body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents


Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
  8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 14 February 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources[edit]

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

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[1]
[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

References

  1. ^ Redfield, Robert. "COVID Origins Hearing Wrap Up: Facts, Science, Evidence Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak". House Oversight Comittee. House Oversight Comitee. Retrieved 1/16/23. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |access-date= (help)


"U.S., Chinese Researchers Wanted to Engineer Virus Similar to Covid One Year before Pandemic Outbreak, Internal Docs Show"[edit]

I know Wikipedia is down on National Review, but what about this organization called U.S. Right to Know (https://usrtk.org/ and https://usrtk.org/about-u-s-right-to-know/)?

Just saw the news and wanted to provide some possible sources; I have no dog in the Covid origins hunt, nor do I want to contribute to the page. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you want us to say we do not already say? Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some researchers applied for funds in 2018 to study coronaviruses and their proposal was rejected. I don't see how that's relevant. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nicholas Wade explains the relevance—as do several scientists in the articles above. Ekpyros (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are these silly old conspiracy theories being raked up? Wikipedia is not a conduit for nonsense. We have plenty of scholarly/scientific sources to base the article on. Bon courage (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Silly conspiracies? For being such a long time editor, you sounds pretty biased. Especially considering the lab leak theory has only been looking more and more likely throughout the years. https://reason.com/2024/01/10/lab-leak-is-not-a-conspiracy-theory-anthony-fauci-concedes/ 2605:A601:AC39:1200:CD3B:FB9F:94:FDB (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LL may have been "looking more and more likely" to you, but science does not follow your position. And we still do not know what Fauci actually said, only what some Republican politician claims he said. Can we stop this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I wasn't leaning totally strongly one way or the another." Fauci's own words on his support of both the natural origin and lab leak theory. Are some people here really going to imply that Fauci is supporting a "conspiracy theory"? https://twitter.com/0rf/status/1744883152206667794 2605:A601:AC39:1200:490C:DAEC:81E9:84EA (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What did he "support"? Probably not a conspiracy theory (and no source has been presented to that effect). In any event we know, in 2024, what the good sources say: that other than the bare possibility, everything around LL is basically a racist conspiracy theory. Wikipedia shall reflect such knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You absolutely can not be serious. You are out of your mind if you actually believe that the lab leak theory is somehow inherently racist. You should really, and I mean really explain your reasoning. Because to me and I'm sure many other people, it just sounds like you have a personal vendetta. Not to mention you're straight up ignoring the words he said and the context he said them in. 2605:A601:AC39:1200:3137:3DE0:4BDC:D677 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read our article, it's already quite detailed on this with more to come. The US has an anti-Chinese racist story; China has a anti-US racist story. If we were considering the latter we'd be on a thread entitled "US military delegation attended Wuhan sports event just prior to COVID outbreak, documents reveal"!.[5] Anyway, unless somebody can actually produce a germane reliable source this discussion is going nowhere. Bon courage (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm surprised to learn that the people of the United States constitute a race. What race are they? 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:112F:9812:6080:FBF7 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can think of it as Discrimination based on nationality if it helps. Bon courage (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like "I am not interested in the subject". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US Right To Know is a known pseudoscience pushing group. Though it looks like they've moved on from anti-GMO pseudoscience to this. The grift must have dried up on the former. Anyways, go look at their entry on Media Bias/Fact Check. SilverserenC 23:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No scientist, and especially Fauci, will ever rule anything out 100%. Do note that the origin of Ebola is still not known, after many more years. (Not likely a lab leak from Wuhan, though.) Many things are possible but unlikely, and we have to remember that. Gah4 (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing locked; proposed minor edit[edit]

Under the "Accidental release of a genetically modified virus" subsection of "Proposed scenarios," the line "Intelligence agencies" should be in bold type. Sluffabout 02:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CetteFoisDemain (talk • contribs)

What line? I don't understand. Regards, --Thinker78 (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

lead is too long[edit]

This subject could be summarized in one paragraph or two brief paragraphs. Many readers typically don't bother reading an article after reading a multi-paragraph lead. Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What we have seems fine, length-wise: MOS:LEADLENGTH. Bon courage (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Four paragraphs is an acceptable lead length for a complex topic, in my opinion. Six or seven paragraphs would definitely be in ((Lead too long)) territory though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question regarding point 8 on current consensus of origin[edit]

Why is citing the FBI and Department of Energy WP:UNDUE ? I read through the page and I am just so confused as to why we are considering those sources to fall into it. Can someone explain? 2603:6011:2C00:3C5:24F6:9449:D06F:8CEE (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're covered in the section entitled "Intelligence agencies". Bon courage (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
on WP:UNDUE ? I even did a word search and I could not find it. If I'm looking in the wrong place can you link it? 173.88.83.158 (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nevermind, I see it. I just don't understand the explanation of point 8 above. Why not include that in the lead? seems like it would be good to add since. 173.88.83.158 (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because we had an WP:RFC on it and consensus was against including it in the lead. You can read the details at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 30#Include FBI and Department of Energy findings in the lead? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2024[edit]

My name is Lucius Wesoly and i am the creator of the lab leak hypothesis can you please change the title from "COVID-19 lab leak theory" to "lab leak hypothesis" in conjunction with the "functional matrix hypothesis" page. thanks 109.149.210.197 (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soruce? Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((Edit extended-protected)) template. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Conspiracy" as of Feb 2024[edit]

  1. Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories.
  2. Scientists and media outlets widely dismissed it as a conspiracy theory.
  3. Although the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not definitively known, arguments used in support of a laboratory leak are characteristic of conspiratorial thinking
  4. The Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control are located within miles of the original focal point of the pandemic, Wuhan's Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, and this very closeness has made it easy for conspiracy theories to take root suggesting the laboratory must be the virus' origin.
  5. Prior lab leak incidents and conspiracy theories
  6. Previous novel disease outbreaks, such as AIDS, H1N1/09, SARS, and Ebola have been the subject of conspiracy theories and allegations that the causative agent was created in or escaped from a laboratory.
  7. While the proposed scenarios are theoretically subject to evidence-based investigation, it is not clear than any can be sufficiently falsified to placate lab leak supporters, and they are fed by pseudoscientific and conspiratorial thinking.
  8. By January 2020 some lab leak proponents were promoting a narrative with conspiracist components
  9. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, speculation about a laboratory leak was confined to conspiracy-minded portions of the internet
  10. Some proposed that the Chinese government and World Health Organization were operating together in a conspiracy.
  11. One conspiracy theory spread in support a laboratory origin suggests SARS-CoV-2 was developed for gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.
  12. Researchers have said the politicization of the debate is making the process more difficult, and that words are often twisted to become "fodder for conspiracy theories".
  13. Proponents of the lab leak hypothesis reacted by accusing the agencies of conspiring with the Chinese, or of being incompetent.
  14. American laboratory, a notion long-promoted by Sachs, including on the podcast of conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
  15. After May 2021, some media organizations softened previous language that described the laboratory leak theory as "debunked" or a "conspiracy theory".
  16. At that time, the media did not distinguish between the accidental lab leak of a natural virus and bio-weapon origin conspiracy theories.
  17. In online discussions, various theories – including the lab leak theory – were combined to form larger, baseless conspiracy plots.
  18. Some members of the Chinese government have promoted a counter-conspiracy theory claiming that SARS‑CoV‑2 originated in the U.S. military installation at Fort Detrick.
  19. According to Paul Thacker (writing for the British Medical Journal), some scientists and reporters said that "objective consideration of COVID-19's origins went awry early in the pandemic, as researchers who were funded to study viruses with pandemic potential launched a campaign labelling the lab leak hypothesis as a 'conspiracy theory.'"
  20. In February 2020, a letter was published in The Lancet authored by 27 scientists and spearheaded by Peter Daszak which described some alternate origin ideas as "conspiracy theories".
  21. Katherine Eban as having had a "chilling effect" on scientific research and the scientific community by implying that scientists who "bring up the lab-leak theory ... are doing the work of conspiracy theorists".

72.203.186.106 (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surely crops up a lot in the sources eh. Wikipedia reflects that to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should we change the article title back to COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:4:30ec:97d9:1b0c:3b60 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you use sources before or after the inflection point regarding the covid origin position? Because for a while researchers faced unscientific pressures to adopt a certain position, even under threat of losing their jobs, reputation, careers. On the other hand, more recently even the FBI has adopted a pro-leak criterion and the WHO has called for research also regarding the lab leak, something it would not do if it was a conspiracy theory. Although it looks you are basing your opinion in some outdated sources. For example, regarding February 20, you need to read the article Lancet letter (COVID-19), letter in which there was a worrying degree of undisclosed conflicts of interest. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are all directly from the wikipedia article. They clearly state this is a conspiracy theory. 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe it is time to update the article instead. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 20 February 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is clearly against the proposed title. A couple of editors also floated the possibility of "COVID-19 lab leak theories", plural; there is no prejudice to further discussion of that idea, as the focus among participants in this RM was overwhelmingly on the main issue of "conspiracy theory". (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Edited to add a statement. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory – As discussed above, sources clearly reflect that this article would more properly be named COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory. 2600:8804:6600:4:30EC:97D9:1B0C:3B60 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(FWIW, I was not part of either of those discussions and think that lab leak is unlikely to be correct and diverts attention from the dangers of wildlife markets. But anyway.) Crossroads -talk- 23:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bon noted that many sources consider this a conspiracy theory and that we should follow sources to be neutral. Thus, if we follow sources the article should be titled a conspiracy. 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moving to theories (plural) is a good idea.  Tewdar  09:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In point #3 listed above, the theory is clearly defined as a conspiracy: "Although the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not definitively known, arguments used in support of a laboratory leak are characteristic of conspiratorial thinking". 72.222.92.103 (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's subtly different though. Another source say LL would be better described as "accusations". Certain parts of LL are deffo conspiracy theories. Do we have to have this discussion so often? Bon courage (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 28 February 2024[edit]

COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 lab leak theories – Because there are multiple theories, some of which are conspiracy theories, it would be best to emphasize the plurality of lab scenarios. This change was suggested by Crossroads above h/t 2600:8804:6600:4:EDAD:E408:E19:99EB (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry. I'm boldly closing this. There's been too many RM requests lately and we are exhausted. Please wait a couple months. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where may I protest this decision? Clearly we have a problem here. 2600:8804:6600:4:EDAD:E408:E19:99EB (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe start here on this talk page. Talk page watchers, would anyone else like to have an RM about this? If so feel free to add the RM template back. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we not? Much time is wasted on endless RMs which, even if passed, would have little value. Bon courage (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To the extent that this thread relates to the previous requested move, my assessment as the closer is that the previous RM is no prejudice to further discussion of singular vs. plural in the title. I've edited the previous RM closure to add a statement about this. (Of course, I take no position supporting or opposing the proposal.) Or, in plain language: go ahead with a requested move about the plural, if you think it's a good idea. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canada lab leaks[edit]

It has been confirmed today Chinese collusion around Covid 19 with a researcher Dr xiangguo Qiu, her husband Keding Cheng, and the head of virology all being confirmed to have stolen Covid-19 and supplied it to the Chinese government as can be seen in a announcement made here by the Canadian government. https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1mnxepYjaaqJX

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/canadian-scientist-sent-deadly-viruses-to-wuhan-lab-months-before-rcmp-asked-to-investigate-1.5609582

it has also been confirmed that the virus was released at the wuhan military games https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7813667/ 

where solders fell Ill https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/french-army-returned-wuhan-military-21988912.amp

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5528381 and brought it home with them.

the Canadian government colluded with the PLA to cover it up While paying China off to remain silent by investing millions into a “vaccination” that never came about.

There was also a entire propaganda campaign from the military around it https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/military-leaders-saw-pandemic-as-unique-opportunity-to-test-propaganda-techniques-on-canadians-forces-report-says/wcm/8d7dc4b0-cf3b-425e-ab86-a35879ff5644/amp/

2001:1970:4AE5:A300:A13B:D3C6:5D5D:5078 (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was the original lab leak story as published by Great Game India (I believe). It's really too silly to have attracted much attention from sensible sources. Bon courage (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 1 March 2024[edit]

COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 lab leak theories – plural was suggested as an improvement by a few people, please discuss freely below. 2600:8804:6600:4:EDAD:E408:E19:99EB (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No real opinion either way. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories