Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Heads up on new WSJ story re DOE assessment

I am only alerting regular editors here that the WSJ is reporting via word-of-mouth that a DOE report asserts support of the lab-leak theory (though not out of any biological weapons testing program). Suspect you may see IPs/new editors trying to force its info.

WSJ story Masem (t) 15:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Getting a lot of coverage around the less-than-reliable press, but some worthwhile outlets (Ground.News shows low-factuality bias · WSJ Primary report · The Hill · Bloomberg  · National Review). Otherwise it's all tabloids and unreliable outlets.

Eventually, we will probably need to modify the sentence about the DNI report to reflect this, or add a short sentence to that. it's mostly a nothingburger but probably DUE in that context. I personally wonder why the opinion of these agencies with zero biosecurity experience is relevant, but if the mainstream press starts covering it, it's probably going to be DUE for a mention.

I say we sit on it for now and see how the coverage develops from here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

DOE does do biochemical and other work in that area, so they shouldn't be considered ignorant of biosecurity. But as even the WSJ points out, this is just one US Govt agency that has made a statement about the COVID origin, with several other agencies denying the lab leak theory. I just feel you might see editors demanding that "THIS IS THE TRUTH BECAUSE THE DOE SAID SO", which you definitely don't want to feed. Masem (t) 17:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that any agency has denied the lab leak theory. They've denied the related conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The Energy Department made its judgment with “low confidence;” title says, Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic. — hako9 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Masem Outsider here (art history and history primarily) who read the WSJ article–in your experience with COVID pages, has extended protection been quite ineffective in filtering the non-constructive edits so far? My instinct, given it's contentious and not my area of focus, was to go to talk page (though I first went to Investigations into... page and @Shibbolethink redirected me to this discussion) and I'd think most of xp editors would do the same. Perhaps adding a note to the new passage in the article akin to the ones regarding consensus used in Trump article would help minimize disruptions? Ppt91^talk 20:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

extended protection been quite ineffective. What more do you want? — hako9 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hako9 I was asking whether it has been effective or not. And–if it has been ineffective–I suggested adding notes on specific edits alerting users who are unfamiliar with the consensus but who had seen a new important development in the news. Either way, yours was hardly a welcoming response. Ppt91^talk 21:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

My question to you was rhetorical. There's a big banner, that you can't miss, compiling present consensus on this talk. — hako9 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe the message is that clear for newcomers, which is why I was using the Trump page as a comparison. I think the banner could use a larger font and a similar text that reads "Please review current established consensus before editing this article, especially the lead section." etc. That and comments throughout the article could help users slow down if they want to make a news-related update. Again, I was only trying to offer some suggestions as an outsider without rushing to make any changes myself out of respect for other actively engaged editors here. Ppt91^talk 21:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Did the DOE disclose their reasoning or lay any new evidence? They claim to have sourced their assessment from their laboratory-staff which is so strange. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think technically the DoE didn't disclose anything, this seems to be getting reported on as a leak. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to edit the consensus to reflect this new information? Regardless of what is said in the main article the fact that DoE supports lab leak should clearly elevate it beyond a "conspiracy theory" to at least a "minority scientific viewpoint". The consensus seems very outdate/biased and seems intended to discourage discussion. Bertie woo (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: do you have a recommended alternate wording for the confidence rating? You said so a low confidence rating was the most likely but the rating of most likely was not low confidence, which I interpret as you want it rephrased rather than outright removed. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The current wording is accurate. It could be expanded but that expansion can't be OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the NYT source didn't include the DoE evaluation of low confidence, would citing another source which discusses this potentially resolve your concern for my original wording? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Masem It's the first time I see in the talk page of an article "warning" about content appearing on an established newspaper possibly being "forced". Can you explain your rationale for this kind of warning and how it adheres to the WP:NPOV policy—specially because you are an administrator? Thinker78 (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Because right now, the lab leak theory has been one of those things that those on the right would love the lab leak theory to be true, and I could see possible disruption on this article from editors that would want to push inclusion of it. Masem (t) 04:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have to point out that you are specifically referring to those on the right. The reverse is also true. Many on the left not matter what want to stick to the zoonosis theory. Why do the right prefers the lab leak and the left zoonosis I don't know. But I think you should find more a reasonable middle ground per the NPOV policy, seeking to reflect what reliable sources say.

The way you phrased it seems to dismiss the information as unreliable, regardless that multiple mainstream reliable sources have published it. I think you could have instead said that the new info about the lab leak could create edit warring, or some similarly unbiased notice. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Many on the left not matter what want to stick to the zoonosis theory
On wikipedia, the scholarly sources and scientists set what is "true". Per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SOURCETYPES. We don't default to any abstract form of "the middle". We default to the scientific consensus in scholarly journal review articles. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

My comment included, "But I think you should find more a reasonable middle ground per the NPOV policy, seeking to reflect what reliable sources say." Emphasis on "reasonable middle ground per the NPOV policy" and "seeking to reflect what reliable sources say". The word neutral equates good with "middle ground". In fact, to avoid semantic rhetoric, just reword, "But I think you should find more a reasonable neutral ground per the NPOV policy, seeking to reflect what reliable sources say." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This is simply false and only someone who is a scientifically illiterate moron or an extreme bigot and racist would say something like that. Comparing the conservative support for the lab leak to liberal support for the wetmarket hypothesis is completely intellectually dishonest, and just displays your own stupidity and scientific illiteracy. Most of the people on the right are committed to the lab leak conspiracy theory because they're uneducated and don't even understand basic virology or epidemiology, and they just want to exploit this situation to blame the liberals and the Chinese and the big scary "globalists". On the other hand, the people on the left who are committed to the wet market hypothesis are doing so because they believe in science and the scientific method, and they actually trust the opinion of doctors and scientists, unlike the uneducated, scientifically illiterate, and racially motivated elements of the right who are trying to force an unsubstantiated narrative about a supposed bioweapon. 2601:198:4100:17E0:985D:85:939A:3426 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Masem the ip reflects my concern about lack of enough neutrality. Thinker78 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

As others have said, we go by MEDRS-compliant sources which have across the board have not accepts the lab leak theory as likely. Given how much this page has been pushed at by those that want to justify the lab leak theory as being correct, the warning was completely within WP's neutrality and sourcing requirements. Masem (t) 02:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you further explain why MEDRS-compliant sources are required? In a scenario where there was a lab leak I imagine non-medical social evidence like lab documents etc. would be relevant. If an article included such hypothetical evidence would it be barred from inclusion in this article? Bertie woo (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information/Archive_2#RFC:_Disease_/_pandemic_origins. there's not consensus that disease/pandemic origins are Biomedical Information requiring MEDRS. Though the nuance of the decision was primarily regarding historical facts, and not every element of the lab leak theory is historical. This is why we frequently cite non-MEDRS (but reliable) sources regarding various notable investigative reports (see COVID-19 lab leak theory#Intelligence agencies for one example), but we generally stick to MEDRS sources when it comes to specific biomedical claims about things like the furin cleavage site or claims of genetic evidence of deliberate manipulation. But broadly speaking, our MEDRS sources mostly agree with our most reliable non-MEDRS sources, that as-of-now the lab leak is still a minority view (i.e. 4 vs 2 US intelligence agencies consider zoonosis more likely). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the way in which the two theories are being promoted is equivalent. There's not left-wing equivalent to Steve Bannon pushing Li-Meng Yan's propaganda disguised as research that I'm aware of.

I don't think it's so much an issue of what the news media is publishing, but how WP:SPA and IP editors are apt to attempt to misrepresent the reports as "proof". Similar to how we saw a lot of IP/SPA comments conflating a congressional minority report with official US government position on the same topic. That's the attempt to "force" things that affects our editing, rather than whether or not media outlet reporting is affected by their bias. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering why the right and the left have favorite and different theories about the origin of covid. Today I got a good hint from an online comment I saw in another platform. The user said that journalists reacted against Trump's statements that covid probably originated from a lab leak.

The news media was largely highly critical of Trump and they were political rivals. Therefore, the news media started saying that the thought that the virus originated from a lab leak was an absurd conspiracy theory. Then the issue became also political not just scientific.

There is an article in The Guardian that reflects this very well "‘It’s just gotten crazy’: how the origins of Covid became a toxic US political debate". Thinker78 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The sources we have on certain lab leak theories (not only one single theory, mind you) being conspiracy theories come from academia (scientists, experts on virology, conspiracy theories, etc). Not the mass media. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Emphasis on "certain". And academia is not immune to politics. Specially when scientists get afraid of losing funding or having their reputation ruined by agreeing with politically tainted theories.

I have to point out a very interesting letter published in The Lancet.

"[...] there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and a laboratory-related accident is plausible."

"Scientists 'need to evaluate all hypotheses on a rational basis, and to weigh their likelihood based on facts and evidence, devoid of speculation concerning possible political impacts'".

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

academia is not immune to politics. Specially when scientists get afraid of losing funding or having their reputation ruined by agreeing with politically tainted theories.
This seems to be your personal opinion, and thus applying here could be construed as original research. Your opinion on the unreliability of scientific sources appears to run directly counter to WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:SOURCETYPES, and WP:MEDSCI. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 07:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to analyze better. I am simply refuting your comment that seemed to imply that academia is immune to politics or that my previous comment didn't relate to academia only because I did not mention it.

And to clarify, I don't espouse a personal belief regarding the origins of covid as my understanding is that it could be zoonosis or it could have come from a lab. But I do take issue with editing that wants to discard one theory or another for personal beliefs or ideology. And this talk page makes it abundantly clear that some people want to impose edits based on ideology. Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 origins have certainly been politicized, but the only people trying to politicize this debate are people like yourself. Not every single issue is a "both sides" situation, as you people constantly try to insist. The vast majority of scholars and public health officials have repeatedly stated that COVID's most likely origins are from a wetmarket, and that the lab leak hypothesis is just a baseless conspiracy theory. If you people were genuinely approaching this issue in an unbiased, scientific manner, then that would be enough to satisfy you and you would go where the evidence leads, instead of just remaining dogmatically committed to the idea that this came from some sort of secret bioweapons lab. Instead, you people have spent the last 3 years repeating the same talking points over and over about Wuhan and gain of function and bioweapons, and all the other unsubstantiated claims that have come from the depths of Gab, 4chan, Infowars, and other fringe online communities. 2601:198:4100:17E0:C852:1E16:CCC1:F3DA (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

instead of just remaining dogmatically committed to the idea that this came from some sort of secret bioweapons lab.

Why do you conflate bioweapons with lab leak?

Is it intentional so that you can label people who ask about the latter "conspiracy theorists"? 140.228.54.50 (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Lab leak doesn't imply bioweapons, just that a virus which was being studied was accidentally released. The DoE has FBI both consider lab leak most likely, so at the very least I think we should get ride of the "conspiracy theory" language. Covid killed nearly 7 million people so it's important that we throughly investigate as we would with any smaller crime, or accident like an airplane crash etc. Bertie woo (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not {{investigate}}. It just gives the reader what reliable sources say. And random American organizations do not count as reliable sources. Read WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Drafts of mentions in the lead and body

(underlined would be new, feel free to edit or provide alternative drafts)

LEAD (paragraph 4):

In October 2021, the U.S. Intelligence Community released a report assessing that the Chinese government had no foreknowledge of the outbreak and the virus was likely not engineered. The report did not conclusively favor any origin scenario. Of eight assembled teams, one (the FBI) leaned towards a lab leak (with moderate confidence), four others and the National Intelligence Council leaned towards zoonosis (with low confidence), and three were inconclusive. In February 2023, the DOE revised its assessment from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of a laboratory leak. The White House National Security Advisor responded that there was still "no definitive answer".

Body (COVID-19 lab leak theory § Government oversight):

That same month, an intelligence probe on the origins of COVID-19 requested by President Biden assessed that the Chinese government did not have foreknowledge of the outbreak. Overall, the probe did not render conclusive results on the origins. Of eight assembled teams, one (the Federal Bureau of Investigation) leaned towards a lab leak theory, four others (and the National Intelligence Council) were inclined to uphold a zoonotic origin, and three were unable to reach a conclusion. In February 2023, the US Department of Energy (undecided in the 2021 report) released a revised assessment stating it believed with "low confidence" that the pandemic was "most likely" caused by a laboratory leak. White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan responded to the report saying there was still "no definitive answer" to the pandemic origins' question.

Sources

Again, feel free to edit the above or suggest alternative drafts below.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Lede is too long btw, per MOS:LEADLENGTH. Total characters in the article are 21,251. — hako9 (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely true, but there's been so much disagreement over every single change we haven't been able to find consensus on shortening it. Any suggestions are appreciated. We could not mention this at all in the lead, I would be fine with that since it's a secondary development that occurred later, rendering it less DUE. But we should probably mention it in the body.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I had the same thought, clearly too much detail for the lead section. Maybe this makes it obvious enough to reduce the resistance to such a trim, coupled with these details getting their due in the body. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to say in the lead that the opinion of the US intelligence community is "split" or "mixed". If we don't want to do that, we probably need to spell it all out as we do now. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the US intelligence community assessment is a significant enough facet of the topic to warrant a mention in the lead. At most it would be a sentence, and I don't think "split" or "mixed" would be sufficiently neutral. I think "uncertain" or similar would probably be a more neutral lead description. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The WSJ is a FRINGE source for this type of material, and the DOE is considered a FRINGE organization for promoting wild conspiracy theories. As Wikipedia is supposed to be an academic, we must depend on reliable sourcing and not on wild conspiracy claims from fringe organizations. If you want that type of information there are many blogs out there. But it is not appropriate for here. 76.221.134.99 (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the US intelligence community assessment is a significant enough facet of the topic to warrant a mention in the lead
Agreed. This is a scientific topic, and scholarly sources amongst foreign policy, biosecurity, and virology set the tone for how we discuss this. Not the United States intelligence community. Again, we are not the United States Encyclopedia. We are an english-language encyclopedia for all english language users. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Intelligence agencies have more specialized expertise in investigating if something in general happened, specially if it happened in a country that is not famous for its transparency. Health and related organizations rely on governments to provide them with info and access to places or people who they want to investigate. Therefore what they can investigate in China is very limited to the desires of China.

Intelligence agencies on the other hand specialize in conducting surreptitious investigations. Besides, they also have their experts in the topic at hand, namely, virologists, biologists, geneticists, etc. and they do work and consult with other government agencies, including health agencies. It is something expected.

Regarding your comment about United States Encyclopedia, it seems contradictory because throughout the page you can find info regarding diverse US agencies, institutions and news and a section regarding US Government oversight. Thinker78 (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like an argument you should make at WP:SOURCETYPES or WP:RSN. So far, that is not the source we use on Wikipedia for determining consensus. We do discuss the intelligence community's opinions in the body of the article, appropriately imo. Also worth saying: the intelligence communities (both within the US and across the world) are split on this issue. So no consensus exists there. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

And we indeed discuss the intel assessments in the body. But the question is about the lead section only, where we feel that a minority of US intel agencies have a low to moderate confidence isn't notable enough for the top-level summary. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Name of this subsection is "Drafts of mentions in the lead and body". My comment pertains about inclusion of US government assessment in general in the body. I tried doing it but was reverted. Thinker78 (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Not strictly a scientific topic. It is also an investigation. Hence the intel community is relevant. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Other comments

The energy department’s updated findings run counter to reports by four other US intelligence agencies that concluded the epidemic started as the result of natural transmission from an infected animal. Two agencies remain undecided.

The Guardian, London, 26 February 2023

Now that the US government’s formal position on the most likely source of the SARS CoV2 virus is the lab in Wuhan, this page should be edited to remove pejorative connotations, and specific words such as “misconception“, “conspiracy”, “ racist undercurrents”etc. While xenophobic use of a fact or hypothesis might expose racist intent, the fact or hypothesis isn’t a result but a tool used inappropriately. This article implies that racism was a basis for the hypothesis. That was never the case and is an inappropriate characterization.

“allegations that they also performed undisclosed risky work on such viruses is central to some versions of the idea.” Should be changed to “NIH disclosure that it funded research that was not fully vetted or comprehensively tracked, is central to the idea.”

What was once called a fringe theory, attributed to so-called conservative agents, has become orthodoxy. This article should be edited to reflect more objective tone and content.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a WikiRijder (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Now that the US government’s formal position on the most likely source of the SARS CoV2 virus is the lab in Wuhan
That is not correct. One agency of eight changed from "uncertain" to "low certainty" in favor of a lab leak. The remaining seven have not changed their positions. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I pointed out is not true. Only two agencies (DOE and FBI) claim that the lab leak theory may be valid, at least 4 others have other theories but not associated with the lab leak. Masem (t) 21:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The current sourcing supports saying the lab leak hypothesis has support among some scientists, with no insinuation that they are conspiracy nuts, racists, or playing politics with China. Zoonosis can be most likely without making other hypotheses invalid. Sennalen (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

They all say the theory may be valid, the difference is that DOE and FBI are claiming it to be the most likely of the valid theories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian has reported on it at this link:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/26/covid-virus-likely-laboratory-leak-us-energy-department

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• We should not rush to include this. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. The DOE are physicists, not doctors or biologists or virologists or pathologists. We should not put UNDUE weight on the DOE report given it contradicts the CDC, NIH, WHO etc. Andre🚐 16:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  The DOE are physicists, not doctors or biologists or virologists or pathologists.

  Many thanks for bringing up this common misunderstanding! It looks like someone ought to go ahead and clear this up, in the article itself. Maybe you could paraphrase the relevant passage from Gordon and Strobel's piece?

  "The Energy Department ... oversees a network of U.S. national laboratories, some of which conduct advanced biological research."

  -Dervorguilla (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but they by and large do not conduct much high level biosafety work. They do not, for example, manage any BSL4 labs: [1] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's a really weak argument. There are extremely powerful angles of inquiry on the topic that don't require a wet lab, let alone a BSL4 one. A lot of genomics is done via computer, for example. Yes the progeny of the Manhattan Project employs lightweight scientists and they are the real peanut gallery, while us randos on a Wikipedia talk page with possibly no credentials (on the internet, nobody knows you are a dog), have the authority to denigrate their stance as "fringe". Give me a break. 2600:1012:B010:8D7D:9004:ED57:936E:67D2 (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Truly a laughable statement.

  "Even at low confidence, however, the Energy Department’s analysis carries weight. For its assessment, the department drew on the expertise of a team assembled from the U.S. national laboratory complex, which employs tens of thousands of scientists representing many technical specialties, from physics and data analysis to genomics and molecular biology."

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/02/27/little-known-scientific-team-behind-new-assessment-covid-19-origins/ 2601:602:8200:4A10:B47C:AFAC:A6E5:95CE (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is mainly big news because the WSJ gave it such prominent coverage. They have been pushing the lab leak theory for quite a while. The item seems to be a small part of a much larger update, but Haines including it is consistent with her assertion she would not let politics dictate what is in her reports. It does make one curious what the new intelligence was, but other reports suggest it is of limited importance, and the other agencies do not appear to have given it much weight. --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's just a topic that gets people clicking, and with so little to be certain of every little morsel of something new gets a ton of press. I don't think it's something that should lead to a major rewrite apart from what comes from looking at the text again as we make the initial updates. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

We cannot use a fringe (and potentially racist) organization like the DOE, ESPECIALLY when the claims are made in a FRINGE source like the WSJ. Use academics and you wont be steered in a wrong direction! There are many blogs where you can read about wild theories. Wikipedia is for sources that are reliable and claims hat are mainstream, not FRINGE. 76.221.134.99 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you correlate racism with the DOE and say it is fringe. It is a US government agency under a Democrat president, not Trump. What's the context of your claims? Thinker78 (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The DOE is not an organization tasked with oversight of scientific rsearch, public health, or defense. They deal with environmental issues and policy related to energy. Furthermore, the Department of Energy has historically had strong ties with the GOP, the oil lobby, and the fossil fuel industry, and as a consequence, they have often been very biased in their interpretation of data and unscientific in their methods, especially with respect to climate change and renewable energy, but also regarding many other scientific issues and topics as well. It follows that we should probably be really suspicious about any scientific claims made by the DOE, especially on something like COVID that is completely outside of their area of expertise. When it comes to public health and national security, these are issues of immense significance and we absolutely need to trust the experts and rely on the best and most accurate advice and insights from scientists and government officials, not politically motivated and ideologically captured institutions like the GOP or the DOE. If it was the NIH or FDA or DOD or NSA making these sorts of claims, that would be one thing, but I would not rely on the judgement of the DOE when it comes to COVID or any other scientific or public health issues. 2601:198:4100:17E0:C4EE:2458:216E:40F5 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not ideological. It reflects what reliable sources state. I guess what is reliable and what is not can be object to some debate. If you think the information is not reliable (and not just because of your ideology) but because it doesn't conform with WP:NPOV or WP:RS, then you are welcome to start a thread to discuss it (this one is getting unwieldy). Or you can take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The DOE engages in racist pseudoscience. It is a FRINGE organization and must be treated accordingly. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:151E:3EF:7347:3568 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This page is now objectively false as the government is now agreeing that it was a leak from the Wuhan lab and not "zooinosis" 2600:1008:B0A8:B0D2:351E:2074:9B7D:A1DC (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sigh, no that is not what happened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Off-Topic

As userHorseEyesBack explained, the DOE is regarded as a "fringe" organization. This means they promote pseudoscience (racism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories). More importantly the WSJ is a FRINGE source. This means they publish conspiracy theories on subjects like genetics, and COIVD. They are fine if you want to report on a stock price - they are unacceptable for wild conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00B:CD0F:2DBA:494:32EB:E212 (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC) The Department of Energy is Fringe, number of barrels of west Texas crude for 2007 must be unreliable. I am off to delete the history of the Manhattan project and atomic bomb as pseudoscience, Richard Rhodes was just an Astroturfer ..... I think the woke reactor has reached critical mass. 2601:248:C000:3F:59ED:92F5:DB24:DFA (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"No Consensus" among government agencies https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-house-no-definitive-conclusion-us-government-covid-origin-2023-02-27/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/02/27/white-house-biden-covid-originis-china-no-consensus/11358519002/ 2600:8804:6600:45:C0E0:1322:4B9C:2850 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

+ coverage in CNN: "While scientists still predominantly believe the virus occurred naturally in animals and spread to humans in an outbreak at a market in Wuhan, China, the US Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence is now the second tentacle of the US government intelligence apparatus, along with the FBI, that endorses the “lab leak theory” – the minority view that the virus occurred as a result of work in a Chinese lab." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources

DoE statement (again)

This page is now objectively false as the government is now agreeing that it was a leak from the Wuhan lab and not "zooinosis" 2600:1008:B0A8:B0D2:351E:2074:9B7D:A1DC (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sigh, no that is not what happened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

As userHorseEyesBack explained, the DOE is regarded as a "fringe" organization. This means they promote pseudoscience (racism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories). More importantly the WSJ is a FRINGE source. This means they publish conspiracy theories on subjects like genetics, and COIVD. They are fine if you want to report on a stock price - they are unacceptable for wild conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00B:CD0F:2DBA:494:32EB:E212 (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Government agencies and huge newspapers are not fringe. But they do sometimes have pro-fringe takes. Good thing we have good quality academic sources to lead us in the right direction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what sort of game you're playing but I didn't say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The DOE is not a "fringe" organization. Do you have any official sources drs diving it as such? This just seems like a very poorly veiled personal opinion. 207.38.151.43 (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Why was this section removed?

Curious as to why this edit [2] was reverted, especially now that the FBI director reported today that the "Covid 19 pandemic was likely caused by a Chinese lab leak" 2600:1012:B0CE:DC85:A576:965A:37A9:1E0E (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I have the same question. Thinker78 (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This is still a developing story, and one that has been very politicized. The nature of these claims has been highly contentious, and pretty much all of the available evidence still points in favor of the wetmarket hypothesis and against the lab leak. One or two reports by government officials cannot just overturn 3 years of actual scientific research overnight. That's not how the scientific method works. Before making any serious revisions or major changes to the content of the article, we should probably wait until there is more reliable data and hard evidence to support these sorts of claims. Until then, the null hypothesis remains that COVID originated in a wet market, as the overwhelming majority of scientists and experts still agree. Of course, that will not satisfy the conspiracy theorists, but Wikipedia relies on neutral scholarly sources, scientific consensus, and experts, not original research or the personal opinions of US government officials. 2601:198:4100:17E0:C852:1E16:CCC1:F3DA (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Except that the information I included was simply about the conclusions so far of US government agencies, using reliable sources. You should read my complete reverted edit before jumping to erroneous and ideological narratives. Thinker78 (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you read their comment? That's not at all what they were referring to. Regards, 207.38.151.43 (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a question of whether moving (or duplicating) this content this much higher from its current area of the article is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Both in prominence and quantity of text. That said, I do think moving the text from its current location in a sub-heading of the Accidental release of a genetically modified virus section to a dedicated intelligence report section might make more sense. Perhaps clean up the Lab leak theories top-level category to just describe the competing ideas, and make a new top level category after it for the WHO reports, US intelligence community assessments, and the rest of the "government oversight" section. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The issues are:

1. duplicating the content multiple times on the page unnecessarily.
2. The wording you used is not as close to NPOV as the wording we currently have elsewhere in the article
3. We need to make sure this is either in a section on its own, or only making clear when we're talking about bioengineering and when we're talking about the accidental lab leak theory.

The intelligence report was about all the various theories, and dismissed the bioweapon and bionengineering ideas as completely without merit. We need to mention that, and thus it would not be proper to put it under the accidental bioengineered lab leak heading. We cannot make it seem as though the CIA, FBI, etc were endorsing the possibility of genetic modification, as that has been dismissed by the very same report. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any way "Developments in 2022" can be deprecated and merged with "Coverage in 2022"? Perhaps a new section on "Government and Scientist Analysis" 2600:8804:6600:45:B510:9995:E387:8878 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

'...in February 2023 suggested that COVID was likely a lab leak...'

'Suggest' that this be changed to 'in February 2023 stated that COVID was likely a lab leak'. They weren't putting forward a proposition for consideration, but stating a position. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:50D3:D065:49D9:2965 (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

FBI also now say it was 'likely' a lab leak.[3] Pakbelang (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

As already mentioned. Bon courage (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The recent WP article was the first official confirmation from the FBI on their position. Therefore this item is due in the 2023 updates section. It is also worth adding the WP article to the citations. Pakbelang (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think an "official" confirmation is notable since we already have the FBI's position in the article. Seems like semantics to me. We can add the WaPo article to the citations for the existing text, though. I'll do it right now, that seems pretty uncontroversial — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Shibbolethink that the change is largely semantic and we don't need to radically alter what we have unless there is new coverage. Disagree with IP below that it was the FBI director speaking in his personal capacity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The FBI did not say it was likely a lab leak. That is a complete misrepresentation of facts. The FBI director, speaking on his own behalf, voiced his own personal opinions on the matter, but he did not provide any evidence to support those claims and those claims were not made on behalf of the agency. This was not some sort of official statement issued by the FBI, as the Lab Leak conspiracy theorists like yourself would like to think. 2601:198:4100:17E0:C852:1E16:CCC1:F3DA (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

In what way does the lab leak hypothesis qualify as a conspiracy theory? It doesn't require conspiratorial behaviour between shadowy actors. The most it requires is a simple denial.

When the FBI Director states that 'The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident' it moves beyond personal opinion, unless he is misrepresenting his own agency. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:50D3:D065:49D9:2965 (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the statement was reported by reliable sources as an FBI position, not the opinion of the director voiced in his personal capacity. Pakbelang (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be a reiteration of their previous official position, or am I missing something? Bakkster Man (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 DOE mention

Why no mention of the calculus of the Department of Energy's reassessment (no opinion to low confidence in lab leak)? Why just a vague reference to their updated stance? The DOE runs advanced biological labs and the FBI has expertise in biological forensics, and these two agencies' assessments, while not necessarily conclusive, matter, even if opposed to the prevailing "scientific consensus" (which is only based on data that is public, most of which was released by a notoriously coy Chinese government). The DOE siding with the FBI is a big deal, as they are agencies actually equipped to investigate the issue (i.e. doesn't the NSA only employ math geeks?) 174.193.207.28 (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I would actually agree only insofar as we should directly mention the "moderate confidence" of the FBI, the "low confidence" of the DoE, and the "low confidence" of the other four agencies who support zoonosis. I think the confidence levels are clearly DUE since most news sources mention them quite explicitly. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

DoE statement (again again) and less emphasis on Trump

I can't believe the lead of this article is still going on about Trump and conspiracy theories, without mention that the Hunter Biden laptop...whoops!...wrong article sorry....without mention that two US agencies--the FBI and the Department of Energy--have stated they believe the virus likely leaked by accident from a Chinese laboratory (and the FBIs wasn't "low confidence"). When readers read this stuff, and don't see what every newspaper in the world has published in the last two days right up there in the lead, it makes the article seem...what's the word I'm looking for? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Its in the article, but in the body (twice).

As discussed above, this and the overall intelligence community piece was deemed WP:UNDUE for the lead since its literally ONE agency changing its opinion from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of the leak. Among EIGHT agencies tasked with the question. None of the information provided in that report has apparently caused anyone else to change their minds. Since wikipedia is written based on what scientists and scholars think, this is not altogether too surprising.

Per WP:LEAD, its already way too long. There's no need to clutter it further with non-expert opinions. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Expecting to see what every newspaper in the world has published in the last two days right up there in the lead sounds quite contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. You wouldn't happen to be righting great wrongs, would you? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS isn't applicable in this instance. Read the policy. And with two US agencies suspecting the virus was caused by a leak, it kinda makes the "conspiracy theory" narrative--featured so prominently in the lead--look a bit goofy. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

NOTNEWS is absolutely applicable to your stated rationale of 'the last two days of news coverage' for being in the lead. If you have a different rationale, then seek consensus. I suspect you're going to have an uphill battle convincing others by ignoring the ongoing discussion above and invoking the Hunter Biden laptop... Bakkster Man (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Magnolia677 has a point, NOTNEWS doesn't mean what you think it does. 'the last two days of news coverage' doesn't fall under any of the four point at NOTNEWS, it actually falls under the explicitly allowed use at the beginning "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." This misconception is immensely common, I'd say 40% of the people invoking NOTNEWS are using it to mean "don't use contemporary news coverage" which is not at all what it means. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing against citing up-to-date news coverage. To the contrary, I support its inclusion here, in the body of the article. I was specifically referring to the idea that readers would expect to find this information in the lead section because of the current coverage, which would indeed be the kind of editing NOTNEWS is meant to prevent. I don't think this is consistent with point 2 of NOTNEWS, specifically the focus on enduring notability and breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.

Maybe Magnolia677 did intend to make an argument on DUE weight grounds that this is an important enough element of the topic as to deserve a place in a lead near the recommended length limits, but without a suggestion of what information to replace to avoid bloat I still wouldn't be in favor. When paired with 'Hunter Biden laptop' rhetoric, it's hard to take it seriously on the whole. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Right. The issue is UNDUE prominence. This is a recent development, which may or may not fade into obscurity in a week or a month. We should definitely cover it as it has wide coverage. But putting it in the lead will inevitably result in the LEAD ballooning any time something happens in the news, even if we can't remember half of those things. We are not a running newspaper tally. We are an encyclopedia of significant events. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If the issue is due weight thats a very different question and a very valid one. Tow thoughts on that: 1. the lead does need a rewrite 2. that being said if I were rewriting the lead I'm not sure I'd include the DOE assessment in it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could include "Donald Trump" and "conspiracy theory" in the same lead paragraph, and not mention the inconvenient truth that two US agencies now think it originated in Wuhan. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought the debate here was lab leak vs zoonosis not the geographic location. Apologies, I must have missed something. I agree that we probably don't need to namecheck Donald Trump in the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I could agree with that. The notable summary is that the topic became politically polarized, not necessarily that Trump was among those polarizing figures. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed edit made: [4] Bakkster Man (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Should we attribute the WSJ Feb 2023 report?

@Firefangledfeathers: The WSJ needs to be identified because the anonymous sources gave the information to that newspaper, and the other reports include that fact, probably because none verified it. Robert.Allen (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Other sources are independently confirming the DOE report, e.g. CBS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That's good to know. We could opt for passive voice and cite CBS as well. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit of a dilemma. Having now seen your edit summary on the timing issue, I think the status quo is fine. I might slightly prefer cutting some of the detail, but what's a few words in an article like this? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Congressional hearing on the DOE report on Wednesday so don't workshop any language too hard yet Sennalen (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Anything come from this yesterday? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It was a farce. Republicans fished for a soundbite about Dr. Fauci and Democrats cross-examined about whether the witnesses were racist. Almost self-parody. Sennalen (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the least bit shocked, unfortunately. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Should we emphasize the DoE and FBI more in the lead?

I attempted to add information to the lead, which currently pushes the view that the virus initially spread in the Huanan Seafood Market and mentions numerous sources that back this idea, yet it says almost nothing about the lab-leak theory proponents. It mentions the WHO report which was formulated without any access to proper Chinese records and heavily presured into using the "extremely unlikely" wording by the Chinese government, with even many of those involved later stating that this wording was not accurate. "But China appointed half the scientists who wrote the report and exerted major control over it. American officials have been largely dismissive of that work." [5] and additionally "However, the WHO investigation was deeply criticised and its director-general has since called for a new inquiry, saying: 'All hypotheses remain open and require further study.'"[6] or even "But that report was subsequently criticized by the U.S., Canada, members of the scientific community and other governments due to the lack of access granted to the investigators." [7] My point is not that the WHO investigation does not belong in the lead, but that it was extremely flawed and other viewpoints must be mentioned as well. Hence I added sourced content from the WSJ [8] and the NYT article I previously just linked, which were removed as "fringe editorial" even though they are both normal news content. The Department of Energy National Laboratories employ hundreds of biological experts who engaged in Covid-19 research, in addition to the FBI's own biologists and those of the National Bioforensic Analysis Center, who have analyzed numerous different pathogens over the years. To pretend as if these are not reliable sources is pure POV pushing when any reports produced by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or other parts of the DoE are highly trusted, and preventing their conclusions from being in the lead of the article violates NPOV. Bill Williams 14:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:LEDEBOMB. Spooks aren't reliable for science, generally speaking. The WSJ even less so. Bon courage (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is the revert you're referring to, is that correct? I can't verify the sources right now, but do they say the DOE report is according to scientists, versus according to intelligence analysts?

My biggest concern with your edit is MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE, Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, applying to both the distinction between DoE intelligence/scientists and the complete lack of the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center in the body. I would also agree that there are some potential MOS:LEADREL and associated WP:UNDUE weight questions about whether these three US intelligence assessments are significant enough for the lead section or not, once they're in the body. All of these concerns should be addressed on an article as contentious as this one. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, one of the most major things about this is that this is not the "United States Encyclopedia." It is the English language Encyclopedia. Overemphasis of the US perspective is not tolerated around here. And the US is not the only intelligence community around. Giving it UNDUE prominence would violate NPOV and especially WP:RSUW. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it's merely a US bias in this case. I'm concerned it might be an inaccurate summary of the DOE position, and an imbalance of elevating minority views to be the only ones mentioned by name (particularly in the case of the US intel community, where we name the two assessments in favor, but not the four against). If we go into this level of depth in the body, for instance, we should consider adding more depth to the other agency findings in the event that (for instance) readers consider the domestically focused FBI assessment to be less reliable than that of internationally focused agencies. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you re: emphasis on the minority positions. We could, for example, mention that the Defense Intelligence Agency and National Intelligence Council are on the "low confidence in favor of zoonosis" side of things. But I have actually struggled to find a good RS that names the other agencies (NIC, for example, is not one of the four assets but actually an additional "fifth" thing) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this over-long article is already well into transgressing WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Articles are meant to be a summary of accepted knowledge. Pity the poor new reader who has to trudge through all this to find (executive summary) there's no there there. Bon courage (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested edit

I'm requesting that the following be added to the article. I know that this is just an opinion column, but the writer is a regular reporter for the Washington Post, and this piece actually reads more like a news column than an opinion column. I think it's reliable. I will understand if people object based on it being listed as an opinion. I do think it at least deserves consideration and discussion. I'd like to hear what others think. Thank you.

On April 14, 2020, in an opinion column for the Washington Post, Josh Rogin said that two years before the outbreak started, U.S. officials had visited the Wuhan lab that had been studying coronavirus, and that they had said that lab workers were not following proper safety procedures. Rogin wrote that a letter from these U.S. observers, "warns that the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic."

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC) SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources

WP:UNDUE for this article and likely not DUE at any of the other related articles given that this person is not an expert and thus WP:RSOPINION probably doesn't apply. "Anonymous unnamed sources" typically don't count for much on Wikipedia. I believe we already mention this with more reliable sources at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The opinion belongs to U.S. state department workers who visited WIV. That seems extremely DUE to me. Sennalen (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree. "Officials from the embassy’s environment, science and health sections" would not have been sent to the lab if they didn't have any expertise in lab safety. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

We've actually had several discussions about this in the talk archives, see: 1, 2. The consensus at that time in those discussions was not in favor of it being WP:DUE. It bears mentioning that the two US state dept officials actually wanted to increase funding to the WIV. and increase US support of their virus sampling programs. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

OK. I guess that's why opinion is treated differently than news. And thanks for all of the other things that you said. I'll go with the consensus, which is against adding the content. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A second academic source whose authors are all subject to CCP control

We use this article[9] as a source. Every single author lists an affiliation that indicates they are under the physical control of Xi Jinping and the CCP. In particular, they can be "held accountable" if they publish the wrong thing. The article's position is that Covid is natural, which is also the CCP's position. Effectively, we are rejecting LL because that is the CCP position. That's not a valid reason. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The source is not used, unless my browser's search function is broken. Bon courage (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong talk page. I'll start a discussion on the correct one. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Use of academic source whose authors are all subject to CCP control

Notwithstanding their publication in Nature, I don't think we should treat this article [10] or its addendum [11] as WP:RS for the statements therein. There are two problems. The first is that every single author listed an affiliation that is under control of the Chinese Communist Party. The AP[12] describes an order from Xi Jinping as follows:

The order said communication and publication of research had to be orchestrated like “a game of chess” under instructions from Xi, and propaganda and public opinion teams were to “guide publication.” It went on to warn that those who publish without permission, “causing serious adverse social impact, shall be held accountable.”

This is a conflict of interest for the authors. If they don't follow Xi's order, they may be "held accountable". The AP article dates various CCP orders relating to control of publication to February and March of 2020. The Nature article was published on 3 February 2020, and the addendum was published in November 2020. Yet (this is the second problem) the addendum does not contain any conflict statement noting that the authors were operating under the guidance of propaganda and public opinion teams, or that they might be "held accountable" for publishing the wrong thing. It is therefore unreliable. This unreliability should also extend to the original paper. At this time, the CCP had already lied repeatedly about the virus, for example when they said there was "No clear evidence of human-to-human transmission"[13]. Although we lack the later smoking gun, this shows that at that time, the CCP already had a record of lying about the virus. And at that time, the authors were already under the control of the CCP.

A related RfC was closed as "overbroad" and "inconclusive".[14] I assume this will end up on RSN, but it could be useful to discuss here first. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Here are the statements in the article currently cited to the paper and addendum:

Later, Shi's group published a paper about a virus named RaTG13 in Nature in February 2020.[106] Via sequence comparisons, it became clear that RaBtCoV/4991 and RaTG13 were likely the same virus. Shi has said that the renaming was done to reflect the origin location and year of the virus...Nature later published an addendum to the 2020 RaTG13 paper addressing any possible link to the mine, in which Shi says that the virus was collected there, but that it was very likely not the cause of the miners' illnesses. Laboratory tests conducted on the workers' serum were negative, and "no antibodies to a SARS-like coronavirus had been found

It appears every single part of this is either patently obvious, or attributed. Why would the Xi Jinping order (created after this paper) have any impact on the reliability of these statements? We are, truly, only describing that statements were made by these groups. Which the papers directly verify. We take nothing about them as fact in wiki-voice (or where we do, other sources also verify that content). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This part for starters: Laboratory tests conducted on the workers' serum were negative, and "no antibodies to a SARS-like coronavirus had been found Adoring nanny (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I tend to keep the same opinion as then, that it leans towards WP:RGW to second guess an otherwise high quality journal's peer review solely because of the author's nationality. It would need a specific reason to doubt this specific publication and/or for this specific citation, or an incredibly broad sweeping deprecation of every journal article with Chinese authors. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

All the sources in this topic (even the peer-reviewed ones) have potential political biases. As always, that's not ground to exclude but to attribute. Sennalen (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Unwarranted Exclusion of Intermediate Lineage A-B SARS-CoV-2 Genomes Is Inconsistent with the Two-Spillover Hypothesis of the Origin of COVID-19

Steven Massey et al. "Unwarranted Exclusion of Intermediate Lineage A-B SARS-CoV-2 Genomes Is Inconsistent with the Two-Spillover Hypothesis of the Origin of COVID-19" https://www.mdpi.com/2036-7481/14/1/33

About one of the two "siren has sounded" papers: Multiple errors, biases, and inconsistencies were observed in the exclusion process. For example, 12 intermediate genomes from one study were excluded; however, 54 other genomes from the same study were included, indicating selection bias. Puzzlingly, two intermediate genomes from Beijing were discarded despite an average sequencing depth of 2175X; however, four genomes from the same sequencing study were included in the analysis. Lastly, we discuss 14 additional possible intermediate genomes not discussed by Pekar et al. and note that genome sequence filtration is inappropriate when considering the presence or absence of a specific SNV pair in an outbreak. Consequently, we find that the exclusion of many of the intermediate genomes is unfounded, leaving the conclusion of two natural zoonoses unsupported. Sennalen (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

MDPI. "Person X", lovely, just what's needed. fiveby(zero) 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

MDPI journals are typically not considered very reliable on Wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources with documented WP:INACCURACY should be de-weighted, even if the criticisms aren't repeated in the article. Sennalen (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)