Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

@Bon courage: please do not remove content backed by a reliable source. The source is a peer-reviewed scientific journal article in La Presse Médicale and the context I added is important for a holistic assessment of the situation as per WP:NPV. WIV was explicitly named in connotation with the mentioned GoF research as per the direct quote given. Do not start an edit war. rayukk | talk 17:41, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, @Rayukk. Your addition has been disputed, so please stop adding it back and wait for the others to respond here. Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

We already mentioned the accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

What is there to dispute? My contribution was reverted under the false pretense of "unreliable" which is ridiculous, since it is a peer-reviewed scientific journal including a direct quote. WP:BURDEN is therefore satisfied ("providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution"). rayukk | talk 17:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Well for one, it does not prove that there were no conspiracy theories, as such, its inclusion was undue where it was added. Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not WP:MEDRS, and the lede is meant to summarise the article, not introduce novel/fringe ideas. Bon courage (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:VNOT and WP:ONUS. Detail being in a reliable source does not guarantee inclusion, particularly if the material is considered WP:UNDUE by a number of edtiors. Obtain consensus for your edit and don't attempt re-inclussion unless you obtain it. TarnishedPath^talk 21:51, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Here's a template that editors might find useful to editors who need to figure out whether a source meets MEDRS standards.

Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):

• Source: Gain-of-function and origin of Covid19
• Date of publication: March 2023, 3 years ago.
• Journal name: La Presse Médicale
• Publisher's name: Y Elsevier is one of the largest publishers of academic journals. The source may be available via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.
• Journal reputation: WP:Impact factor of 3.4 recently. Middle quintile for its subject area. It is unclear to me whether this particular article was peer reviewed; the article history only gives the publication date, and for peer-reviewed sources, that website normally gives the submission date plus the acceptance date.
• Primary vs secondary: Needs evaluation
• Evidence level (see PubMed's list of types): History
• Pre-clinical vs human: Not applicable
• Independence: Y Independent sources are best.

The source is, in fact, available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library; the key sentence in the conclusion is: "The natural or accidental origin of SARS-CoV2 remains an unsolved conundrum". It seems to me that it would be improper to use such a source to support either pro- or anti-lab leak claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Do they publish non-peer-reviewed content? Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Most "peer-reviewed journals" carry some non-peer-reviewed content (often book reviews e.g.) Bon courage (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

But what is this article (assuming it was an article), if so, why was it not peer reviewed? Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not clear what its status is, but that's really moot as using a source which says "In Wuhan and elsewhere, researchers have practiced GoF on sarbecoviruses" and changing "sarbecoviruses" to "coronaviruses" for wikivoice is a misrepresentation. Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

So, wp:or is involved? Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

That's one way of thinking about it, probably the best way. Bon courage (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

There’s clearly no consensus for this at this time @Rayukk. Also for clarity, whether or not the lab was performing a certain kind of research is a question of historical fact, not MEDRs. So that analysis isn’t really needed here. Just10A (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not research is really "gain of function" is a biomedical consideration, and something around which there is a lot of confusion (and misinformation). Information about biomedical research is explicitly WP:BMI. In any event, we're not going be inserting unverified fictions into this article's lead. Bon courage (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

It’s not discussing whether a type of research qualifies as gain of function. It’s discussing whether a lab did gain of function or not, which is clearly general info under WP:BMI’s explict example language. This is a moot point, there’s no use arguing. Just10A (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:CLEARLY not. It's a classification that needs specialist expertise. And of course is an article of faith for lableakers. Bon courage (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Holy shit dude. You are wrong. It is a historical question. Stop talking to me. I do not care. Just10A (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The matter is already discussed in detail in the article body, where the GoF classification is (rightly) attributed to pro-LL folk, as disputed by others. So treating it is a straightforward historical fact would be to dumb-down what we already have. The only thing that could settle the classification dispute for Wikipedias's purposes would be a strong MEDRS considering the matter. Something isn't so just because Rand Paul says it. Bon courage (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Good for you. Still wrong. Still a historical question. Still moot. Move on. Just10A (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Bon courage is correct. Discussion about whether gain of function research occurred implicitly involves an assessment of whether said research is gain of function or not. TarnishedPath^talk 03:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Whether something historically occurred, you mean? Just10A (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

A historical occurrence is an occurrence? I hope we're speaking the same language here? Whatever way you want to state it, making a statement that gain of function research occurred is implicitly making a statement that the research was gain of function. TarnishedPath^talk 04:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

By that logic, the literal example of general info used by WP:BMI would end up being BMI, because stating “the pills” is implicitly making the statement that they are, in fact, medical-related pills, and stating “Dr Archibald Foster” is implicitly making the statement that Archibald Foster is, in fact, a medical doctor. Of course, none of that makes it BMI, because that would be absolutely ridiculous. These are clearly historical non-BMI questions and anyone arguing whether an event historically happening is a historical question is either blinded by dogma or severely pushing the limits of WP:CIR.Just10A (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

But if you wanted to say these 'pills' (this is in WP:MEDRS) were made using the results of research into gene-splicing techniques you'd need WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, "Hitler set up nice holiday camps for jews", that is historic, it's also fringe crap. If it was not GOF, it's not historical, it's a lie. Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

We need a WP:CRYHISTORY; it been a consistent feature right through COVID that this technique has been attempted as a means to WP:WL fringe payloads into the Project (starting with: COVID was rampant in California in 2019, But that's "history" so - checkmate! - I've sidestepped MEDRS!). The "question" of whether or not "GoF research" happened is a question of fact, but the answer to that question would need strong WP:MEDRS, especially since this is a talking point beloved by the misinformation merchants out there. 10:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC) Bon courage (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh no, this a wonderful idea! Write this article as history and deal with the rest in the Origins article. Of course in that case the paper in question would then be a very minor primary source. If you do write a CRYHISTORY you might point out that approaching things from a historical perspective might end up being less inclusive of the sources they are arguing for. fiveby(zero) 16:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Good to know it took that short amount of time for WP:GODWIN to be invoked.

Of course, we wouldn’t even need WP:FRINGE. That would actually be a MEDRs topic, because that statement implies that Hitler existed and qualified as a biological human, and what qualifies as a biological human is BMI. So obviously that’s a clear MEDRs issue, and it’d be silly to think otherwise. God someone please collapse the tangents. Just10A (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

This might be a useful source for this article:

• Butter, Michael; Knight, Peter (2023-01-27). Covid Conspiracy Theories in Global Perspective (1 ed.). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003330769. ISBN 978-1-003-33076-9.

There's a chapter on the lab leak idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, I'll try and have a read when I have time. Cheers for that. TarnishedPath^talk 05:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes it's one of the WP:BESTSOURCES, and already cited 8 times. Bon courage (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thread retitled from Wikipedia's credibility is at stake. WP:TALKHEADPOV O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I recently watched the video of the sworn, Congressional testimony, from the CIA whistleblower, that the lab leak was covered up.

An article about that testimony is here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cia-whistleblower-testifies-fauci-s-cover-up-of-covid-lab-leak-origin-was-intentional/ar-AA236NCA

The Senators at that hearing, who sit in classified briefings, and also the CIA whistlebower, are all clearly working from the knowledge set that COVID was absolutely a lab leak -- the only question is to what degree did the government know and cover it up.

I'm sorry but having this article read as if a lab leak origin was some fringe conspiracy theory (as an assumed presupposition), at this point only damages Wikipedia's credibility.

Lasati (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC) Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

We go by what the bulk of RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying this page has to endorse the lab leak theory, but I do think given the recent Congressional testimony you are going to see a spike in page visits (which is why wikipedia exists). Frankly the way the way this page reads (esp. in tone) makes it appear to be pushing the very narrative that the CIA whistleblower is blowing the whistle on, sources included. I would like to suggest, given what will certainly be renewed interest in the topic, that a more balanced perspective be provided in the article, or the removal of non-neutral words, or some tag indicating the issue is a current event and not yet settled, etc. Cheers! Lasati (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. TarnishedPath^talk 11:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

We can mention his claim, as an attributed claim, but his testimony cannot be used to counterbalance MEDRS sources. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

We already have pretty much the same at COVID-19 lab leak theory#Government and intelligence agencies. This doesn't really add anything. If it was to go anywhere, it would be that section, but as I said this doesn't really add anything. TarnishedPath^talk 12:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)