Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 207: Line 207:


== Requested move 28 February 2024 ==
== Requested move 28 February 2024 ==

{{requested move/dated|COVID-19 lab leak theories}}


[[:COVID-19 lab leak theory]] → {{no redirect|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 [[Special:Contributions/2600:8804:6600:4:EDAD:E408:E19:99EB|2600:8804:6600:4:EDAD:E408:E19:99EB]] ([[User talk:2600:8804:6600:4:EDAD:E408:E19:99EB|talk]]) 23:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
[[:COVID-19 lab leak theory]] → {{no redirect|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 [[Special:Contributions/2600:8804:6600:4:EDAD:E408:E19:99EB|2600:8804:6600:4:EDAD:E408:E19:99EB]] ([[User talk: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. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 23:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:35, 28 February 2024


Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
  8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

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

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

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

References


"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/)?

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

Surely crops up a lot in the sources eh. Wikipedia reflects that to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we change the article title back to COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:4:30ec:97d9:1b0c:3b60 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you use sources before or after the inflection point regarding the covid origin position? Because for a while researchers faced unscientific pressures to adopt a certain position, even under threat of losing their jobs, reputation, careers. On the other hand, more recently even the FBI has adopted a pro-leak criterion and the WHO has called for research also regarding the lab leak, something it would not do if it was a conspiracy theory. Although it looks you are basing your opinion in some outdated sources. For example, regarding February 20, you need to read the article Lancet letter (COVID-19), letter in which there was a worrying degree of undisclosed conflicts of interest. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all directly from the wikipedia article. They clearly state this is a conspiracy theory. 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is time to update the article instead. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[6] 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)[reply]
    Could you clarify if this is sarcasm? 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.[7] Again, this is not covered in good secondary sources yet, though I note Rootclaim itself has been aired[8] on this Talk page a few times as an argument 'for' LL. Bon courage (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Agreed. This article should not give the impression to give credence to conspiracy theories. RitterDerAnanas (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Bon noted that many sources consider this a conspiracy theory and that we should follow sources to be neutral. Thus, if we follow sources the article should be titled a conspiracy. 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to theories (plural) is a good idea.  Tewdar  09:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In point #3 listed above, the theory is clearly defined as a conspiracy: "Although the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not definitively known, arguments used in support of a laboratory leak are characteristic of conspiratorial thinking". 72.222.92.103 (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's subtly different though. Another source say LL would be better described as "accusations". Certain parts of LL are deffo conspiracy theories. Do we have to have this discussion so often? Bon courage (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Please read the previous discussions that I added as a hatnote below the heading. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "stating all lab leak theories are conspiracies in the text of the article": where? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Oppose and close per my comment above.  Tewdar  09:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 28 February 2024

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

Sorry. I'm boldly closing this. There's been too many RM requests lately and we are exhausted. Please wait a couple months. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1210917656"