Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

The Hill: "Fauci met with Wuhan gain-of-function scientist in '17, admits lab leak not a conspiracy"

Very notable.

Highly reliable source.

I think this should be included.

https://thehill.com/video/fauci-met-with-wuhan-gain-of-function-scientist-in-17-admits-lab-leak-not-a-conspiracy-emily-kopp/9317732/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see [1] for previous discussion of Rising, where there seems a consensus that it's only a reliable source for attributed opinions per WP:RSOPINION. I'd have thought that was somewhat obvious, given the host frames the whole piece with "could we finally be seeing some accountability and contrition from Dr Anthony Fauci". JaggedHamster (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:THEHILL, "The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources."

We can quickly identify that the segment mostly conveys the opinions of Emily Kopp. The appropriate guideline for opinion pieces is WP:RSEDITORIAL. Given that the Ms Kopp is not a subject matter expert in regards to the things that she's speaking about we can disregard everything she says as pure unmitigated bullshit. Did you have any further questions? TarnishedPath^talk 10:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Reason also did an article on this. It starts out in a neutral and factual tone at first but gets opiniated pretty quickly. Not sure if and how it should be added. Don't think it deserves being dismissed entirely.

https://reason.com/2024/01/10/lab-leak-is-not-a-conspiracy-theory-anthony-fauci-concedes/ 88.243.142.20 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's be WP:CIVIL please. Should strike "unmitigated bullshit" and stick to explaining policy. Rising seems like a political talk show, and WP:RSP describes political talk shows as Talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces at best. Definitely unreliable for citing facts about this controversial topic. Nothing more to do here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

"we can disregard everything she says as pure unmitigated bullshit". No, that's not accurate. We can look for reliable sources about the relevant claim. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say this doesn't have much of a place in the article. Emily Kopp doesn't have any recognized expertise in this field, and is not widely published or recognized by experts or other outlets as an expert. She is not regarded as particularly notable by other outlets for her covid opinions. That is our bar for utilizing opinion pieces. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

But she was reporting on a quote from Fauci… is he not an expert in the field? 2600:1004:B292:5A8F:D0B2:294:BAB2:FD29 (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

No, she is saying this is what he said, any other sources for this claim, other than a headline? Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

So can we have an actual quote from HIM and not people saying he said this? Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Lab Leak Is Not a Conspiracy Theory, Anthony Fauci Concedes

Reason magazine, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources,

There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that Robby Soave (author of the Reason piece) hosting The Hill video above? This is all a bit silly and UNDUE for the article, and i guess you could say that is from an avid Reason reader. Soave is a tech and media commentator, haven't watched the full video, but that is really the point of his article. fiveby(zero) 22:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I am just providing a reliable source per guidance in Perennial sources. If you cared to read it and analyze it, you wouldn't be using the adjective "silly". Also, we are discussing in the talk page, not adding it to the article. I encourage you to read the quoted Perennial sources guidance again. My interpretation is that given that what Fauci said is a news item, then Reason can be taken as generally reliable. But because Soave hosts the same piece in the Hill commentary, you could argue that Reason is not independent from The Hill and then use as basis guidance regarding The Hill.

The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources.

Per WP:SELFPUB,

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

But the crux of the matter here is whether Fauci said something or not. Therefore, the subject matter here is news, because it is not an attempt to delve into the medical field, but rather just state whether Fauci said something or not.

I would say we need a different reliable source because it is contentious information. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You might also want to read "Lab Leak Theory: 1, Misinformation Cops: 0". "Lab Leak" is often used as a political cudgel, you have to sometimes looks at opinion pieces carefully to see who the author might be trying to club on the head. fiveby(zero) 22:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"He admitted as much", so again I ask for a direct quote of him saying it not people saying he did. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a reasonable request and I second it. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This is more info I found from a reliable source, but it is not a direct quote of Fauci,

The panel's chairman, Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, [...] said Fauci "testified that the lab leak hypothesis — which was often suppressed — was, in fact, not a conspiracy theory."

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

So, the source cites a Republican politician (a notoriously unreliable subpopulation) saying what Fauci said. In other words, it's a rumor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

republicans jp×g🗯️ 04:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Or "can we have a quote form him, and not people saying what he said" has still not been answered. If he said it, it would be easy to provide a direct quote. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Even with a direct quote this would not be appropriate content. You might search for 'transcript' in the two articles listed to see why your request has not be fulfilled. fiveby(zero) 14:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it is important content if it checks out because editors often say the lab leak theory is in fact a conspiracy theory. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

A reliable source quoting Fauci directly (if he actually said it) is the minimum requirement: Fauci could then be possibly quoted as a dissenter from the consensus, but even that would be flimsy because of the non-science circumstances. As long as we do not even have that, your argument is moot. Please stop it until then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It was unnecessary to tell me to stop it, whatever you meant, @Hob Gadling. That is not really an attitude seeking consensus. Let the discussion flow in a due and natural manner. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The article does not say LL is a conspiracy theory (it's more complicated than that), although lots of RS has done. I suppose it's possible we could put what Fauci said up against that, although it's kind of weird if LL stans are discovering Fauci as their new avatar of Truth. Ideally we should be using more recent academic sources which can look back over this whole stramash and describe how the conspiracy theory on-again-off-again labelling happened over the years that the theory was in play. And we _do_ have such sources. Bon courage (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The thing about Dr Fauci is apparently he was one of the primary drivers globally of how covid information should be told, what should be accepted, and what should not. But certainly, I think reliable sources will continue their evolution to objectivity following the period where researchers worldwide faced undue immense pressures to not to even consider the lab leak. Only time will tell what they will say. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The thing about Dr Fauci is apparently he was one of the primary drivers globally of how covid information should be told, what should be accepted ← err what? citation required for that I think! As to "only time will tell" what researchers will say; well, they've already said it (i.e. LL is effectively dead). Bon courage (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

they've already said it (i.e. LL is effectively dead) citation required. Also, science continually evolves. What science says today, it may change tomorrow or it may change in 10 years or 100 years or it may not, we can't really say whether it will change or not. Thence, only time will tell.

What I said about Dr Fauci is in an apparent manner and I didn't state it as an absolute fact or that he was the only person with said decisions. He certainly was a driver of information regarding covid and one of the top authorities about it in the US, which derived in his influence worldwide. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is treading old ground but here[2] is a leading virologist saying LL is dead. Recent sources are beginning to put it in the past tense. As to "What science says today, it may change tomorrow", well yeah, but Wikipedia's job is to reflect accepted knowledge and not to indulge in WP:CRYSTAL. Bon courage (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that the statement that the lab leak theory is dead is more a medical assertion than a mostly news item, I think WP:MEDRS is the relevant guidance to follow.

well yeah, but Wikipedia's job is to reflect accepted knowledge and not to indulge in WP:CRYSTAL. Exactly! Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

So, to recap: Republicans exist, Democrats exist, the lab leak theory exists, some people think it is true, some people think it is false. Lots of extremely interesting stuff that nobody's ever mentioned before. Anyway: has anyone got a source that directly quotes the guy saying this thing? If so, then we should add it to the article. If not, then we shouldn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPxG (talk • contribs) 04:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Can we close this one against many thread? Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I oppose closing because the interview has just been this past week, so information is in progress. Also, I am looking into finding an actual transcript with the actual quote of what Fauci said.

Per WP:WHENCLOSE,

If additional comments, even weeks or months later, might be helpful, then don't close the conversation.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Notes

References

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

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/)?

• "U.S., Chinese Researchers Wanted to Engineer Virus Similar to Covid One Year before Pandemic Outbreak, Internal Docs Show". National Review. 2024-01-23. Retrieved 2024-01-24.
• Kopp, Emily (2024-01-19). "US scientists proposed to make viruses with unique features of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan". U.S. Right to Know. Retrieved 2024-01-24.
• Ruskin, Gary (2024-01-18). "FOI documents on origins of Covid-19, gain-of-function research and biolabs". U.S. Right to Know. Retrieved 2024-01-24.
• "Re:U.S.GeologicalSurvey(USGS)FreedomofInformationAct(FOIA)Tracking# DOI-USGS-2023-000257–Response" (PDF). Retrieved 2024-01-24.

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)

What do you want us to say we do not already say? Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Nicholas Wade explains the relevance—as do several scientists in the articles above. Ekpyros (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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"!.[3] Anyway, unless somebody can actually produce a germane reliable source this discussion is going nowhere. Bon courage (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

You can think of it as Discrimination based on nationality if it helps. Bon courage (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like "I am not interested in the subject". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

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. Silverseren^C 23:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

Editing locked; proposed minor 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

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)

Soruce? Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 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)

Requested move 20 February 2024

See also: Requested move 2 October 2023: COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 Lab Leak Conspiracy Theory and Requested move 15 August 2023: COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy

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)

---

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)

• Agreed. This article should not give the impression to give credence to conspiracy theories. RitterDerAnanas (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see a discussion above that includes sources that support this change. It is not in accord with the existing content in the article, which includes sources showing that some reputable scientists consider a version of the lab leak theory plausible enough to be worth investigating. Perhaps "COVID-19 lab leak theories" (plural) would be a better title if some feel that the existing title does not account well enough for the fact that multiple versions of the theory have been proposed, some of which are indeed conspiratorial. Also, I see at the top of the page that in the last 6 months or so, a similar proposal has failed twice. Therefore, this may need to be speedily closed.

(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)

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)

Moving to theories (plural) is a good idea.  Tewdar  09:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Crossroads Garnet Moss (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Support speedy close This has been wiki-litigated enough; our sources don't show consensus of this being a conspiracy theory and it would produce a forbidden WP:POVFORK with the Lancet letter (COVID-19) article. SmolBrane (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  As show above, sources clearly state this is a conspiracy. 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Please read the previous discussions that I added as a hatnote below the heading. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose As this article seems to both be about the Conspiracy theories and valid questions as to Covid's origins, we can't call legitimate questions "conspiracy theories". Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  We seem fine with stating all lab leak theories are conspiracies in the text of the article due to sources claiming this. Shouldn't we abide what sources say? 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  "stating all lab leak theories are conspiracies in the text of the article": where? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  "Although the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not definitively known, arguments used in support of a laboratory leak are characteristic of conspiratorial thinking" 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  "One conspiracy theory spread in support a laboratory origin suggests SARS-CoV-2 was developed for gain-of-function research on coronaviruses." 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  "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." 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Since you said the article says "all lab leak theories are conspiracies", one of these must be true:

  1. You misspoke
  2. I am misinterpreting you
  3. We have very different beliefs about whether the quotes provided are saying "all lab leak theories are conspiracies"

  Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  "Although the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not definitively known, arguments used in support of a laboratory leak are characteristic of conspiratorial thinking" Describe a lab leak theory that does not fall under conspiratorial thinking according to this sentence. 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  "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." I believe we have invented a new term here "counter-conspiracy theory". Using language theory, this would imply that the inverse of China's conspiracy is also a conspiracy. Is China's suggestion that covid came from a USA lab by definition a conspiracy or should we not respect that as simply a theory? 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  "One conspiracy theory spread in support a laboratory origin suggests SARS-CoV-2 was developed for gain-of-function research on coronaviruses." Do we need to test each theory presented for its conspiratorial origins? Clearly any theory listed in the article can be called a conspiracy, so why not follow sources and title them all a conspiracy? 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Darn, I was hoping for 1 or 2. I don't think your interpretations hold up to scrutiny, but maybe they'll be more convincing to other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and support speedy close. This is a topic covered by uncountable high-quality sources. I would be surprised to learn that the majority of them use their own voice to describe the lab leak theories as conspiracy theories. An RM that started with such a source collection would be worth considering, but this isn't it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Is this article not already a collection of high quality sources? The sources state it is a conspiracy. 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  The first mention of conspiracy theories in our article: Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories. Which is from this source. For a book titled 'Covid Conspiracy Theories in Global Perspective', the source goes to some trouble to distinguish conspiracy theory and non-conspiracy theory variants of, for instance, the lab leak hypothesis, of which the book says: the lab leak hypothesis is not a single identifiable hypothesis but a loose bundle of diverse possibilities [...] At one end of this bundle is the straightforward possibility of WIV lab personnel being infected during fieldwork or while culturing naturally occurring animal viruses in the lab [...] At the other extreme of the bundle of lab leak hypotheses are the explicitly conspiratorial assertions that SARS-CoV-2 was designed and engineered by the WIV, perhaps as a bioweapon. So it would appear that not all versions of the lab leak hypothesis are conspiracy theories, according to the sources.  Tewdar  09:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and close per my comment above.  Tewdar  09:39, 24 February 2024 (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.

Requested move 28 February 2024

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move 1 March 2024

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: SPEEDY CLOSE. This is a duplicate of the discussion that was speedy closed on 28 February, by the same editor who proposed a different move on 20 February, following two recent discussions which were also overwhelmingly opposed. As this is the fifth request in eight months that has been nowhere near consensus, and as several commenters in these discussions have expressed frustration with the repetitive requests, I am imposing a moratorium: no move requests may be placed on this page for one year from the timestamp of this edit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

---

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)

No real opinion either way. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Lab leak theory" is the WP:COMMONNAME. A Google search gives about 63 times more results for "lab leak theory" than "lab leak theories". A Google News search about 200 times more. (Google Ngrams only has data up to 2019, so no help there.) The lab leak theory is the theory (in the sense of "conjecture") that the virus leaked from a lab. Just because that doesn't uniquely determine all further details about how it would have originated doesn't mean it needs to be plural. Otherwise, practically nothing on Wikipedia would have the singular title "theory" — theories of relativity, theories of everything, queer theories, labor theories of value, phlogiston theories, yada yada yada. SilverLocust 💬 16:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories 199.192.158.118 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories 199.192.158.118 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories 199.192.158.118 (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per SilverLocust. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as there is one theory, there are not multiple. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2024 (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.

lead is too long

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)

What we have seems fine, length-wise: MOS:LEADLENGTH. Bon courage (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Canada lab leaks

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.

---

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.

---

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)

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)

This may not directly prove a lab leak but this document confirms it was stolen from a lab in Canada shortly before the release https://www.theglobeandmail.com/files/editorial/politics/nw-na-labs/winnipeg-scientists-doc.pdf 2605:8D80:13B8:457B:3C93:356F:7B87:8870 (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

But "it" has nothing to do with SARS-CoV-2. This is all covered at Xiangguo Qiu. Bon courage (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2024 (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.

Canada lab leak continued

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.

---

This part is a expansion on the “conspiracy” as it actually explains the origins of Covid-19 to have partly came from a Canadian lab right before the leak which fits into the biological weapon theory as well as the release and spread of it at the wuhan military games.

The fact her husband was a reacher for Covid-19 while they allowed unrestricted access to Chinese government officials and sent viruses to the wuhan lab of virology right before the outbreak at the wuhan military games with soldiers confirmed to have came back sick with Covid-19 is a very good foundation for this theory and is all backed up by government documents. The only un confirmed parts is that they sent Covid-19 research and specifically the Covid-19 virus.

“Keding Cheng, a biologist who has published papers on coronavirus strains such as SARS-CoV, and Chinese students working under them had their security access revoked for Canada’s only Level-4 lab, a facility equipped for research on the deadliest diseases.”

https://factcheck.afp.com/chinese-spies-did-not-steal-deadly-coronavirus-canada

2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

So you want to add text explaining why this another stupid conspiracy theory? Is the AFP fact check the best source for that? Bon courage (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2024 (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.

Canada lab leak 3

Yes. This is a valid theory with lots of evidence backing it. Funny how you think you are the arbiter of the subject abusing your powers and locking topics before any discussion can be had. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

An editor above suggested this was covered at Xiangguo Qiu. After having a read myself, I can confirm that is the case and that it has nothing to do with the contents of this article. TarnishedPath^talk 09:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

There isn’t a single mention of Covid 19 or her husband “Keding Cheng, a biologist who has published papers on coronavirus strains such as SARS-CoV, and Chinese students working under them had their security access revoked for Canada’s only Level-4 lab, a facility equipped for research on the deadliest diseases.”

https://factcheck.afp.com/chinese-spies-did-not-steal-deadly-coronavirus-canada

Nor is there any mention of the wuhan institute of virology or any connection to the lab leak theory. It barely scratches the surface of all the information released from the 600 page document https://www.theglobeandmail.com/files/editorial/politics/nw-na-labs/winnipeg-scientists-doc.pdf 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2024 (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.

Earliest confirmed cases

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.

---

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.

---

this is a study on The impact of the World Military Games on the COVID-19 pandemic

“It is clear that travel was a major factor in the rapid dissemination of COVID-19 disease. It has been proposed that Wuhan, China, was the epicentre of the pandemic. The World Military Games took place from the 18th to 27th of October 2019 in Wuhan, China. Over 140 nations with 9308 athletes participated with over 300,000 attendees, volunteers and staff [1–4]. This study examined the hypothesis that the large gathering in a pandemic epicentre was a factor in the spread of COVID-19 disease.”

“There is a correlation between the number of individuals who travelled to the event and the number of COVID-19 cases in the country to which they returned. Whether this explains the rapid spread of the pandemic or not is not known definitively. However, this study shows a mathematical model to predict the number of COVID-19 cases in a country as a result of each infected individual travelling to that country.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7813667/

“A Canadian military officer who fears he was at the 'Ground Zero' of Covid two months before Chinaofficially acknowledged the virus has demanded an investigation into the suspicious outbreak of illness there. The long-serving officer, who cannot be named as he is still in the forces, was among the scores of athletes who fell sick with a debilitating illness after attending the World Military Games in Wuhan in October 2019. He said foreign competitors found the city of 11 million people 'like a ghost town', and so many cases of a mysterious virus afflicted the Canadian team that a quarantine section was set up on their military flight back home. The officer, who is still suffering from the effects of his illness despite previous high levels of fitness, said a military-appointed doctor later said he almost certainly caught Covid. His revelations fuel concerns the Chinese government covered up the outbreak – with devastating consequences. The Beijing regime says the first confirmed case was December 8, three weeks before the World Health Organisation was tipped off by sources in Taiwan. Several European athletes attending the Games, which attracted more than 9,000 competitors from 100 countries, have said they developed Covid-like symptoms in Wuhan. Reports also suggested Iranian participants died soon after returning home.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10382127/amp/Canadian-military-officer-calls-probe-ground-zero-Covid-outbreak-Wuhan-games.html

He said he got “very sick 12 days after we arrived, with fever, chills, vomiting, insomnia.… On our flight to come home (at the end of October), 60 Canadian athletes on the flight were put in isolation (at the back of the plane) for the 12-hour flight. We were sick with symptoms ranging from coughs to diarrhea and in between.” After returning to Canada, the source said family members became ill and his symptoms worsened, including fatigue, nosebleeds, fever and pain when he breathed. He went to a military doctor. “I was tested for various issues, but never for anything respiratory,” he said. “A few weeks later, I offered to take an antibody test but was ignored.” https://financialpost.com/diane-francis/diane-francis-canadian-forces-have-right-to-know-if-they-got-covid-at-the-2019-military-world-games-in-wuhan/wcm/ade60c90-1062-4670-a633-dcf4c4f22956/amp/

“Several European athletes attending the Games also reported the development of COVID-like symptoms in Wuhan, while some reports suggest Iranian competitors died soon after returning home. As news of the pandemic spread, many of the athletes spoke to each other to discuss if they were early victims of the virus – yet they were not tested. The whistleblower claimed an email was also sent out, ordering them to not speak publicly about their concerns. “Until we know how this terrible crisis began, it would be unwise and self-defeating not to turn over every stone,” said Jamie Metzl, a World Health Organisation adviser. “It would shock most people to learn there has been no comprehensive international investigation into the origins of the pandemic,” he continued. “This is unacceptable and leaves the entire world and future generations at risk.”

https://torontosun.com/news/world/canadian-military-officer-demands-probe-into-wuhans-ground-zero-covid-outbreak/wcm/6b5d005a-9b0e-4535-9045-82545df89135/amp/ 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2024 (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.

Earliest know infection date

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.

---

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): the first known infection date in the media section
• Why it should be changed: there are earlier know infection dates by over a month
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7813667/

2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done That source is not WP:MEDRS and is in any case only airing a novel hyphothesis. Bon courage (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s definitely a RS… https://financialpost.com/diane-francis/diane-francis-canadian-forces-have-right-to-know-if-they-got-covid-at-the-2019-military-world-games-in-wuhan/wcm/ade60c90-1062-4670-a633-dcf4c4f22956/amp/ and here’s another one https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10382127/amp/Canadian-military-officer-calls-probe-ground-zero-Covid-outbreak-Wuhan-games.html 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If is not did, and the Daily MAil, really? Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2024 (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.

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.

Media section

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.

---

“although unpublished government data suggested the earliest cases were detected in mid-November” I have provided multiple sources to prove it is early October… 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you completely lost me when you used a source which is completely deprecated on Wikipedia (Daily Fail) because of its publishing of fake news. If you have a specific edit request I suggest you make a specific request in the form 'please change x to y' using one of the templates as described at WP:MAKINGEREQ. TarnishedPath^talk 09:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What source is this “daily fail” because I listed multiple https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7813667/ 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Daily Mail. In any case I suggest you refer to what I wrote above if you have a specific edit request which doesn't involve primary or deprecated sources. TarnishedPath^talk 10:02, 11 March 2024 (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.

Since when is the National Library of Medicine not a RS

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.

---

You really think your the arbitrator of truth eh? What a horrible admin 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• There was no admin here but there is one now, and I've had enough of this. In short: copyright violations, sneaky attempts to get other editors censured, BLP violations, general incompetence in editing, and tendentious editing in Contentious Topics area. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Drmies Is WP:NOBITING deprecated? Or maybe I am missing something. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Look at the history and history of related IPs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I looked at the history of the ip and saw that they apparently started editing today. But maybe it is a continuation from other ips as you said. But tbh I have seen that NOBITING is not really observed very much many times in several other situations. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is off topic. Complaints about admin actions should be taken to WP:AN and editors who have recently been sanctioned for giving succour to disruptive IPs should probably exercise self-reflection before repeating. Could someone close this please? Bon courage (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thinker78, I guess you are missing this. And NOBITING--even if they hadn't been trolling from their /64 range for two and a half months, the edits on that particular IP are bad enough. NOBITING is for new editors of good faith. This was never a new editor, and they were not of good faith. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Also, see WP:MEDFAQ#PUBMEDRIGHT. Bon courage (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• It is only a hosting site, it does not vet content or edit it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2024 (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.

Question regarding point 8 on current consensus of origin

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)

They're covered in the section entitled "Intelligence agencies". Bon courage (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Zoonotic origins of COVID-19

Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 has been nominated at Articles for Deletion. Interested editors may participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. TarnishedPath^talk 09:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"Conspiracy" as of Feb 2024

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)

Surely crops up a lot in the sources eh. Wikipedia reflects that to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Maybe it is time to update the article instead. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I have sourced information for the start of the spread https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7813667/ 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• People need to get with the times. The hot take on LL at the moment is that it was a ruse sold to the sheeple, and that those who have truly taken the red pill can see LL for the lie it is (as there was no virus)[4] For Wikipedia's purpose this has not so far been covered in RS, though I expect that will happen; then we may need to call this article COVID-19 lab leak theory conspiracy theory? Bon courage (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Could you clarify if this is sarcasm? 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't even know any more. Both the antivaxx and LL communities are splintering as the the more enthusiastic members purity test the others for the most extreme position; I guess we'll need to watch RS. Meanwhile, the most recent development seems to be the Rootclaim stunt gone wrong.[5] Again, this is not covered in good secondary sources yet, though I note Rootclaim itself has been aired[6] on this Talk page a few times as an argument 'for' LL. Bon courage (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"Formerly"

"conspiracy theory" appears throughout the media and is well-sourced, but only up until 2023, when the language changed. Now, even the CDC's Anthony Fauci testified that it was not a "conspiracy theory".[7]

I propose that we add language in an efn, because it will be confusing to readers who see sources discussing a "conspiracy theory" and a normal "theory", both from reputable sources. DenverCoder19 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't say "it" is a conspiracy theory, because "it" is a huge collection of different things, many of which are conspiracy theories. Like all the bioweapon stuff for example. Bon courage (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

While "[t]here is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint", it's obvious that there is an abundance of reliable sources which refer to the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory. TarnishedPath^talk 23:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

But are those sources still reliable as to what the lab leak currently is considered by relevant subject matter experts or are they outdated? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We cite the most recent sources, so far as I can find. And (once again) they generally don't say "it" is a conspiracy theory, so much as the idea of LL has proved fertile ground for the racism and conspiracy-mongering which dominate the discourse in the absence of any actual evidence. DOI:10.4324/9781003330769-5 really is essential reading on this (and yes, it covers the US intelligence material). Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want to revisit current consensus, which resulted in no consensus on the question at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation/Archive_9#RFC to fix this once and for all then have at it by starting a RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 07:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The way out is through the door, best simply to take it by following the best sources (like Lewandowsky, et al). In a nutshell

much of the argumentation by proponents of the lab leak hypothesis is not normatively optimal and instead exhibits hallmarks of conspiratorial cognition. ... We conclude that although the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not fully settled, at present the evidence for a lab leak does not withstand scrutiny.

Bon courage (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Scientists and reporters contacted by The BMJ say 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.”

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

An old (wasn't there concern just above about 'outdated' sources) piece by Paul D. Thacker is relevant how? I sometimes wonder if editors here have read our actual article recently. Wikipedia does not say LL is a conspiracy theory; it more complex than that. Embrace the complexity. Bon courage (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It is an old piece but what I quoted is not outdated. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

A journalist's opinion piece from 2021 will always be what it is. Meanwhile, actual scientists and scholars have advanced and refined knowledge and those sources are now published and useful for Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"abundance of reliable sources which refer to the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory" I believe this statement would be in support of moving this article to the singular name: COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory 2600:8804:6600:4:E857:BFEB:7B9A:9779 (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"a huge collection of different things" I believe this statement would be in support of moving this article to the plural name: COVID-19 lab leak theories 2600:8804:6600:4:E857:BFEB:7B9A:9779 (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If users have a page move request, can they make just one? Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a moratorium of a year on this page if Im not mistaken. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Then such requests should (and now will be) removed as they waste time. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Social media hostility

I feel like we should mention that these two Rutgers professors have been the leading source of conspiracy theories surrounding this topic. 2600:8804:6600:4:4980:DCD1:EEA7:32F2 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Do any RS say they are? Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"Now a dozen scientists, some of whom have been direct targets of Ebright and Nickels, have called on Rutgers to open a formal investigation into whether its two faculty members have crossed the line distinguishing between responsible scientific debate and defamation, harassment, intimidation and threats." https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-03-20/leading-scientists-accuse-two-rutgers-professors-of-poisoning-the-debate-over-covids-origins-heres-why — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:4:C85E:667E:14B1:53B (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"But now, their targets have had enough. A dozen scientists filed a formal complaint with Rutgers yesterday alleging that the two faculty members have violated the university’s policies on free expression by posting “provably false” comments that are often defamatory, and that some of their actions could even threaten scientists’ safety." https://www.science.org/content/article/lab-leak-proponents-rutgers-accused-defaming-and-intimidating-covid-19-origin 2600:8804:6600:4:C85E:667E:14B1:53B (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Do either of those say they are have been the leading source of conspiracy theories? Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"posting “provably false” comments" You're correct, these sources don't say it verbatim. 2600:8804:6600:4:242E:11D8:5D4A:CD23 (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)