The two concepts above should always be mentioned in tandem:
  • Animal origin + natural evolution
  • Animal origin + artificial recombination
  • Initially constructed in a lab + natural evolution
  • Initially constructed in a lab + artificial recombination

The latest version of the lab leak theory (as in Segretto and Deigin 2020) refers to SARS-CoV-2 being of Animal origin + artificial recombination. The two parts need to be mentioned, and failing the first part to be artificial does not debunk the lab leak theory. Forich (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

So there's no such things as the "natural virus leak" story? All the lab leak stories feature humans monkeying around with the virus? So far as I can see in RS the "lab leak" idea is written off as a conspiracy theory. Alexbrn (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If by natural you are referring to the combo "Animal origin + natural evolution" + leak, yes it is discussed here. Although in this case it would involve the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control in an alleged breach of biosafety protocols handling bats/bat samples. Forich (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Would that be a lab "leak"? Wouldn't that just be some unfortunate person happened to be patient zero from a bat in a lab (just as they would if the bat were in a cave, mine, or market)? Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not really the same. It is a reasonable expectation that extreme precautions would be taken in a lab experimenting with viruses, such that a "leak", or contamination if you like, would be virtually impossible. This, of course, is not the situation in the wild. Arcturus (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That specific event happens to elaborated in the website of lab-leak-theory guys,only because they are the ones trying to look after all plausible scenarios. It is a point of intersection with the mainstream experts of Daszak, Andersen et al, who consider all forests and Caves in China + Seafood markets - Wuhan Lab, as plausible places where the spillover happened. Forich (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, the "natural lab leak" first isn't a leak, and secondly isn't something that appears in RS. So why is such a large proportion of this page spent discussing it? Is there any relevant RS for this? Alexbrn (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Because at the moment, anything to do with the lab being the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is branded as conspiracy. There are RSs available; here's one [16]. Note the first sentence: "At first it was the stuff of conspiracy theorists". The article goes on to explain why it no longer is. It really is untenable to continue to have the heading proclaiming conspiracy. Arcturus (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

infectioncontrol.com is not RS - and in fact my browser blocks it (ransomware/malware site?). All these lab-engineered virus conspiracy theories are refuted by the high-quality MEDRS, as collected on this page further up. Alexbrn (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC); amended 08:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If you search Wikipedia for "Infection Control Today" (using the quotes) you'll see that it is used in many articles as a source. So how is not a RS? It's certainly not included in the list of deprecated sources. Given the articles in which it's used, maybe it's also MEDRS. Arcturus (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

There's lots of crappy sources in lots of articles. Are you seriously proposing this is a WP:MEDRS? As is clear, editors using poor sources here will likely face sanctions, so it's good to be certain. Alexbrn (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No, given the type of article it's used in, I was just wondering if it would qualify as MEDRS. A quick look shows its use in articles edited by doctors, e.g. Xenco Medical, so it seems to stand up. Looking at the website itself it does look like a RS. Arcturus (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS? Sounds delusional to me, unless it is peer-reviewed, secondary, appears in PUBMED, is MEDLINE indexed, has a decent impact factor and so on. Anyway: you can perhaps verify these things since the site is apparently not accessible.[17] Alexbrn (talk); amended 08:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a different site. I was talking about this one [18]. MEDRS or not, I don't know, but I'm pretty certain it's RS. Arcturus (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

USDOS Statement on possible WIV lab leak and applicability of WP:MEDRS

JANUARY 15, 2021: https://www.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/

The virus could have emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals, spreading in a pattern consistent with a natural epidemic. Alternatively, a laboratory accident could resemble a natural outbreak if the initial exposure included only a few individuals and was compounded by asymptomatic infection. Scientists in China have researched animal-derived coronaviruses under conditions that increased the risk for accidental and potentially unwitting exposure.

We now have an official accusation by the US Government of the Chinese government covering up a possible accidental lab leak (a topic that has also been covered extensively in reliable sources, like this article in AP). Can we now discuss how WP:MEDRS may or may not apply to this topic, as I have been saying all along? The possibility of an accidental lab leak will only continue to gain more scrutiny in the popular press, academic circles and diplomatic channels, and regardless of whether I and other users are banned from contributing on this topic, we as Wikipedia editors are going to have to learn how to discuss policy on this matter in a cordial and congenial manner, without calling proponents "fringe types". Wikipedia editors will also have to beef up their own knowledge in virology, biosaftey, so as to understand what is and is not being discussed here, as per Forich's guide on messy terminology above. We certainly shouldn't be attempting to delete an entry on a highly regarded academic consensus from a very notable group of academics, relevant to this topic.

By no means are my proposing that we should we close the thread on MEDRS sources above, as collecting MERS sources will be useful for building out origin sections in entries such as Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and Coronavirus disease 2019. What I am proposing is that MEDRS should only be establishing medical claims, and while "causes of diseases" is considered to be a medical claim as pr this discussion); in the dearth of evidence for establishing the cause of this highly unique and once in a century pandemic, we should be able. torevert to WP:RS to establish that there is a controversy around the WIV and Covid-19, and that is not a mere unproven "conspiracy theory". Until the Chinse government allows for an open investigation, there will never be any MEDRS sources expressly proving or disproving on any specific origin scenario. Scientists can only hypothesise.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Political source, not WP:MEDRS. May be interesting when secondary commentary on this appears. Using it to say there's a "controversy" is like using Trump's statements to say there's "controversy" over whether injecting bleach counters COVID-19. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Which are the sources being used to claim this is a conspiracy theory? Arcturus (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This is under discussion - there are several sources on conspiracy theories in the "MEDRS sources" section, above. Alexbrn (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Two stand out - Zoumpourlis and Barh (they might be the only two), but neither of them supports the blanket assignment of "conspiracy" to all potential lab-based origins. Arcturus (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

that because "all potential lab-based origins" seems to include the fanciful/illogical imaginings of some editors here, which do not feature in RS at all. What we know from RS is that there was a conspiracy theory this virus was derived in a Chinese lab, and that has been debunked. We thus report on what RS says. Stick to the sources, is what I say. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Most emphatically yes. Speculation about how The possibility of an accidental lab leak will only continue to gain more scrutiny is crystal-balling, which is not what we're here to do. XOR'easter (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

By "fancful/illogical imaginings of some editors", you are no doubt referring to myself, and by "do not feature in RS", you are referring to numerous statements made in numerous articles from numerous respected scientists, just because you don't think they meet MEDRS. The question I have posed is whether MEDRS is even applicable, which is a question you have constantly evaded. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not think the White House spokesperson's office published a finely worded fact sheet on Trump's gaf about bleach as the US State Department has done here?

This statement by the USDOS is of significance, in that it is the US government's official position, and it will be interesting to see how the incoming administration broaches the subject. The US gov does not often get behind "conspiracy theories", and if you want to class the lab leak theory along with things like the Time Cube or cattle mutilation, then you will have to provide MEDRS sources that make the case very strongly. Otherwise the "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation" labels have to go, and replaced with "controversy".

I so happen to believe that MEDRS does not apply to this topic, as we are dealing with the outbreak of virus with unknown origin, on which is a Chinese government blackout. I have long maintained this position in this discussion and it deserves thoughtful consideration.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The US gov does not often get behind "conspiracy theories". In happier times, this would have been true. No longer. XOR'easter (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, we would need MEDRS sources if we wanted to claim that the virus was (or was not) leaked from the lab as a matter of a scientific study. But the source is fine if you only want refer to an official view/a statement by US government. I am not saying that the official statement was correct about anything. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Would probably need some secondary commentary to establish weight and avoid editorializing from a primary source. Alexbrn (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that would be better. WHO investigators suppose to investigate this, along with other things. Will they be able to do it? I strongly doubt (given the information blackout by Chinese government), but whatever they find can be cited. My very best wishes (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The use of 'conspiracy theory' is highly impartial given the depth of reporting on this theory. 'allegations' is a much more appropriate term to use given the current consensus on this issue. Correctus2kX (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories can, and are, reported upon in depth. That doesn't make them less conspiratorial, just better documented. "Allegations" is a weasel word. XOR'easter (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

When Trump statesd that his loss in the 2020 Presidential Election was due to "voter fraud" when it clearly wasn't, Wikipedia didn't create WP:FALSEBALANCE by giving credibility to these spurious claims, even though they came from the head of the US Govt. Anything the Trump administrations says cannot be considered a reliable source of fact, only for their views. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is not D. Trump or even Pompeo. That was apparently produced by people from an office of Morgan Ortagus. Importantly, it does NOT say that the virus was leaked from the lab, and the text does not claim anything extraordinary, anything that could not be found in other sources. I do not see any problem with citing this directly somewhere, with an attribution to US State Department. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

At best, it's WP:PRIMARY. And the extensively documented institutional rot where scientific matters are concerned argues against giving it air time, let alone emphasis. XOR'easter (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump's misdemeanors are well documented, but the USDOS has worded its fact sheet very carefully, and I don't see anything that can be considered biased. The fact sheet now represents the US government's official position, and I doubt it will change much going into the new administration. There have been scientists warning about biosecurity risks of gain of function research for years, like these. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@ScrupulousScribe: The British press are starting to report on the story. .