Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Accurately reflecting the sources

@Adoring nanny I don't think this revert was appropriate. My changes improved the article to accurately reflect the sources and the body of the article. The current scientific consensus is that the theory is unsupported by science. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY says that the lead should reflect the article body. Also I'd prefer if you favor reverting only elements you think are inaccurate rather than every edit, per WP:MASSR. The void century 18:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

We've been through multiple discussions around this issue. The prior stable version was the result of a lot of haggling, and changing it would require a consensus. Briefly, the sourcing does support the statement that most scientists do not support LL. But we do not have a consensus that there is a scientific consensus against LL. One editor's opinion does not change that. This should be returned to the prior stable version, per WP:BRD. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time. Please explain why you take issue with the wording unsupported by the current scientific consensus. The void century 05:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

We've had the discussion many times before, most recently a couple of weeks ago. The expert consensus, as per the WHO, all US intelligence agencies, former heads of US and China CDCs etc is that both a lab leak and natural origin are plausible.

We can say that most scientists believe a natural origin is the more likely of the two as per the previous wording, as that is supported by sources. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, plausibility is nowhere near the same thing as scientific support, evidence, or consensus. The void century 13:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I self-reverted the change to that sentence pending the outcome of this discussion. The void century 05:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@The void century: Thanks, but you've left in place changes I don't agree with either, namely a WikiVoice statement that LL is not a "theory", linked from the very top of the lead. That shouldn't be there either, unless consensus can be attained. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@PieLover3141592654: no we cannot say that most scientists believe a natural origin is the more likely of the two because that is wp:false balance. It implies a reasonable degree of equivalence between possibilities that are of broadly similar probability. In this case, they are not. Yes, a LL is "plausible" because LLs do happen. But by the same token it is also "plausible", though even less likely, that the virus was brought into Wuhan [inadvertently or otherwise] by a foreign virologist attending the conference there. No competent scientist would ever declare impossible an event with a finite probability, but may well make a considered judgement on what is most likely. Viruses evolve continually; transfer between host species occurs frequently: most influenza epidemics start with an avian/human or porcine/human transfer. High frequency events with no biocontainment practices v very low frequency events with containment protocols, no real contest. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It's from a strong source. The Amy Maxmen ref in the article. Unfortunately, I'm failing to get around the paywall now. But I have seen the source, and it used the phrase "Most scientists". Adoring nanny (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Big difference between "most scientists believe that a zoonotic origin is the most likely" v "more likely of the two". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest we change the wording. The existing wording (i.e. "most scientists believe that a zoonotic origin is the most likely") is fine and reflects how the sources phrase it. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "most scientists believe" implies that it's opinionated. The reason I want it changed to either unsupported by science or unsupported by the current scientific consensus is because consensus and science are more specific words-- they clarify that the "belief" is informed by empirical evidence, peer review and dialogue. The void century 16:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Have long disliked the current wording ...most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis... for a number of reasons, especially what you've just pointed out. The most likely/plausible/parsimonious explanation is spillover occurring at the wet market. Based on current evidence some research related hypotheses cannot be excluded, but that does not justify a lab leak theory. fiveby(zero) 17:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

fwiw, I support your footnote about hypothesis v theory. I don’t think it’s controversial here and think u should revert that edit to put your footnote back in. JustinReilly (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that 2/3 of the editors who opposed these changes are now indef-blocked for fringe Covid editing, I am planning to reinstate the edits except for the footnote which is still being discussed below. I'll wait a little bit longer to see if there are any further disagreements with the changes. The void century 16:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

How about a compromise? The biggest problem I have with your proposed edit is the deletion of the word "likely". Deleting this word implies we know for sure what happened, which is against what the WHO [1] and US intelligence agencies, asked to investigate this by Biden, say [2]. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing "most scientists believe that X is likely" to "most scientists believe X" implies we know for sure what happened? Seriously? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between "I believe in God" and "I believe God likely exists". Likely is used later in the article, so I don't see why we'd remove it here and deliberately use imprecise language. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems that you are saying that "I believe in God" implies "we know for sure what happened". Whether you mean that or not, you are not making any sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It was an analogy... What I'm saying is the word believe is imprecise. It can imply a high level of certainty (e.g. "an unshakable belief") or a low level of certainty (e.g. "I believe that's the case"). Clearly in this case, we have a very uncertain situation with limited information and data. No one serious claims to know what happened with certainty. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing "most scientists believe that X is likely" to "most scientists believe X" does not imply we know for sure what happened, your "analogy" notwithstanding. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way forward would be for you to explain why you want to make the change? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Nature family of journals unreliable writ large without retraction of "Proximal Origin"

Title says it all folks. Without retraction of "Proximal Origin," the Nature family of journals cannot be considered reliable sources but rather political propaganda and must be removed from this page and Wikipedia in general.--2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:8967:8E24:7F18:48A7 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

make a case at wp:rsn, I think I will know the outcome. Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Undue revert

I am not understanding how this revert is about WP:FORUM. It looks simply info that that at least partially has been mentioned in reliable sources and it is a legitimate thread regardless. Although I don't think the majority of reliable sources state that the leak is the most accepted theory, that can be discussed. What am I missing? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Is there an edit proposed? If not it's just forum-ing. Bon courage (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It is normal in talk page discussions to simply point out information, specially by inexperienced editors. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

So, as a not inexperienced editor, what is your proposal from this? or are you wanting to forum? Bon courage (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to forum but are you trying to unduly censor information? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

My proposal is to reinstate the thread. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk page comments are supposed to be about improving the article, not telling us its wrong. But you are correct, it would have been better not to delete this but just to respond "discussed above". Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation. I think it's not necessary to state, "I hereby prompt editors for further investigation". Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

But It is widely accepted that the most likely source of the covid 19 virus was a leak from the Wuhan institute is either speculation nor suggestion nor personal knowledge. It's just bullshit. -Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

As per the above, it is not reasonable "speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge", as a simple reading of all the threads above (and in the archive) would have told them. There does come a point when dealing with the 15th repetition of the same old cobblers produces only time wasting. So well done on having convinced me Old Hob was right. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah and WP:CGTW#12 applies. This is page meant to be to be focused on article improvement, not indulging in silliness. Bon courage (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Although Slatersteven has a point about repetitions, the proper way to deal with that is to point the OP to the existing consensus, if there is such. New editors don't know the intricacies of Wikipedia, they don't know to look in the page history for reason of removal, they just assume Wikipedia censored out their post. And again, the post warranted discussion or—if it was a repeated topic already dealt with in a proper discussion that reached proper consensus—then point out that to the editor.

Now, "It's just bullshit". "Not indulging in silliness". I don't think this heavy editorial bias is according to WP:NPOV. After all, "widely" is subject to interpretation and therefore subject of discussion not undue censorship.

Also, I remind editors about the civility policy, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The IP was the one who claimed that there was a consensus (in favor of LL). Someone who writes something like that is (Personal attack removed) that any discussion would be pointless. It is not a sign of "heavy editorial bias" to reject it out of hand, it is a sign of competence. Can you please stop complaining about people not taking such bollocks seriously? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@331dot: Thinker78 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment/Question Is the theintercept.com considered a reliable source that can be used for this article? --Malerooster (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not for anything scientific. Bon courage (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:MEDRS. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I am restoring the section below, as I have not seen anybody in this section provide a reason for its removal beyond disagreement with political views that they speculate the editor to possess. If the concerns are stupid and easily addressed, that is all the more reason to take ten seconds to respond to them, rather than superhat or remove them entirely. If we are too busy for this ten-second task, we are better off just not editing the section at all. jp×g 23:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Documented

It has been well documented in U.S. congressional and senate committee hearings that U.S. government agencies were funding gain of function research into corona viruses at the Wuhan labs.

It is widely accepted that the most likely source of the covid 19 virus was a leak from the Wuhan institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.gardener197 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed above at great length, is the subject of multiple consensus and I don't think creating a new section for it is necessary; see the large header at the top of the page. jp×g 23:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems that mounting evidence continues to show that COVID-19 may have originated from a lab in Wuhan, China? [[3]]. Should this be worked into the article in some form? --Malerooster (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on there being five R-persons and no D-persons cited on this page, my impression is that this is some kind of politics thing. Regardless, whether the lab leak thing is true or false is certainly already covered by one of the numerous above sections (and probably by a few of the archived sections, which you can see at the top of the page). jp×g 02:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Rand Paul going on and on about it does not equal well documented. The man is a conspiracy theorist. AlanS^talk 09:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Informed by racist undercurrents"

A (yesterday): The lab leak theory has been described as racist and xenophobic, because it has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment.

B (today): The lab leak theory is informed by racist undercurrents, and has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment.

Diff. I don't dispute this idea, and I don't think anyone can, since the citation for this is incredibly thorough. But I have concerns about the phrasing of B from a copy editing perspective. What's it mean for a theory to be informed? What's it mean to be informed by an undercurrent? Surely there's a clearer way to say this? I suggest we go back to A for now. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's a Brit v US thing? (Inform here is used to mean "give form or shape to"). For informed maybe "fuelled", or "underpinned", or "fed"? In the article body we quote Goski's "the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak" and that should be somehow mirrored in the lede. Bon courage (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we should go back to A, using a blanket "is", tars the whole theory as a racist endeavour, which is it clearly not. Some proponents maybe motivated by racist animus, but saying "is informed", is simply inaccurate High Tinker (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Not what the sources say. Or have you one to back your opinion? Bon courage (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the sources? "Blame in conspiracies of COVID-19 is distributed differently across beliefs", a quote from the Chinese ambassador, "The mistake many in the media made was to cast the lab-leak theory as inherently conspiratorial and racist", "They identified 6 frames, including authoritative agency, intolerance, virulence, medical efficacy, prophecy, and satire", "Lab leak theories are often bolstered by racist tropes". None of those say the lab leak is a purely motivated by racism, so that's why we should make it clear that "some" lab leak advocacy is motivated by racism, rather than the blanket statement "The lab leak theory is informed" High Tinker (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't say it is "inherently" or "purely" racist, rather it is informed by undercurrents: that's at least two levels of remove & well backed by the sources. Some is just pure racism; I wouldn't mind adding that too.. Bon courage (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The impression of the sentence, with "is", unhedged or unmodified gives the misleading impression, it just needs some refinement. I don't need to say 2+2 is purely 4, 2+2 is 4 has the same meaning. High Tinker (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I suppose we need to be up-front about the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak. Bon courage (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The original line is incorrect... should read anti-China (CCP)

China (in ENGLISH) is not a race, it is collection of two independent nations and couple of qasi city states, couple of territories of questionable claims with lots of history. Anti-China is a political position.

The western theist that isnt a controversy outside of Chinese Government Shills, virus had breakout origins from China, either centered by wet market or government funded lab that collected international funding for gain of function research. The odds of any other source are very low but not impossible. No real investigation of creditable means has occurred, just government shill claims on both sides. Lots of effort to avoid being the Spanish in the Spanish Flu.

China is an economic rival to a good portion of the western world, everything against the communist state is not anti-Chinese racism despite what the state sponsored astroturfers do in English language every day. China is a messed up place politically, with a government that actively fights against itself and best interests of China when delivering a message because communists are politically immature. It also might be one the most racists nation on earth. The nation would rather preserve face than fix the problems with the system by accountability.

Westerns powers and politicians dont care about the races of China, they only really care about the ineffective and insane government of China, or the amounts of cash they can gain by taking advantage of the situation. 2601:248:C000:147A:94A1:2C47:4377:F8DA (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

I see you're more interested in trolling than constructive criticism, I'll leave you and your personal blog in peace High Tinker (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Personal blog? huh? Leave personal opinion out, stick close to the sources, and all shall be well. Bon courage (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC) I literally quoted the sources to you... High Tinker (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC) While carefully leaving out the stuff about the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak. What we have is a good summary without being overly coy about that. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Lets go with A. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The trouble with "A" is it's not accurately reflecting the sources, they don't say this it racist-y simply because it has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment, rather than there is racist and xenophobia behind it. Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Then "The lab leak theory has sometimes been racist and xenophobic, utilizing anti-Chinese sentiment." Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Well "utilized" is an odd word (fancy variant of "used") here. This is what we have in the body:

By January 2020 some lab leak proponents were promoting a narrative with conspiracist components; such narratives were often supported using "racist tropes that suggest that epidemiological, genetic, or other scientific data had been purposefully withheld or altered to obscure the origin of the virus." David Gorski refers to "the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak, whose proponents often ascribe a nefarious coverup to the Chinese government".

So the question is, how to summarize that? Bon courage (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this worth all this discussion? Is pretty minor. Should just figure out the consensus, then implement it. Doesn't need a lot of back and forth. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, here is an opinion: "informed by undercurrents of" is a silly, abstruse phrase that should generally not be used by an encyclopedia. Two things can have a number of relationships: XYZ causes ABC, XYZ is caused by ABC, XYZ occurs simultaneously to ABC, XYZ is the opposite of ABC, XYZ is the same thing as ABC, et cetera. Formulations like "linked to", "associated with", and "informed by undercurrents of" are basically meaningless as to what relation the two things have; they imply causation without demonstrating anything. It would not be helpful to say that the landing parties at Normandy were "informed by undercurrents of Nazism"; although in a literal sense they obviously were (if the Nazis had not taken over France, the Allies would not have tried to take it back) this sentence makes the risible implication that they were in league with one another.

Similarly, here "informed by undercurrents of" has been used to invert the basic meaning of the statement. Whereas previously it said that some people who believed the theory did so in a racist fashion, it now nebulously implies that the entire theory is inherently racist in some way. The citations do not support this; the furthest any of them goes is saying that the theory was "bolstered by racist tropes", which does not constitute a claim of a necessary causal relationship. jp×g 01:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

'bolstered by tropes' is pretty much equivalent to 'informed by undercurrents'. So although you might find this concept 'silly' it's what the sources say, so we can't help that (and in fact this kind of sophisticated thought is common in scholarly appraisals of social phenomena, such as saying for example[4] that a drugs policy is 'informed by' racial prejudice). What we need to do is summarize the body (quoted above in green) which also mentions 'the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak'. What we had before (briefly) was simply made-up, so it needed to be "inverted". Perhaps if we say LL is "fuelled by racism" that would be simpler? Bon courage (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you both have a point, let's not edit-war over this. We should stick with the status quo since Bon courage's version has yet to achieve consensus. @Bon courage: can you please self revert? ––FormalDude (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually looking at the page history it's not immediately clear what version is the status quo. I do notice it appeared to stay at "The idea has often been informed by (and has, in turn, fueled) racist and xenophobic sentiments." for a while, and that wording seems clear and accurate to me. (Though I do prefer "The lab leak theory" over "The idea"). ––FormalDude (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The "informed by undercurrents" wording has been there for a very long time and so is the consensus text. There have been repeated attempts to water it down or add OR fluff around it (the "has, in turn" idea) - that was done by a now-banned editor. I am open to anything which faithfully summarizes the body, maybe even better than what we have. I'm against OR. Anybody have an actual concrete proposal? Bon courage (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Like I said: it is impossible, in clear direct language, to say what it means for something to be "bolstered by tropes" or "informed by undercurrents". These phrases do not reduce to meaningful concrete information about the world; they are subjective statements conveying their author's opinion. If the body is citing the same ref group to say this, the body is wrong, and should be changed. If these phrases are included in the article, they should be attributed to their sources. My concrete proposal is that we follow policies and guidelines. If we are unwilling or unable to do so on this article, that is unfortunate. jp×g 07:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

How very Gradgrind! This kind of sophisticated analysis and synthesis in the sources (aka "knowledge") is precisely what Wikipedia prizes. The mission is to summarize such knowledge (a layer above dull old "information about the world") faithfully. Frankly, spurning sources because you think they are "wrong" sound like POV-pushing. All relevant experts agree there is racism in the LL mix, and Wikipedia needs to reflect that, to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not what I said. jp×g 10:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

Please change "This suggested that the virus may have originated from an American laboratory, a notion long-promoted by Sachs, including on the podcast of conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr."

to "This suggested that the virus may have originated from an American laboratory, a notion long-promoted by Sachs, including on the podcast of Robert F. Kennedy Jr."

Is it accurate to describe RFK Jr as a "conspiracy theorist" on the page? Doesn't this beg the question the page is addressing? I note that in looking at the talk page I read "There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)"

Apologies if this is the wrong approach, but it seems to me that "conspiracy theorist" is an unwarranted pejorative, asserting rather than demonstrating its claim. Thank you for your time and labor as we try to cultivate reliable sources of information. Wetwarexpert (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it is OK to call a spade a spade. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Necessary, even. Bon courage (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The second sentence of RFK's article says He is known for advocating anti-vaccine misinformation and public health–related conspiracy theories, as well as environmental protection, especially of rivers and other bodies of water. I think the description of him as a conspiracy theorist is unrelated to lab leak, and is speaking more generally about him. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"The lab leak is informed by racist undercurrents"

Statement is inappropriate. Even if this mass personal attack were true, and somehow all people proposing the lab leak were racists, that would do nothing to establish or challenge the proposition that the first cases of COVID-19 occurred at the WIV. EGarrett01 (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 did not occur at the WIV. Early cases occurred in the same city though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think what they are saying is that the proposition's truth or falsehood is determined by factors like "where the thing was located" and "whether it happened", not what people said in social media posts on another continent. jp×g 22:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

A number of cases were reported of people working at the institute? Do you mean that it wasn't "produced" there or the like? Not sure I understand what you mean by saying "COVID-19 did not occur" there? --Malerooster (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

the first cases of COVID-19 occurred at the WIV seems completely false to me. Got any reliable sources stating this? This reliable source states that the first detected COVID-19 was 44 patients and involved a "market" (surely the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market), with no mention of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

[5]. Not sure if you trust US intel, lol, j/k. --Malerooster (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Fringe Science category

I guess we're doing B-R-R-D now? Why doesn't the body of the article observe fringe prior to inclusion in this category? Have editors reviewed this category? Does the lab leak theory have as much skepticism as say, touchless knockouts or aromatherapy? SmolBrane (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

we have a section about fringe science, which does not link to fringe science, so I see a use for the category. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

We really need a new RfC around just how it should be treated. As pointed out above, the old one is 2 years old. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus on these talk pages for this categorization. How can it be fringe when the WHO and all US Intelligence agencies consider it a plausible scenario? As the WHO Director General has said, "lab accidents happen, it's common". A fringe theory is one with little or no scientific support, which is clearly not the case here.

Suggest we remove it for now until the inevitable RFC. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Because there is more than one LL theory. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That's true. Trying to think of other "theory" articles that actually refer to a cluster of theories. String theory for one. Are there others? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

How can it be fringe when the WHO and all US Intelligence agencies consider it a plausible scenario?

1) There are multiple lab leak theories, and some are more FRINGE-applicable than others. For instance, the idea that Anthony Fauci and the NIAID intentionally conspired with Peter Daszak and the Chinese government to hide evidence of a previous set of gain-of-function experiments which inserted furin cleavage sites into the virus, and then virus was what caused the lab leak is undisputedly FRINGE. And by far the least plausible (aside from the bioweapons theory). The Intelligence community and basically all relevant scientists agree there is no evidence that this happened.
2) There are many "plausible" FRINGE ideas. For instance, it is plausible that extraterrestrials are visiting (and have visited) the Earth to conduct experiments on humans. It absolutely does not defy the laws of physics. It is just very unlikely. But it's also FRINGE and does not have mainstream scientific acceptance. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You're mixing up the meaning of 'plausible' with 'possible'. Plausible means "seeming reasonable or probable". PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

A lot of what's being called "fringe" here is apparently now being reported as plausible by Calvert & Arbuthnot at the Times of London. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

But not all, which is the point. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there policy on whether or not an article should be considered fringe simply because portions of it refer to something that is fringe? My gut is that any unproven theory is likely to have multiple versions, and some of those versions will not have much support. String theory being an example. It is not considered fringe, even though there are certainly hundreds, and perhaps thousands of versions of it, and most of them must be fringe. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

KInd of, its called wp:v, if RS say it so do wwe, RS call a lot of this fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Catagorising the whole article as fringe when the main part of the article is not fringe will just confuse people. If it's that much of a concern, I'd suggest we just delete the 'fringe views on genetic engineering' section. It adds nothing to the article and is Wikipedia:UNDUE anyway. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect, the CIA and the FBI have both released a report pretty much saying nothing to see here. AlanS^talk 09:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Does the lab leak theory have as much skepticism as say, touchless knockouts or aromatherapy?
No, but it definitely has as much skepticism (if not more) as the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis, Panspermia, and Vertebral subluxation. Which all have this category.

That last one is especially interesting. Because a majority of the US public think that Chiropractic works [6]. Even though the scientific consensus is that it does not. [7][8][9] Strikingly similar to the Lab leak theory public-science divide. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Do any serious scientists believe chiropractic works (genuine question)? Because there are plenty of renowned scientists who believe the possibility that COVID originated in a lab should be taken seriously. The head of the WHO Tedros Ghebreyesus, former head of the Chinese CDC George Gao, former head of the US CDC Robert Redfield, computational virologist Jesse Bloom, just to name a few. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The status or credentials of the person presenting the view doesn't equate to scientific consensus or evidence. This topic meets the criteria of WP:FRINGE because it departs significantly from mainstream science and has little or no scientific support. In science, the meaning of mainstream is that there is scientific consensus within research and scholarship. That's not the same as the WHO or FBI saying it's plausible. The void century 19:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There are many "plausible" FRINGE ideas. For instance, it is plausible that extraterrestrials are visiting (and have visited) the Earth to conduct experiments on humans. It absolutely does not defy the laws of physics. It is just very unlikely. But it's also FRINGE and does not have mainstream scientific acceptance. — Shibbolethink.

Not “absolutely defying the laws of physics” means something is possible, but certainly does not mean something’s plausible. Very unlikely ideas are implausible. Plausible means believable- it could easily or could well be true, or could easily or could well have happened. FRINGE ideas are not plausible.

There is a subheading of FRINGE Bioweapons ideas. If someone wants to put a link from this to FRINGE, please do, but the whole article should not be categorized under FRINGE.

If you want to go to a RfC, OK, but it certainly should be removed until such time as you get a favorable determination from the RfC. What’s with all the reversions? People (I believe you included if I am not mistaken) get on my case if I revert back once to an edit I make that is backed up with good reasoning and is seemingly mindlessly reverted with no explanation in plausibly obstructist reverting. Someone please revert until there is consensus or RfC. JustinReilly (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not how wikipedia policy defines FRINGE nor how scholars define it. A more appropriate RfC would ask whether the article should describe the theory as "evidence-based". I think that RfC would be opposed, but if you want to go to a RfC, OK. As it stands, the article describes the theory as fringe science. The void century 01:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Plausible means believable
Actually it means "has the veneer of a reasonable possibility". Which many such theories I described have. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

What you're saying is objectively false. By definition, the status of an individual working in a regulatory or scholarly position is indeed relevant to determining whether or not there is consensus in a field. If an academic or public official, especially one as prominent as Tedros Ghebreyusus, claims that the lab leak is plausible and not just a fringe conspiracy theory as many people have claimed, without evidence, then by definition there is not consensus in the field on the matter of whether the lab leak hypothesis is a far-right conspiracy theory. Consensus means that basically everyone working in the field agree on a particular position. If a major figure in the field dissents from a popularly held position, then by definition, consensus on the matter does not exist. That's literally what scholarly consensus means. Arguably, by denying the authority of agencies the the WHO and CDC you are promoting disinformation. 76.146.132.153 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I am going to stay out of the slow WP:EW here. My own opinion is that the current view in the scientific literature is that LL is a minority scientific viewpoint, i.e. WP:FRINGE/ALT, not WP:FRINGE/QS. In mainstream WP:RS, it is much closer to a 50/50 split between Z and LL. Perhaps a slight favorite to Z still in mainstream sources, but perhaps not and definitely very close at this point. And public opinion favors LL in most countries. I have no idea if the category of "fringe theories" includes WP:FRINGE/ALT or not. The fact that peoples' opinions differ, as seen above, shows it is high time for a new WP:RfC. I would be happy to work with anyone (i.e. Shibbolethink) on such an RfC. It might not be hard to get a wording we both agree is neutral. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

RS reporting about the Lab leak theory is not an endorsement of it. The theory is rooted in a conspiracy theory relying heavily on accident (fallacy) and has no scientific evidence. That's WP:FRINGE/QS. WP:FRINGE/ALT theories usually solve conundrums that existing science can't solve. In this case, existing science can solve it. There is evidence that Covid-19 came from zoonosis, and that's what most scholars believe. The void century 01:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, it is pretty obvious that we are not going to come to a consensus in this discussion. We need an RfC. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea if the category of "fringe theories" includes WP:FRINGE/ALT or not.
The guidelines seem to imply that in scientific matters, pseudoscience and Fringe are synonymous. Can anyone shed light on this? I think it’s very unlikely that all alternative theoretical formulations would be considered fringe. JustinReilly (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Lab leak theory is rooted in a conspiracy theory relying heavily on accident (fallacy) and has no scientific evidence. That's WP:FRINGE/QS.
@The void century, by the linked “fallacy of accident,” did you mean that the lab leak theory relies heavily on coincidences as circumstantial evidence? That’s not what the fallacy of accident seems to be from the link. What did you mean exactly? The question of COVID’s origin is a question of “what happened?”, exactly, to get us this virus. Like other questions of what happened in a specific context, It’s not necessarily a question of pure science, as non-scientific evidence can legitimately form some of the basis for our conclusions about what happened. It’s more similar to courtroom questions like “what happened that night to cause the murder” where both scientific and non-scientific evidence may be germane, than a purely scientific question like “what is the genome of SARS-2.” Thus, the fact that there isn’t direct scientific evidence of either origin hypothesis does not mean that either is FRINGE. JustinReilly (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Fallacy of accident is a particularly weak and easily disguised type of circumstantial evidence. The false logic:

1. There is a lab in Wuhan that studies coronaviruses.

2. Covid-19 is a coronavirus that originated in Wuhan.

3. Covid-19 originated in the Wuhan lab.

The point is that it's deductively valid but unsound. It would be like saying this year's NYC flu outbreak came from Mt. Sinai because Mt. Sinai studies flu viruses, even though there are better explanations with evidence.

LL has no empirical evidence. No clustering near the site, pattern of cases, genetic explanation, nor confirmed cases. Just gut feelings. There is empirical evidence that the virus passed to humans from animals in the Huanan market -- confirmed early cases, clustering of cases, spatial association with live animal sales, genetic explanations, and a history of coronaviruses originating from zoonosis. There's no equivalence between these two "theories". One is a suspicion with 0 evidence, the other is science that is widely recognized within research as being the most likely scenario. LL is Fringe. Not pseudoscience, but not science either. The void century 15:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

> It would be like saying this year's NYC flu outbreak came from Mt. Sinai because Mt. Sinai studies flu viruses

No it wouldn't. The primary LLH asserts that it is odd and unexpected that a bat-borne sarbecovirus with a furin cleavage site would start naturally in Wuhan (even Shi Zhengli was very surprised to hear this), and meanwhile there is a lab in Wuhan that specializes in studying bat-borne sarbecoviruses and was planning gain of function experiments that involved the insertion of furin cleavage sites into them. Your analogy would only work if it were deemed very surprising for flu to make its way into NYC by natural means, and meanwhile Mt Sinai were performing experiments on injecting unusual features into flu viruses and then a flu pandemic started in NYC with a new kind of flu with the same type of novel feature that Mt Sinai had proposed to experiment with. KaitainJones (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all, you're post constitutes original research. Secondly, nobody has made this argument. The argument being made is not a deductive argument claiming that a lab leak is definitive simply because there's a research facility nearby. That is a complete straw man, and literally nobody on this page or in any prominent source or forum has many any such claims (or if they have, you haven't provided any evidence of this). The argument being made is not a deductive argument purporting certainty in the Lab Leak hypothesis, but rather an inductive argument pointing to both the plausibility and possibility of such an incident. In fact, if anyone is committing a fallacy its you. In particular, you're committing a strawman fallacy. Literally not a single prominent figure and none of the sources cited anywhere in this Wiki article or on this talk page in defense of the Lab Leak Hypothesis have claimed with certainty that the Lab Leak Hypothesis is true. Not a single one. The only people claiming definitive knowledge on the matter are the Zoonotic origin folks, who have repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that the Lab Leak Hypothesis is categorically false and that it's just a crazy conspiracy theory. 76.146.132.153 (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is a subset of fringe. Anything that departs significantly from the mainstream is fringe. Some fringe theories are still scientific - they don't incorporate unfalsifiable claims the way that pseudoscience does. An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything might be an example - it has few adherents, so it is fringe. But it will be possible to falsify it if certain subatomic particles are detected, so it is not pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @PieLover3141592654: Catagorising the whole article as fringe when the main part of the article is not fringe will just confuse people
JustinReilly (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

HAs it been demonstrated the m ain part of the article is not fringe. What is the "main part of the article"? Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Demonstrated? I don't know that we even have a definition! Possibilities include WP:FRINGE/QS, WP:FRINGE/ALT, "Fringe" according to WP:WEIGHT, and probably something else I haven't thought of. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

So then we have definitions of fringe, what has not been demonstrated is that this is not a fringe topic, just that certain parts of it MAY not be. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"Definitions". That's a problem! One wants one definition. Pretty sure it's up to those seeking inclusion to demonstrate that it is fringe. But prior to any of that, we need to know what we are talking about. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

NO, we have to show RS call it fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Slatersteven has re-inserted the category with edit summary = "This is long stadning, it needs consnesus to change it." I believe this is false because as far as I can tell the category was originally added on 27 June 2023, and even if was older the policy (WP:ONUS) is that consensus is necessary to re-insert. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I was wrong it seems. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Reading through this discussion, it appears that we have reached consensus to re-insert the Fringe category. Per WP:CONSENSUS Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. While there are editors who disagree, I don't see any putting forth a significant policy-based argument on how this topic shouldn't be categorized as Fringe science. Is there a single HQ peer-reviewed source entertaining the idea of LL, in which it's not dismissed as either fringe, conspiracy theory, or unsupported by science/evidence? If not, then it's clearly not science, and that's what the fringe category indicates. The void century 15:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

In my view, that is not the relevant test of whether a subject is fringe. To quote Jimbo Wales:

"The consensus in the mainstream media (which is the relevant media for this, rather than MEDRS sources, as it is a social/geopolitical question, as opposed to a medical question) seems to me to have shifted from "This is highly unlikely, and only conspiracy theorists are pushing this narrative" to "This is one of the plausible hypotheses". We can reject conspiracy theorists and agenda-pushers, but we should not in the process blind ourselves to what is being said in reliable sources."

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 246#covid povs PieLover3141592654 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo's is not a reliable or relevant view. When we talk about whether "it" is fringe, we need to be clear what "it" is. Allowing there is a small, non-zero possibility SCV2 might have leaked from a lab is not fringe, pretty much everything beyond that is. LL stans love to use the Motte-and-bailey fallacy to try and buy respectability for wild speculation by leveraging the "non-zero possibility" idea -- and Wikipedia should not play that game. Even if LL might have had some brief moment of semi-respectability in some US media, by now it's pretty much just all seen as conspiracy theory with a few grifters and crazies left pushing it.[10] Bon courage (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Zoonotic origin proponents have zero evidence to back up their claims, and indeed several factors against them. Two strains at the market suggests it was not the origin, "multi market origin" is xⁿ more unlikely, the authorities specifically sought cases related to market thereby biasing the data, there is no demonstrated route from the nearest relative to Wuhan in the wild animal trade(pangolins were not on sale), but there is for the lab leak theory since the scientists were bringing samples back to the lab for research. Project Defuse, proposed doing research which would have created specifically this kind of virus by addition of a novel cleavage site. We also now have the internal communications of the scientists who published the proximal origins paper, who very well knew how plausible a lab leak was. High Tinker (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

consensus noun a general agreement.

Not4e not universal general, it has to only be a majority. Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Quite clear we don't have consensus for this change here. It's not a vote (and even if it was the numbers are roughly evenly split). PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2023

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. No support and withdrawn by nominator. Srnec (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC) (closed by non-admin page mover) Srnec (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

---

COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy – The US Intelligence agencies, despite appearing to some to remain divided, recently released a summary of intelligence in which they admitted “We do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic,”. Pushers of the lab leak conspiracy have yet to deliver any evidence for their assertions after more than 3 years. As such it should be time to face the facts that this is in fact a conspiracy theory. A quick google search finds the following results supporting the proposition that the lab leak theory is a conspiracy:

• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16] TarnishedPath^talk 01:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NPOV. There are reliable sources that have looked at this as a serious theory about the origins of the virus, and have not simply dismissed it as a conspiracy theory. It is not Wikipedia's job to make a judgment call on this. Using "theory" in the title is the neutral term, as it can be interpreted either as a serious theory or as a "conspiracy theory". Rreagan007 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  There are plenty of WP:RS that say it's a conspiracy. The only reason this has ever been considered a "serious theory" is because of Rand Paul, the exceedingly unhinged US senator pushing it for three years, and yes men in US intelligence bureaucracy thinking they should take him seriously. TarnishedPath^talk 02:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are reliable sources that call it a conspiracy theory and other reliable sources that do not. When reliable sources differ, Wikipedia must remain neutral, particularly with the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rreagan007 Germartin1 (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Taking a look at the "current consensus" tab on this talk page, consensus established in February 2021 (perhaps due for a revisit) says: "There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a 'conspiracy theory' or a 'minority scientific viewpoint'." I believe the two would receive very different WP:FRINGE considerations. You are effectively looking to revisit this consensus. I'm not certain how that works, but I wonder if you would need another RfC, since that was established by RfC. Personally I'm inclined to view it as a minority scientific viewpoint based on statements from scientific institutions like major journals and the WHO (by comparison your sources are unconvincing; the intelligence community didn't rule out a lab leak either just said it was unproven), and that leads me to oppose, though given what I mentioned I'm uncertain whether this discussion should be reformatted. VintageVernacular (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Rreagan007. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Alaexis_¿question? 08:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not all theories are conspiracies. Whether it's correct or not (and we still honestly don't know for sure what caused the pandemic), it's a valid theory considered by rational people, unlike most conspiracy theories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rreagan007 and Necrothesp. I see no compelling reason for taking this stance in the title. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is far more effective to present readers with the scientific evidence and let the facts speak for themselves. It is counterproductive to present conclusion first, evidence afterwards. That is the pseudoscience approach. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Either you did not try reading relevant portions of this Wikipedia page about your claims or you need to revisit WP:NPOV.
  • "In June 2022, the WHO's Scientific Advisory Group for Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) published a preliminary report urged a deeper investigation into the possibility of a laboratory leak."
  • "In February 2023, The Wall Street Journal reported that the US Energy Department, based on new intelligence, had shifted its view from "undecided" to "low confidence" that the pandemic originated with a lab leak. "
  • "White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan responded to the report saying "some elements of the intelligence community have reached conclusions on one side, some on the other. A number of them have said they just don't have enough information to be sure", and there was still "no definitive answer" to the pandemic origins' question."

Also, read the page Lancet letter (COVID-19).

In addition, I have to point out that in your first reference that you included to back your position (the Scientific American article) the COVID-19 lab leak theory is called "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis" throughout. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The Scientific American article uses the word "conspiracy" 16 times throughout the article. In addition it point blank writes "The ostensible lab-leak hypothesis is not a single identifiable theory but a loose constellation of diverse possibilities held together by the common theme that Chinese science institutions—be it the WIV or some other arm of the Chinese government—are to blame for the pandemic. At one end is the straightforward possibility of WIV lab personnel being infected during fieldwork or while culturing viruses in the lab. Scientifically, this possibility is challenging to disentangle from a zoonotic origin that followed other pathways and is therefore difficult to rule out or confirm. At the other extreme are the assertions that SARS-CoV-2 was designed and engineered by the WIV, perhaps as a bioweapon, and was released either accidentally or as a biological attack. This possibility necessarily entails a conspiracy among WIV scientists—and potentially many others—to first engineer a virus and then cover up its release. Scientific investigation of the genomic and phylogenetic evidence can help us determine whether SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered." So at one end of the spectrum it is saying the hypothesis is verging on being unfalsifiable, that is unscientific and at the other end of the spectrum it is straight up conspiracy theory. TarnishedPath^talk 23:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, said reference uses the word hypothesis even as the title of the article. I just noticed that in said article of Scientific American, at the end of it, you can read a note that states that the title was actually changed from ""Conspiracy Theories Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth" to its current title, "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth".

There are some conspiracy theories regarding a lab leak but that doesn't mean all the scientific hypothesis, brainstorming, investigations, and leads about a lab leak are conspiracy theories as you mistakenly want to implicitly claim with your proposed move. Also, apparently you ignored the other info I added in my reply.

Conspiracy is not the same as conspiracy theory though. Besides, the notion that possible wrongdoing shouldn't be investigated is the realm of ideology not science. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC) Edited 19:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose; at this point, "lab leak theory" is the WP:COMMONNAME, so the bar to rename should be quite high. Like JMF said, it's better to let the facts speak for themselves. We also shouldn't try to supersede an RfC in a move discussion. DFlhb (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not a conspiracy, no RS supports that. It might be a conspiracy theory but that's another question. Bon courage (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose There are conspiracy theories linked to this, but the basic idea just doesn't make the bar. There are major international and national medical institutons that don't rule it out though they say the market theory has much better evidence and is far more probable. If or when they do this can be revisited. It just does not fit in yet with List of conspiracy theories. NadVolum (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rreagan007. Absurd nomination that if implemented would grossly violate NPOV. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per others. Saying it is a "conspiracy" is an accusation. And I would oppose a move to "conspiracy theory" either. No one has said it is impossible, just that it cannot be proven. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  You're in effect saying that it's unfalsifiable, that is that it is not scientific. If it's not scientific, it can't be a theory. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. TarnishedPath^talk 09:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Things can absolutely be theories without being scientific. The word theory has multiple definitions, with only some pertaining to scientific research. The definition of theory that we are using here is #3 B: "an unproved assumption (conjecture)". When you say "I don't know where they went, but I have a theory", you haven't made an entire scientific paper on the topic, you're just using the word as shorthand for "I suspect". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. I also agree with Rreagan007 and the others here. David A (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I think it's obvious this is a case of WP:SNOW. I'll withdraw this if someone wants to close it off. TarnishedPath^talk 09:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe it would be useful to have an article about the scientific discussion about the possiblity of a lab leak, and another one on the socio-culture phenomenon around the lab leak theory. One is a minority scientific view and the other is made up of conspiracy theories and culture wars content, both would seem notable though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think we need to follow the sources. There's isn't really any "scientific discussion" (in RS), and the emerging scholarship seems to be placing the whole thing within the context of conspiracy theories and the psychosocial phenomena which make certain people (mostly in the USA) "want to believe" BS. No doubt the article will shift to conform to the sourcing as the scholarship solidifies. Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "conspiracies" and "conspiracy theories" are rare, which is why "conspiracy theory" is a common way to mislabel accusations of wrongdoing in order to discredit the allegation of wrong doing. Plus there is confusion in the RFC itself. Read literally, it is purporting that the lab leak itself is a conspiracy. But some respondents have reading it as (mis) labeling the accusations as being a "conspiracy theory". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

References

New claims involving the CIA

The following discussion 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.

---

News reports are appearing in mostly right wing publications about the apparent testimony of a CIA whistleblower who reportedly indicated wrongdoing regarding covid claims. Anyone has read about this in other sources more reliable? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:ECREE and this is literally the most extraordinary claim yet made on this talk page, with the least evidence also provided on this talk page. I have yet to see any substantiation of this, or even coverage in anything more than newsweek, which itself is not an RS. Its all anonymous allegations from cloaked sources, without a shred of evidence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me you haven't read this in reliable sources. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The actual ruling on 2013+ Newsweek reliability is that it is determined on a "case-by-case" basis. The Newsweek story mentions the February 2023 determination by the Department of Energy that Covid-19 "likely" originated from a Wuhan lab, as had been reported in various reliable sources, e.g. CNN, NPR, The Guardian. As we know, the DOE changed its description of the "lab" hypothesis as having changed from "undecided" to "low confidence", but this leaves us wondering whether "low confidence" represents higher or lower confidence than "undecided". Fabrickator (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Shibbolethink. WP:REDFLAG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

An unnamed CIA operative, "alleged that the CIA "offered six analysts significant monetary incentives to change their position on COVID-19's origin."", Which the CIA (in effect) denies. (I would like b better sources for this claim. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Primary source, the US House Oversight Committee, confirms that a "whistleblower, who presents as a highly credible senior-level CIA officer," did indeed claim wrongdoing regarding covid origins conclusions by the CIA. Thinker78 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, Jon Cohen fiveby(zero) 14:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

So (in effect) a claim that a claim was made. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I will just add this 2007 news snippet here: CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits. Not really many at all but I would say they were just sloppy people who didn't use specialized proxies.

Also, List of CIA controversies. No idea how accurate the claim of the whistleblower is but CIA wrongdoing is nothing new at all. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

What possible relevance does that Randall piece have to this? Bon courage (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I found it on the list of CIA controversies. I simply decided to share it because we are talking about the CIA and claims. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Please remember WP:NOTFORUM. This is not a place for discussing irrelevant material which cannot help with this article. Bon courage (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question, no, I haven't The void century 22:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Still not one single shred of evidence and in June the CIA and FBI released a summary of intelligence in which they admitted “We do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic”. It's about time people gave this conspiracy theory up. TarnishedPath^talk 07:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RSEDITORIAL, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces [...] are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." And again, we already discussed whether the lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory and the consensus is that it is not. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It may be an opinion piece but it can be used as a WP:RS insofar as it directly quotes the FBI/CIA and it links the document which it is quoting. Fact, intelligence sources have stated that "[w]e do not know of a specific biosafety incident at the WIV that spurred the pandemic". Again, there are numerous WP:RS which properly refer to the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory. The onus is on anyone contending it is anything less than a conspiracy to front up evidence, any at all. TarnishedPath^talk 00:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

TarnishedPath I am not understanding. You are repeating your view that the lab leak is a conspiracy. I get it, that's your opinion. But please take a reading of the discussion I linked. It was a case of WP:SNOW and you are repeating pointers already addressed there. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion was about whether the article title gets moved, not about actual reality. In reality, it's a what people who aren't influenced by hyper partisan politics call a conspiracy. TarnishedPath^talk 03:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No it does not appear to have been picked up by quality sources and I doubt it will be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Could we get back to being an encyclopedia and stop talking about every conspiracy theory pushed by oddball conspiracy theorists mostly with ulterior motives? Scores of article talk pages have editors posting conspiracy theories with "evidence" no reliable source would take seriously. This is a newish phenomenon here. If something has any real substance and evidence, it will be published by reliable sources as something worthy of note. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  An encyclopedia tries to be objective not pushing a POV just because one doesn't agree with it. There is an active investigation by a committee of the US House regarding this, therefore I don't think it is an "oddball conspiracy theory". It is an allegation taken seriously by an entity of the US government. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be saying that American politicians cannot be oddballs. That is false. About half of them are climate change deniers, for example.

  The opinions of politicians on a scientific subject are simply not relevant for an article about that subject. Neither is the Department of Angular Momentum or any other departments for physical quantities. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

More reliable sources have the story. ABC News, "CIA 'looking into' allegations connected to COVID-19 origins". The South China Morning Post, "Did the CIA bribe analysts to reject Covid-19 China lab-leak theory? Scientists have doubts". Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes all if buts and maybes, when (and if) the CIA admits this we can add it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Wait a minute. If the CIA has in fact actively tried to hush down any evidence of wrongdoing from the CCP regarding bioweapon research and very bad security measures, as has been claimed by sources cited above, why should this agency alone be allowed to be the arbiter of truth in this case? It would be like letting a defendant in a trial decide if they are guilty or not. And given that the CCP is morally comparable with and as trustworthy as Nazi Germany, and wiped their Wuhan laboratory completely clean before United Nations inspections were allowed, why is there such systematic relentless hostility and belittling contempt here towards anybody who find this behaviour extremely suspicious? David A (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Now we've gone full WP:GODWIN, can somebody close this? Bon courage (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You know you're dealing with conspiracies when people start invoking the deep-state and Nazi Germany. TarnishedPath^talk 03:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

We also can't take at their word an anonymous witness. Yes this is going nowhere. Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I am just saying that given the CIA's extremely shady history of, for example, setting up a genuine far right tyranny in Chile after bringing down a democratic government, so the U.S. could continue to have access to Chile's natural resources, and not arresting anybody in the international oligarchy who systematically raped underage sex slaves at Jeffrey Epstein's island for 20 years, it shouldn't remotely be perceived as a completely reliable and highly moral sole arbiter of truth. Other sources should be considered as well. Also, do not take my comments as a convenient excuse to shut down an important discussion please. David A (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

But this can go nowhere, as these are unsubstantiated (and anonymous) allegations that (by your definition) can never be proved or disproven. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

David A, that was a little bit looking like in the side of forumish. Not saying it was as a fact but it looks like it was objected by bon courage. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not necessary to wait for the CIA to admit or not. I think the allegation may be notable enough as to warrant discussion as to whether to include it in the page. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

How about not. Per WP:Fringe we don't put that stuff into articles. TarnishedPath^talk 03:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

An extraordinary claim by someone in an organization designed for secrecy that comes from the US House Oversight Committee, a committee that has lost any imprimatur these days. No. Let us stick with scientific evaluations in an encyclopedia. If something real comes of this, then it may be worthy of inclusion. Patience. WP:ECREE O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

References

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