This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

COVID-19 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Viruses Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Molecular Biology: Genetics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Evolutionary biology Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Microbiology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

According to this discussion topic, this article will eventually be merged with Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 should be merged into this one. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it going to be a good idea to keep info from the CIA pre-Trump presidency from info that is during-Trump presidency? We know that he politicizes all agencies, so this type of thing corrupts the information we will be adding. We should avoid including content that says such a thing, unless RS say so, but we could make section headers that use dates to indicate when, and this "when" is important. Any ideas? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe attributing beyond the CIA is necessary. But the recent edit makes it sound like they claimed without a doubt that it was more likely. The intelligence was “low confidence” - in other words, they have not only no good evidence but that which they do have is “deficient” or “contradictory”. This article needs to be watched closely for people pushing the “the CIA said it was more likely” without the “low confidence, based on deficient/contradictory intelligence” being included. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The notable point about the CIA's position on SARS-CoV-2's origin is that even though their confidence in the lab leak explanation is low, their confidence in the zoonotic explanation is even lower. Nathaniel A. Peterson (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On this subject, though, the CIA is not a reliable source for anything outside of statements of CIA opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed that info as it was only added to the lead and was misleading. I definitely agree with @Valjean: that it will be important to ensure that the POV is neutral in how things are reported, because it is highly likely that Trump (like any president) will only release/declassify/"expose" information that he feels is useful to his POV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly that "news" was what triggered my concern and caused me to start this thread. Then it was added. So yes, we need to be careful. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting my addition referencing the Chinese lab leak and the new CIA assessment. I completely understand the policy to cover this up and not give it prominence in the intro so grateful for your correction. BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping this is just a language barrier issue, otherwise calling other editors removing your edit a "cover up" is a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the ultimate driving factor be strong third party sources WP:RS? In my opinion we should let the science speak for itself and keep politics out of the editing process. Bertie woo (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding about my heading above that ends with "Trump CIA", I am posting a link to this RS article about "Trump's Pentagon". This is a real thing. Trump is politicizing every single government agency, so we should begin to treat everything from the Trump government as something from him, not something from an independent government serving the people and "by the people and for the people". It is all serving him and can no longer be trusted as apolitical. We need to figure out how to deal with this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree, we can't just make that decision on our own here. This likely needs to be a broader discussion on WP:RSN or WP:V, because WP:LOCALCONSENSUS isn't going to cut it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! We may not need to deal with it before it makes the need evident by creating a problem, but we should be prepared for it as it certainly will happen. We know that history repeats itself around here. We're going to get RS stating official government actions and statements that are as deceptive as anything connected with Trump always is, and we will need to follow NPOV and label it accurately using some sort of neutral descriptor that signals to readers that there is a difference between pre-Trump HHS and Trump HHS, for example. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think an American intelligence agency has anything of value to say about a global pandemic regardless of which party holds the presidency. I'd say just remove any CIA commentary. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 24 § Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK until a consensus is reached. TarnishedPath^talk 12:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]