Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Wuhan Institute of Virology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

This edit request to Wuhan Institute of Virology has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change “ During the COVID-19 pandemic, the laboratory has been the focus of conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation about the origin of the virus.”

To “ During the COVID-19 pandemic, the laboratory has been the focus of conspiracy theories and speculation about the origin of the virus.” 73.204.249.230 (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done: I see no evidence or WP:MEDRS-compliant sources presented to support that the phenomenon in question is anything but unfounded speculation; and WP:NPOV excludes us taking a pro-fringe position. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

A recent article from Shi (2021) states this: "Sadly, WIV was at the center of the misleading speculations regarding the origin of the virus, which were not fully clarified until a recent joint study was performed by an international expert team led by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Chinese experts." Perhaps we can use it as a source for the requested edit, with the appropiate wording. Forich (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a brand new journal so has no reputation, other than that deriving from the non-junk publisher. Looks like a Chinese opinion piece so usable, at most, probably as a source for what that opinion is. For the proposed use, it's probably okay with attribution. Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Okay for attributing the opinion of the author (especially at this article); not okay as a MEDRS (if the journal starts getting cited by other MEDRS, then we might reconsider per WP:USEBYOTHERS; but until such a time, it's a clear no...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Why unfounded speculations?

This isn't going anywhere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear administrators, the discussion on the potential involvement of Wuhan research centers in the onset of the current pandemic is currently recognized by both the WHO director general, Mr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, and the z-division of the US intelligence labs. There are also 5 scientific studies that have passed the obstinate filter of the Peer review which certify that there is a good chance that the pathogen was brought to man by human error (as a result of seamless genetic engineering or simply as a bridge between it and civilization). I do not think it makes more sense to maintain an image protection of the institute if this is currently a potential investigated. What do you think? Francesco espo (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you should bring some reliable sources here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

And before that, read archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 und 6 of this Talk page, each of which contains discussions about the lab leak idea. It is very probable that your 5 scientific studies that have passed the obstinate filter of the Peer review have already been discussed and rejected. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok I'll post all the sources, let me know if you consider them legit. Francesco espo (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

-Tedros declaration:

"Coronavirus: More work needed to rule out China lab leak theory says WHO - BBC News" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56581246.amp Francesco espo (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

-The 5 peer reviewed studies:

"On the Origin of SARS-CoV-2: Did Cell Culture Experiments Lead to Increased Virulence of the Progenitor Virus for Humans? - PubMed" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33910809/

"Lethal Pneumonia Cases in Mojiang Miners (2012) and the Mineshaft Could Provide Important Clues to the Origin of SARS-CoV-2 - PubMed" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33194988/

"Might SARS‐CoV‐2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/

"The genetic structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 does not rule out a laboratory origin - Segreto - 2021 - BioEssays - Wiley Online Library" https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000240

"Should we discount the laboratory origin of COVID-19? | SpringerLink" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-021-01211-0 Francesco espo (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The post on the intelligence unclassified files can't be posted here, i don't know why. You can find it on Google searching this phrase:

<<WASHINGTON (SBG) - A classified study of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 conducted a year ago by scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Department of Energy’s premier biodefense research institution, concluded the novel coronavirus at the heart of the current pandemic may have originated in a laboratory in China, Sinclair has learned.>> Francesco espo (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Those journal articles fall afoul of WP:MEDRS. The sourcing situation is handily summarized at WP:NOLABLEAK. Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand this complex bureaucracy structured to make Wikipedia a source of clean information as much as possible, but to validate the hypothesis and thus make it accept precisely what must happen? If hundreds of scientists and the WHO general director are not enough, who should intervene? Have you considered that most of the sources of information considered acceptable are in a full public conflict of interest in the matter and therefore may never accept the hypothesis even if it is scientifically valid? In this way probably we'll never see it on Wikipedia, leaving the general public unaware of this possibility that sooner or later will show its concreteness or its fallacy. Francesco espo (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with bureaucracy. The problem is that you do not understand how science works.

If hundreds of scientists and the WHO general director Science is not done by counting scientists with specific opinions, nor by adding extra points for high positions or high academic grades.

Instead, science is done by making studies and publishing them. The opinions of the scientists making the study do not matter. The opinion of the publisher does not matter. To the contrary, the study must be done in a way that ensures that the opinions of the scientists influence then result as little as possible. That is the very heart of science. The publisher lets other scientists check if that was done right.

After that, still other scientists summarize the results in secondary publications, again with methods that neutralize their own opinions as much as possible. Again, the publisher lets even more scientists check if that was done right. And the result of those secondary sources is what Wikipedia quotes.

WP:MEDRS will tell you that, if you actually read it. You should be able to tell for yourself that some "essay", for example, does not qualify as a MEDRS source, as an essay is just one person's thoughts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

To add on to everything else said by Hob Gadling (and Jimbo Wales), even if those studies met MEDRS (they do not) they would still be treated as fringe due to the overwhelming number of "mainstream" MEDRS that reflect the current consensus and are therefore more WP:DUE. JoelleJay (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

In short, even if a hypothesis is rationally valid, it cannot be published on Wikipedia if the highest levels of the scientific sector have not expressed themselves in favor, even considering that the latter probably have all possible interests not to make this hypothesis credible due to the repercussions on geopolitical tensions and due to the enormous international ties with the research of the laboratory in question. It is good that you do everything possible to make Wikipedia immune to foolish concepts, but I am sure that if you, extremely intelligent people, look at the material on the subject will realize that not pushing to spread this hypothesis takes us further and further away from the possibility of reaching an objective and impartial truth in the near future on the origin of the worst crisis of our times. I guess I can do nothing more to convince you, thanks for the time you have dedicated to me. Francesco espo (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You have it totally backwards. The lab leak idea is being promoted without evidence by figures such as Steve Bannon and Guo Wengui as a way to attack China, regardless of whether the idea has any legitimacy. Ultimately, what is said again and again in the sources is that scientists overwhelmingly view the virus as having a natural origin, and this article should reflect that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

If general relativity had been promulgated by some nice joker it would not have lost its validity. They are not the main promulgators, they are just the most (sadly) famous. Those who are making the debate valid are virologists, microbiologists, experts in genetics and bioinformatics. People who only have to lose in promulgating the theory for the current political situation and for the ghettoization of the hypothesis as a conspiracy theory. In any case, time to time. Perhaps in many decades, Wikipedia will be able to deal with the subject if something ever emerges. Francesco espo (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The New York Times

This story from The New York Times is very informative:

How Steve Bannon and a Chinese Billionaire Created a Right-Wing Coronavirus Media Sensation

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Do they deny a lab leak

One thing we seem to be missing is a statement from the Wuhan Institute of Virology that they do not know of a lab leak, and that their research into coronavirus had not previously isolated the COVID-19 strain. I'm not actually sure how to source that, can anyone help. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@力: There's the "paper" mentioned at Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#New_article_by_Zhi (authored by Zhi, therefore suitable as an about-self source); and there's also the report by the WHO (including the appendices) which go into some detail as to what the WIV scientists said. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is the direct response of WIV Director to the accusations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iIQJnEiBXY. Forich (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

We're better off not citing Chinese state media at all even for ABOUTSELF claims. See also WP:CGTN. If we want to include the explicit denial the best source might be the WHO report (which states in its appendices, [1], p. 132: "The rumours of a leak from the laboratory were refuted categorically by the laboratory director for the following reasons:"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Citing the WHO very often is the same as citing Chinese official sources, they regurgitate everything they receive from them on the grounds of some "balancing diplomatic act" nonsense I don't get. Let's agree to cite: i) textual words from WIV's director if it can be found in a different outlet than CGTN; ii) if the former is not available, then we cite the WHO citing the WIV. Forich (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not how most sources reacted to the WHO report (the reaction what was there was criticising the chinese for lack of transparency, not criticising the WHO for being a mouthpiece), but nevermind (see Lancet, April 2021). We can cite both the WHO report, and, if you insist, the opinion of Zhi (using the new journal Infectious Diseases & Immunity as a WP:ABOUTSELF piece). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Funding from the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

According to this source, research done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was funded by the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). How is it possible that the current version of this article doesn't include a single word about this U.S. funding of research at the WIV? Please correct this situation immediately if this article claims to be thorough and encyclopedic. This information has been covered in numerous journals and mainstream news sources for years now. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"In April 2020, the Trump administration terminated a NIH grant to research how coronaviruses spread from bats to humans." Links with US universities are also already mentioned, "The National Bio-safety Laboratory has strong ties to the Galveston National Laboratory in the University of Texas." The NIAID is a sub-organisation of the NIH, so that appears to be already included. But we don't need a WSJ piece which promotes a PROFRINGE author (Wade) who has no credibility (despite their claims about his "credentials") and dismisses scientists and other news outlets as "left-leaning" for that. I fail to find the claim about the NIAID in the freely-available text. There's this, but it does not mention the WIV directly. This is surely related to this, innit? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

One of the earlier papers lists National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Disease first in the Acknowledgements section, and lists Wuhan Institute of Virology in the Methods section, and two WiV researchers (including Zhengli-Li Shi) as authors. Could be a useful source PoangSitter (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 WHO investigation

More of the same disruptive nonsense by SPAs who are NOTHERE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is all horribly biased. Science has published a letter from many prominent scientists calling for an impartial investigation. Lab leak is not a crazy conspiracy theory, you need to address it honestly.

"confirming what experts already expected about the likely origins and early transmission." What did the WHO investigation confirm? I don't recall them confirming or discovering anything new about the origins of the virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8AA3:C300:4136:409E:FCBA:D1FC (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Their publication was pretty much in line with existing papers on the subject, such as the papers cited at COVID-19_pandemic#Background, many of them in prestigious journals such as Nature. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I second that. The treatment of the lab leak hypothesis as "conspiracy theory" in Wikipedia by self appointed conspiracy theory hunters with no background qualification in virology, let alone lab security techniques is simply preposterous. The scientific community is increasingly questioning the conclusions of the WHO investigation. It's a safe bet today that the official version won't last much longer, faced that it is with the accumulation of evidence. Place and strain of the breakout, genomic comparisons, blatant information cover up, emerging documents, support from top level scientists such as Ralph Baric, Marc Lipsitch and the Paris group. Thankfully, science is not made in Wikipedia. Rather, it's up to Wikipedia contributors to decide whether they follow the scientific community or instead elect to follow their lunacies. Eventually, they will have to get things right.

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.

Article needs updating

Old news. Already under discussion below... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A group of leading scientists, including Ravindra Gupta (Cambridge), David Relman (Stanford) and others recently penned a letter published in the prestigious Science magazine explaining that the "lab leak theory" cannot be discarded, and criticised the WHO report. This page feels one-sided and biased, the "lab leak theory" cannot be treated as a simple conspiracy anymore. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/origins-covid-19-need-be-investigated-further-leading-scientists-say-2021-05-14/ https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1

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.

U.S. concerns about safety problems at the Wuhan Institute of Virology

How is it possible that this information about concerns U.S. diplomatic personnel in China had about safety problems at the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to the Covid-19 pandemic is not even briefly mentioned in this article? That is simply ridiculous. Please fix this. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be part of the diplomatic spat between the US and China. It's an opinion piece in the WaPo, so not sure there's much that it can be used except for the attributed opinion of US diplomats. Is there any further coverage of these diplomatic cables - I see that article is from April last year...? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Nicholas Wade's article from May 2021 covers the diplomatic cables and concerns regarding the safety procedures at the WIV. He also goes into more detail about the safety concerns. Minor mention should be made of these safety concerns regarding the WIV. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Wade's article references Josh Rogin's opinion piece for the diplomatic cables. I haven't read all of Wade's article to speak about the other safety concerns.

The Politico article I posted earlier [2] is an excerpt from Josh Rogin's new book "This article is adapted from CHAOS UNDER HEAVEN." (at bottom of Politico article). So I guess for now there has been only one journalist reporting on the subject of diplomats' concerns about sloppy/poor safety at the lab, as we discussed earlier.

The "Wuhan lab theory" section of the Josh Rogin article covers this quite well, IMO.

I suggest a sentence in this article's "SARS-related coronaviruses" section like: "Washington Post reporter Josh Rogin detailed diplomatic cables from 2017 and 2018 in which US diplomats expressed concern that the lab had insufficient staffing and training to operate safely, and that the lab was doing risky coronavirus experiments." - sourced to the Politico article and his opinion piece. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

US diplomats expressed concern that the lab had insufficient staffing and training to operate safely, and that the lab was doing risky coronavirus experiments. The problem is that the diplomats did not say this - Rogin mischaracterized the contents of the US diplomatic cables. The diplomats did not express concern that the lab was operating unsafely or doing risky experiments. They said that the lab did not yet have enough trained staff to operate at full capacity, but that it was nevertheless producing important scientific results. This came out when the cables were released through a FOIA request (the cables were unavailable to the public when Rogin published his original opinion piece). A Xinhua reporter has done a pretty thorough analysis (not for Xinhua - on his own Substack) of the cables and Rogin's narrative about them: [3]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, see the edit summary here. If the reporting is inaccurate, then this cannot be included.

Not done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Lab Leak Again

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again --Guy Macon (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak hypothesis, and Graham and Baric (2020)

Graham and Baric say this about the lab leak hypothesis: Nevertheless, speculation about accidental laboratory escape will likely persist, given the large collections of bat virome samples stored in labs in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the facility’s proximity to the early outbreak, and the operating procedures at the facility (Zeng et al., 2016). Transparency and open scientific investigation will be essential to resolve this issue, noting that forensic evidence of natural escape is currently lacking, and other explanations remain reasonable. This contradicts the article's claim sourced to it, During the COVID-19 pandemic, the laboratory has been the focus of conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation about the origin of the virus. Graham and Baric use the word "speculation" but not as a pejorative. The article uses "unfounded speculation," which is a pejorative. The article also fails to explain why, according to Graham and Baric, this is an "issue" that needs to be "resolved" through "transparency". It just dismisses tt all as a "conspiracy theory" instead. This is not NPOV. Geogene (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

That's misleading WP:CHERRYPICKING, since you must have deliberately left out this, which comes right before the portion you are quoting:

Anderson cites these genetic and biological data as strong evidence against deliberate generation, and the arguments are compelling. It is noteworthy that many early COVID-19 cases had not visited the Huanan wet market, suggesting that either the index cases occurred earlier and were not identified or that these sites were not major sites of epidemic expansion. How, then, did the virus emerge? Anderson et al. cite multiple lines of strong evidence that argue, instead, in favor of various mechanisms of natural selection, either in an animal host before the virus was transmitted to humans or in humans after the zoonotic transmission event(s). These possibilities will be reviewed below. Nevertheless, speculation [...]

And a few sentences before: "In light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2, Andersen et al. theorize about the virus’ probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence (Andersen et al., 2020)." I.e., in other words, the existing evidence does not support any allegation of misconduct (deliberate engineering) or neglicence (accidental release). Also consistent with other studies, such as those mentioned at WP:NOLABLEAK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You're cherrypicking, because if the "existing evidence" were adequate, then further transparency would not have been needed. And this is the inherent problem in MEDRS sourcing: if journalists at the world's best newspapers can't be trusted to interpret technical/scientific literature correctly, then why should we believe that a bunch of anonymous Wikipedia editors could do better? Geogene (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's your own WP:SYNTH. Even if somehow you can twist this to not explicitly say what it does (you don't need a PhD in virology to figure out the meaning of that paper), you'd still need to find an equivalent source which actually argues for the lab leak. Calling for more investigation is not "arguing for the lab leak", in any case. Such a source does not exist, hence per WP:NPOV we report the lab leak correctly as a fringe theory (in more details in other articles) which has gained some notability in the popular press. That some media seem to have recently taken up a very shoddy piece of "intelligence report" (see this for something that broadly lines up with my previous criticism of this, here - in short, and I'm going to pick a quote from there, the recent WSJ piece "is garbage, and has more red flags than a Chinese National Day parade.") is entirely irrelevant for purposes of NPOV. We use the WP:BESTSOURCE for controversial claims, and we can leave the media to their field of expertise, which is reporting events, not science. You're also ignoring all of the other scientific papers (not cited directly here because WP:CITEBOMB isn't helpful) which say basically the same thing, i.e. "SARS-CoV-2 very likely has a zoonotic origin, like previous outbreaks, and there is no convincing evidence to the contrary, although it can't be definitively ruled out" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

SYNTH is what you're defending here. No, I'm not going to go have a look at WP:NOLABLEAK, because that's nothing but some WP editors' self-published blog. Geogene (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling for more investigation is not "arguing for the lab leak", in any case No, but it is inconsistent with "unfounded speculation" and "conspiracy theories". If it was unfounded then more investigation wouldn't be called for. Geogene (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

More investigation can also be about the many things which still aren't yet known, such as the intermediate host, the original animal reservoir (which took 14 years to find with SARS), ... Assuming it's about the lab leak is confirmation bias. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly clear what "this issue" is. Here is the quote again: Nevertheless, speculation about accidental laboratory escape will likely persist, given the large collections of bat virome samples stored in labs in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the facility’s proximity to the early outbreak, and the operating procedures at the facility (Zeng et al., 2016). Transparency and open scientific investigation will be essential to resolve this issue, noting that forensic evidence of natural escape is currently lacking, and other explanations remain reasonable. Geogene (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't go here, because going into enough details about calls for investigations would put UNDUE attention on that aspect here, since this is an article about the lab, not about geopolitical tensions that have been crudely heightened because of COVID. The relevant page is Investigations into the origins of COVID-19, which as you will see already has a significant paragraph on the thing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't it go here, considering that WIV is now a geopolitical point of contention between China and the United States? [4]. Geogene (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Because this article is about the lab, not the geopolitical contention about it. We must also make sure not to focus coverage of the lab on only one aspect (COVID-19) of its history. Already a significant portion of the page is spent on that. We can maybe add a sentence or two about investigations in Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#COVID-19_pandemic (I see not even the WHO report is mentioned), but going into a long parenthesis about calls for investigation and intelligence reports would be dubious at best, misleading at worst, and certainly UNDUE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

What you just described, compartmentalizing POV, is better known as a POV fork. The current geopolitical controversy is probably the most notable thing that has ever happened at this otherwise obscure lab, if so it should be the bulk of the article. Geogene (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

POVFORK is trying to have different content about the same issue in different articles. WP:SUMMARY is what I'm referring to. Each article should focus on its scope. The scope of this article is the Wuhan lab, not COVID-19 and theories thereto related. We mention these because the laboratory has gained tremendous attention (notability) because of COVID-19. We don't put excessive weight on it here, however, because there are other, more suitable articles where the issue can be explained to a more appropriate extent and with sufficient context on pages which deal with these theories and the investigations into the origins of COVID. In all cases, all sections on all articles must conform to WP:NPOV and accurately depict these calls as being in support of an hypothesis which falls under WP:FRINGE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

If the scope of this article is the lab itself, not COVID-19, why is it calling the lab leak theory a "conspiracy theory"? Putting aside the fact that several MSM sources and even Politifact have now retracted the "conspiracy" label, that's delving into current events of the virus.141.156.238.241 (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The WIV is a world class institute of virology, and not merely an "obscure lab". It's a shame that there are less sources that discuss the work of the institute separate from the pandemic. I think "unfounded" is POV, as other virus leaks have happened from laboratories in the past, sometimes with serious spread. I think "unsubstantiated" or "uncorroborated" are less POV alternatives. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The WIV is a world class institute of virology, and not merely an "obscure lab". Which didn't even have an article until January 26, 2020 [5]. The edits were an improvement. Geogene (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

"A small number of virologists"

Where is the source for "a small number of virologists have called for further investigation"? Have virologists been polled on that? Geogene (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Do we have reliable sources for more than the 18 who wrote the Science letter? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If you want the content added, then the onus is on you to provide the sources. Geogene (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Would you object to "...and a group of 18 virologists..."? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Only if those are known to be the only 18 virologists that believe an investigation is needed. Geogene (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Rather than me having to show that there are no other virologists calling for investigation, the onus is now on you to show that further language should be added. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Further language? You're the one that modify "virologists" with "a small number of". That's adding information to the article through greater specificity. You need sources for that information. Otherwise it's just an unsourced statement with political implications. Geogene (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I share RandomCanadian's view that the existing language obfuscates the limited number of "scientists with relative expertise" (thanks Darouet) that are noted in the sources. Since the present language is disputed I can either:

Remove the sentence entirely with the onus on you to build consensus for inclusion, or
Specify the number as a compromise to your objection to "small", until we find reliable sources that mention more scientists.

Which would you prefer? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Neither of these is acceptable, per WP:OP-ED, UNDUE, and OR. I would accept some....virologists as a compromise. Geogene (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See [6]. There are a grand total of zero credible papers I have found so far which describe the lab leak as anything but (at best) "possible but very unlikely and so far unsubstantiated" [I have found uncredible papers for all sorts of things, ex. [7], but that doesn't mean we must false-balance stuff]. Yes, there was one letter in Science calling for further investigations. Using this to equate the number of virologists and politicians is misrepresenting the sources, when most sources report that the issue is heavily politicised despite overwhelming scientific consensus. "A number of politicians and scientists" implies that both of these are equivalently divided, when that is not the case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There are a grand total of zero credible papers I have found so far which describe the lab leak as anything but (at best) "possible but very unlikely and so far unsubstantiated" That isn't the same thing as saying there is no need for an investigation. Geogene (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There already is a very large, international, and collaborative ongoing WHO investigation into the origins of the virus.

It is false to state that all 18 authors of this letter [8] in Science are "virologists:" you can verify this fact by looking up their bios, but in the letter they describe themselves as "scientists with relevant expertise." -Darouet (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification about "virologists". There being an investigation (more than one, really) does not contradict the quoted language from RandomCanadian. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers - thanks. I support the wording proposed by RandomCanadian. -Darouet (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I misinterpreted your view! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I support the version proposed by Darouet also. Both of the wordings make clear that politicians are more numerous than scientists on the controversy. Clarifying the political aspect could be a thing, but I see that's already been done by Osterluzei at the misinformation page, and it might be off-topic here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Posted at NORN

[9] Geogene (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Science Journal claims this is not a conspiracy

How about? Can we finally introduce this topic on Wikipedia without being accused of being conspiracy theorists? Is it enough to be wp:medrs? Can you accept the opinion of Ralph Baric and Marc Lipsitch or even they are conspiracy theorists?

"Investigate the origins of COVID-19 | Science" https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1 Francesco espo (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Science journal didn't claim anything, its a "letter" (akin to something like letters to the editor in a newspaper) by people who are already well known for pro-"lab leak" views. Nothing changes here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This is categorically false, almost none of the authors had publicly manifested their predisposition for a laboratory theory and if you read well they have not done so even now, they have simply illustrated how it is valid as much as the zoonosis hypothesis and should be considered and investigated. These researchers are at the top of virology and genetic engineering, if you don't approve their opinion you are blatantly trying to censor the debate. Francesco espo (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a letter to the editor, it's not due unless other sources attach significance to it. If you can find reliable sources that consider this letter a "big deal", then please link them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times covered the letter: [10]. I'm not sure why this article would be the one to discuss such a letter, though. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, given the NYTIMES coverage, it's probably due at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, but not here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

力, it's still just a letter - even less compelling than the Great Bullshit Declaration. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's a letter, and the theory of evolution is a theory. What we have is a continuing stream of scientists in the field of virology publishing in prestigious outlets that there is no conclusive proof of the origin of COVID infections in humans, and that we should investigate a lab leak as a potential cause. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A letter with 19 authors does not a concensus make. There must be thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of researchers who have published research regarding COVID-19, given that it has infected at least 160 million people. It's obvious that this is still contentious and Wikipedia needs to wait for the dust to settle. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a theory, an hypothesis, communicate it will not do any harm to anyone, could only push to have an international investigation to reach a consensus and define what was true and what was false. I repeat, this is the Gotha of Virology, if you don't take in consideration their words you are voluntarily waiting or hoping that this path will not be followed, maybe causing a damage to entire humanity: if this pandemic has been caused by an antropic error and we don't push together to investigate every scenario we could make this happen again. Please, think on it seriously, it's the right time to not commit the errors of the past. Francesco espo (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the authors and their known prior activities, the letter is off topic here. If it goes anywhere, it is in the investigations article. As for "this is not a conspiracy theory", I'll point to the material recently added elsewhere about Bannon and the American far-right (Qin, Amy; Wang, Vivian; Hakim, Danny (20 November 2020). "How Steve Bannon and a Chinese Billionaire Created a Right-Wing Coronavirus Media Sensation". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 April 2021.), and to stuff which you already know about, such as the pretty much unanimous consent of MEDRS (which, if they even mention it [see here], say that the theory has, at the very best, "no evidence"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

See also this (published by an anti-misinformation site run by Cornell University), which explicitly calls the lab leak a conspiracy; and the paper by Hakim et al. (who makes a valid point that "believers of conspiracy theories criticise sciences when scientific evidence argues against their beliefs", identifying this as a clear issue of ideology and not science, before describing that "we are now facing over‐critical communities which, unfortunately, are not very knowledgeable."). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

There are two related but separate bits of misinformation here. The first, which is implied by the phrase "lab leak", is that the virus accidentally leaked from the lab. The second, which was the original misinformation from the YouTube conspiracy theorist who started it all in January 2020, is that the virus is a genetically engineered bioweapon that was purposely released by the Chinese government. Both appear to be misinformation, but only the second starts with a conspiracy theory. The first is often combined with another conspiracy theory -- that the Chinese government and the WHO conspired to cover up the accident. Thus, any "not a conspiracy theory" claim must specifically be about the bioweapon or the coverup actually being true, because those are the conspiracy theories. Claims that the accidental leak is actually true don't count, because the lab leak theory is misinformation but not a conspiracy theory. And even if someone proves it was an accidental leak there would remain a bunch of people who continue to believe the bioweapon and/or coverup conspiracy theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The natural jump hypothesis has no direct evidence either. Neither theory has anything other than circumstantial evidence. Your persistent insistence on this page that only one of those two hypotheses is a conspiracy is a clear violation of WP:POV that doesn't represent current scientific consensus. Further, your insistence on doing so in wikipedia voice clearly violates WP:VOICE. A conspiracy isn't something that only has circumstantial evidence; it also has to be considered fringe by all mainstream scientific sources. That's not at all the case here as evidenced by the well-covered Nature letter, which noted that both “theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable.”

Also, your recent edit that the theory was "unfounded," in Wikipedia's voice, is a clear violation of WP:VOICE. Put it in a source's voice or don't say it. Marcus Aurelius 18:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

That was a legitimate summary of the content of sources listed here. "Therefore, although a laboratory accident can never be definitively excluded, there is currently no evidence to support it."; "Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory."; "Conspiracy theories about a possible accidental leak from either of these laboratories known to be experimenting with bats and bat CoVs that has shown some structural similarity to human SARS-CoV-2 has been suggested, but largely dismissed by most authorities.". That, in essence, boils down to "nothing to support this". Thanks to Hemiauchenia for finding the better word. A letter is a WP:PRIMARY piece for the opinion of its authors, and seeing that multiple of them have since put some qualifications to their remarks, it's certainly not enough to change anything. We follow what the WP:BESTSOURCES say, and given they unanimously support a zoonotic origin, then we state that as such, without giving WP:FALSEBALANCE to a theory that is clearly more political than scientific. If the academic sources judge the existing evidence is enough to strongly support a natural origin (as many do say explicitly), then we report that, not whatever might be the opinion of some editors. FWIW, it took a whole 14 years before there was definitive direct evidence for the origin of SARS ([11]). We're similarly in no rush here, despite the political implications (which we already report). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

"It changes nothing" is wrong. The editor of Science has given a nod to potential papers discussing a topic that was previously and tacitally taboo. This would probably result in journals better ranked than Bio Essays, to tackle the lab hypothesis Forich (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"The editor of Science has given a nod to potential papers discussing a topic that was previously and tacitally taboo"^{[citation needed]}... That is your interpretation of the source, not what it says. Your (or my) opinion doesn't count. Calling for "further investigations" (which is the main point of the letter) is not new nor particularly ground-breaking. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It also makes 0 reference to the WIV, meaning that it is no appropriate for this page anyway, the place to have this discussion is elsewhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is the source. H. Holden Thorp from Science says But while consensus is emerging, the human beings who work at Science have their own opinions. And for this inorganic chemist who has been writing about virology for a year, my opinion is that the zoonotic origin of COVID-19 is far more likely, but good science requires that the laboratory escape idea be rigorously investigated before being ruled out. China should allow for a dispassionate examination of the data and allow scientists to do what they are trained to do. I thank the Letter writers for their contribution and hope their words will be heeded.. He also said: In general, Science’s role is to provide a forum for these issues to be hashed out by others and for the editors to remain as neutral as possible while qualified experts generate consensus. It's clearly a nod to open the discussion, how can anyone interpret these quotes differently?. Forich (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, that WIV is not explicitely mentioned is a hair-splitting argument. If the words used were "laboratory escape" referring to a pandemic that started in Wuhan, it is disingenuous to object to the statement not implictely refers to "laboratory escape [in Wuhan, from a Laboratory located in Wuhan]". Give us a break here. Forich (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's a novel synthesis as the WIV is not explicitly mentioned by the source. I think that previously an implicit concensus was come to that the WIV article was not the place to litigate the credibility of the lab leak allegations, and that this was to be done at COVID-19 misinformation and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, and I for the most part agree with that. This article should be about the lab itself, not hypothetical suppositions surrounding it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion between scientists and further investigation is not the same as saying the topic was "taboo" or something else. Per the source you give, "The goal of Science’s Insights section is to be the best place for scientists to talk to each other about science." We can report (at the appropriate article, not here) the call for further investigation without unduly comparing both hypotheses. One is the prevailing view, the other is supported by a small minority, and a letter in Science does not change that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This would probably result in journals better ranked than Bio Essays, to tackle the lab hypothesis sounds like WP:CRYSTAL to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed sentence change

I propose changing the following sentence:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the laboratory has been the focus of conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation about the origin of the virus.

to the more neutral sentence:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the laboratory has been the focus of controversy.

This change removes the undue weight of the word conspiracy theory. The lab origin hypothesis, which is discussed in the next two sentences, is not a conspiracy theory. As has been discussed across the talk pages, it is a minority hypothesis (what wikipedia calls fringe). Also, it should be noted that both the animal origin and lab origin hypotheses are founded on letters to science journals. If you follow the citations of the animal origin hypothesis it always leads to Anderson's Nature letter The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" (March 2020). The Science letter "Investigate the origins of COVID-19" (May 2021) is no different in terms of correspondence weight than Anderson's letter; however, Anderson's letter (although dated) is cited by thousands of papers, and therefore, the current majority position. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

See archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 for discussions about this. [12] Guess what the results of all those discussions were, before looking it up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus changes. The Science article came out 14 May 2021. Anderson's letter was published on 17 March 2020. Time for a new discussion of this sentence. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Not really, no. It is as much a tinfoil conspiracy now as it has ever been. ValarianB (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"the laboratory has been the focus of conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation about the origin of the virus." Let's for a moment say that you're correct at that the lab leak is somehow not just the view of a small minority (who overstate the strength of poor circumstantial evidence and speculate about sinister motives to promote it) [note that I'm not conceding that at the moment, just using it to show how your requested change would still be nonsensical]. That would still leave all the nonsense about the virus having been manufactured and voluntarily released from it (which is well and truly debunked, see quotes below).

Quotes about theories of man-made virus or voluntary release

Frutos, Roger; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (18 March 2021). "Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover model to the viral circulation model". Infection, Genetics and Evolution. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. ISSN 1567-1348.

"The selection of SARS-CoV-2 through successive passages in cell culture was refuted (Andersen et al., 2020). Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology denied having carried out engineering and gain of function experiments on SARS-CoV-2but only on SARS-CoV in published and openly displayed international collaborations (Cohen, 2020). Altogether, these elements indicate that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of a man-made origin of SARS-CoV-2."

"There is consensus within the scientific community to consider that SARS-CoV-2 has not been engineered and is a naturally occurring virus. Therefore, it is simply impossible to voluntarily release an engineered virus which does not exist. There is thus no voluntary release (Calisher et al., 2020)."

So no. The lab would still have been subject to conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation. And proponents of the "benign lab leak" as they like to call it are still engaging in misinformation by overstating their case for it, publishing junk papers in junk journals, and cherrypicking "evidence" to support their pre-conceived conclusions (instead of looking at the whole of the evidence and trying to come to conclusions based on that). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, using people's opinions as a replacement for actual evidence, sometimes with the justification "they are experts", sometimes just "they are scientists", sometimes even "they are science journalists", sometimes "they wrote a letter to a top scientific journal". All worthless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Actual evidence = WP:OR, other peoples interpretation of evidence = WP:RS. Ar85ar (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as how you think "somebody says so" is evidence, You are wrong. My evidence? I say so. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "somebody says so" is evidence, I'm saying "somebody 'reliable' says so" is the grounds for being included in Wikipedia. What Hob Gadling described - and called 'worthless' - is the WP:RS policy. Ar85ar (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a handy overview of the best sources at WP:NOLABLEAK. We should deffo stick to those (or any other similar golden sources which are published). Alexbrn (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" is not appropriate to describe mainstream speculation that the virus originated at this laboratory

Something to consider, that I didn't see explicitly spelled out already:

Please see this link: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/05/13/1024866/investigation-covid-origin-wuhan-china-lab-biologists-letter/amp/

And this: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/05/24/us-should-dig-deeper-into-theory-that-covid-originated-in-a-wuhan-lab-ex-clinton-official-says.html

Imagine if the society of civil engineers called for an investigation into 9/11 controlled demolition theories. Or if a bunch of tenured political science professors called for an investigation into "Q Anon". Either situation would be absurd. Those are conspiracy theories. The lab leak hypothesis is not comparable.

We were never certain that it started in the seafood market. Until now it was the most prominent theory, and we still don't know the truth. The alleged vector (pangolin? seafood? etc.) was never proven; the "wet market" explanation was just that, a theory.

Only when something is universally accepted as true, can you call fringe takes "conspiracy theories". We're not there yet.2600:1012:B010:7C59:B589:189A:D86B:F067 (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Have you read the article? It says "conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation" (per the sources at WP:NOLABLEAK, the lab leak theory is either "extremely unlikely" or has "no evidence" to support it). You also seem to be quite a bit behind on the academic literature. The pangolin is unlikely to be the intermediate host; and current research seems to accept that the wet market was a likely an event which boosted the spread of the virus, but was not the origin. See Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Reservoir_and_zoonotic_origin. The Science letter is just a WP:PRIMARY source, as already discussed on other pages. Anyway, all of this would be entirely off-topic and UNDUE here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Bill Gates and his microchips and 5G conspiracies are a far cry from the lab leak hypothesis and should not be mentioned immediately before "unfounded speculation". How on earth can we continue to say this is unfounded speculation? A level 4 research center for coronaviruses isn't a KFC and there isn't one on every corner...but there just happens to be one down the street from where this started? A government that is currently being accused of committing genocide against their Muslim minority while giving the world a rosy portrayal of these camps, and isn't being transparent in all of this (even per WHO, their "collaborator"), and would be extremely incentivized to lie and blame a natural source to avoid what would likely be trillions of dollars in liability to other countries and a loss in reputation that would imperil their goal to be a superpower, and this is "unfounded"? The intelligence service of another country is in alignment with a nontrivial number of unaffiliated and prominent scientists, and says they have evidence that directly refutes the WHO report (November cases)? A president who is less openly hostile to China and by all accounts never "blamed China" (not the other guy, but the current US president) and until now accepted the natural origin theory, now wanting to "get to the bottom of all of this"? And it is "unfounded"??

If you read that someone is "addicted to Netflix and derelict in their career", you get a single impression of sloth. Here, with "conspiracy theories and unfounded speculation" combined, the reader is left with the impression that it's all lunacy. "Hey reader, Gates's microchip endeavor, the 5G whatever, and the lab leak are all of the crackpot theories, but here is the working theory that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt" (it in fact hasn't been and is also "unfounded speculation"). That is another issue with that last paragraph--nothing in science is ever "confirmed" or "proven", but instead is "highly replicated" or has "strong evidence". You seem to understand this, by the way you phrased your response. It is not right to say the updated report "confirmed" prior conclusions, especially after what has been disclosed recently. We still refer to highly replicated science as a "theory", because there always is the potential for further refinement--Newtonian physics was superceded by the "theory" of relativity, which has been remarkably resilient, but still doesn't explain everything. Thankfully, we had a "theory" of evolution, because epigenetics brought Lamarck back. All of that language is a nod to the perpetual incompleteness of science.

This article doesn't misstate any of these new developments--it omits them completely, while implying (with language not typically used in science) that the natural origin theory is the undisputed truth, that all other explanations are fringe lunacy, and that it is dangerous to even dissect those "fringe and conspiracy" theories. Since these glaring problems aren't being addressed, the article is getting the scorn it deserves.2600:1012:B001:1054:2880:67D3:29D4:9875 (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Re. Biden - see [13]. In short, further "calls for investigation" do not shift the balance in any way. As for theories being "superseeded", that's all fine, but on Wikipedia, we are academically conservative and we follow the consensus of the existing high quality sources, we don't lead it in a new direction. See Wikipedia's role as a reference work. Academic sources consider the lab leak as an extremely unlikely hypothesis, so that is how we describe it. We can describe political developments, of course, but that doesn't change the scientific aspect of this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

So let's describe political developments! We should say what you just said: "Though the lab leak hypothesis has been said to be 'highly unlikely', there have been calls for investigation by world leaders and a small number of scientists after unconfirmed American intelligence reports said that three laboratory workers at the institute became sick enough to be hospitalized in November 2019, though the sources said they could not identify their illness. President Joe Biden said that there was broad internal disagreement amongst America's intelligence agencies over the most plausible source of the virus." We should have something like that in the article. I appreciate that you found a spelling error in my response which was written on my phone on the toilet and trust that you are also being thorough (without being pedantic) with this article, but I think you may have a blind spot and not appreciate the ramifications of what the article lacks in its present state.2600:1012:B001:1054:2880:67D3:29D4:9875 (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Partly done I've added something about it, though of course this goes in hand with my comments about scope and not having the space to provide a full context here. The subsection already links to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 (where the calls for investigation and the WHO report are covered to much more depth) and to COVID-19 misinformation (where the misinformation is also described to more depth). See WP:SUMMARY for why we should only give a summary here and link interested readers to the more complete articles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The present article that supersedes the old one satisfies my concerns. Thanks.2600:1012:B001:1054:2880:67D3:29D4:9875 (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I object to the changes that were made to what RandomCanadian originally added. Every prior sentence in that paragraph calls the leak theory weak and without evidence in some way, except the sentence that mentions the Trump administration's actions. So, for one, it is redundant to add that, and redundancy in an encyclopedia is bad. According to the first source for the last sentence (Nature), the evidence supporting the wet market theory is that coronavirus was found around animal stalls, and that a similar virus is found naturally in horseshoe bats. I have not heard that anyone has found strong evidence for the bat/intermediate vector/market hypothesis, and neither piece of evidence in the Nature piece is inconsistent with the lab leak hypothesis. There was an outbreak at that market and humans can infect animals (if not, millions of European minks died in vain), and the lab itself has published on horseshoe bat coronaviruses (and is a stone's throw from the wet market, not 1,000 miles away, like the closest natural horseshoe bat colonies are). The current working theory lacks strong evidence, would anyone disagree with that? The intermediate vector hasn't been identified, am I correct? The modification is also problematic because according to WP:WORDS, the word 'despite' can potentially introduce editorial bias to Wikipedia. In this particular instance, I think it is, and that entire modification can be removed without depriving a reader of any information. It was fine as originally written.2600:1012:B010:3A96:14A4:51AF:878C:6E70 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to propose two more edits to that paragraph:

1. "In April 2020, the Trump administration terminated a NIH grant to research how coronaviruses spread from bats to humans." to "In April 2020, the Trump administration terminated an NIH grant to research how coronaviruses spread from bats to humans."

2. "conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated speculation" to "both conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated speculation".

2600:1012:B00D:5480:FC6A:AF1E:200C:F5C1 (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Partly done I've looked into it but "both" is not really necessary IMHO; while both "a" and "an" forms seem to occur with enough frequency that I can't exactly rule that either is incorrect (although "an" is more frequent: "an+NIH+grant" vs "a+NIH+grant"); although I've changed it since "en aye aitch" (NIH) does start with a vowel sound. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

While I have fewer objections over this page than I did before, I must comment on the extremely contentious political and scientific waters wikipedia editors must navigate here--I don't really have any specific edits to suggest right now, but I'd like to advocate for a particular way of dealing with what we have here. The page must be written so that if any sort of "smoking gun" evidence emerges (all but proving either hypothesis), this encyclopedia avoids subsequently having its credibility and reputation obliterated. This can be done. If Wikipedia is indeed "scientifically conservative", then it should be just as cautious with dealing with the completely unproven natural origin theory as it is with the lab leak theory. I still think this page and many other COVID pages fail to adequately describe the scientific "zeitgeist" we are now in. I must disclose that I do not think the natural origin theory is plausible (via Occam's Razor when considering the spatial requirements of either theory, among other things) and think the opaque WHO/China "report" lacks credibility, and I therefore think that it was an accidental lab leak. Nothing makes sense. For one, China's actions were not what an innocent party would do. The contentiousness of COVID origin theories amongst editors here also makes no sense--the natural origin theory can inspire a harmful caricature of uncivilized bushmeat eaters, whereas an accidental leak theory (and focusing on the "crime", not the coverup) at most presumes someone was being clumsy, and most people have the capacity to forgive human error. A lab leak would have far less potential to fuel harmful stereotypes. I think this topic is not being disseminated properly by the editing community here for reasons that don't make sense, and I think there is the potential for tremendous improvement in this article if there was more good faith collaboration between editors who disagree. I personally think this is going to all come crashing down at some point, and I don't want to see Wikipedia caught up in the aftermath, perpetually lampooned, not necessarily because people like me didn't get to put their favored unproven theory on the page, but because the "scientifically conservative" editing community was blinded by their own principles and prominently featured a giant lie on every article about what likely will be the defining event of the decade (either 2020-2030 or 2011-2021, depending on how you do your decades). This is when WP: AGF is really necessary.2600:1012:B001:7363:4472:973:631D:8B02 (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Can we change "confirming" in that last sentence to "consistent with"? It means basically the same thing but alleviates my concerns around appropriate language. I imagine that I would argue against using the word "confirming" with anything relevant to science on Wikipedia. This small change dramatically reduces the risk of Wikipedia suffering reputation loss, regardless of which hypothesis is eventually proven beyond reasonable doubt.2600:1012:B001:7363:4472:973:631D:8B02 (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I have absolutely no trust in anyone opposing the lab leak hypethesis over here [14]. Editors will keep saying it's fringe even if investigators actually find the petri dish that contained the virus. That's how stupid our self righteous team over at the fringe noticeboard is. RandomCanadian read that Time article, that's precisely what I told you back in February. No one listened. Feynstein (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop casting aspersions about "no trust". If you think that my opposition to the inclusion of the lab leak is because of Trump, you're mistaken. A Time article is clearly MEDPOP (especially when it can't even summarise its sources properly: the WHO report concluded that a lab leak was "extremely unlikely" - it didn't rule it out [as pointed out by the report itself and by reactions to it, further investigations of multiple things are still needed]: that doesn't change its status as a FRINGE theory, if you ask; it also uncritically describes Cotton and the Yan paper. In brief, entirely unusable for any scientific claims), and I have been abundantly clear on what acceptable sources are for claims about a scientific topic. The lab leak can be mentioned for what it is in relevant articles. Which is not here, since it would bring RECENTISM and UNDUE weight on one topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: It wasn't about including something in the article, it was about why most of you guys still believe it's fringe. I don't know if you noticed how many mainstream media articles are popping up nowadays about it. [15][16][17] And still quote MEDRS and stuff. Quoting policies won't make us look better to our readers. There's a lot of people saying WP turned woke and is not reliable anymore. Precisely because of political stuff like what is said in the Time's article. Bonne journee bud. Feynstein (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Past tense

Should "investigated" be changed to "investigates" for this line? The highest level biosafety installation is necessary because the Institute investigated highly dangerous viruses, such as SARS, influenza H5N1, Japanese encephalitis, and dengue, along with germ causing anthrax. DTM (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

No, "investigates" as of 2015 is documented. To say it's current now, I think a separate sentence with "investigates", separately sourced, is needed. See section below. I do note that the source quotes USG sources, "‘China maintained an offensive biological weapons program throughout the 1980s. The program included the development, production, stockpiling or other acquisition or maintenance of biological warfare agents.’22" and likely now "has cruise missiles possessing some stealth capability with biological warheads" --50.201.195.170 (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Add?

Seems OK. Objections? Being warred over.

>On May 25, 2021, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told during a U.S. Senate hearing that scientists working at the Wuhan Institute had US public funds between 2015 and 2020 to investigate whether bat coronaviruses posed a risk to humans. However he denied that the experiments constituted gain of function research. ^[1]

Any discussion prior to the lab leak hypothesis going from censorable to not, is stale. The times they are a - (slightly) changing'. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

References

^ "Covid-19 lab-leak theory puts Wuhan research in spotlight". FT.com. 29 May 2021.

New Zealand Herold WIV Live Bat Video

Maybe this newspaper will provide an RS transcript, but right now, the video won't play in the US: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/.../NF3TKXIYUZVBH4XV46MQF6QSBA/ Charles Juvon (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I've redacted the Facebook link (since that is irrelevant, is likely self-promotion of some form (I haven't checked), and is not a WP:RS in any way, shape or form). The original article is on news.com.au. Now the original source is Sky. So long this is only used to support the bare fact, and not go into wild tangents about some conspiracy (even the news.au article has a bold "‘Zoonosis’ still the most likely origin of Covid-19"), should be ok. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan lab staff sought hospital care before COVID-19 outbreak disclosed

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/wuhan-lab-staff-sought-hospital-care-before-covid-19-outbreak-disclosed-wsj-2021-05-23/

205.175.106.86 (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on "the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday, citing a previously undisclosed U.S. intelligence report."; for which "A National Security Council spokeswoman had no comment on the Journal's report but said the Biden administration continued to have "serious questions about the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, including its origins within the Peoples Republic of China.""... Also, "The Journal said current and former officials familiar with the intelligence about the lab researchers expressed a range of views about the strength of the report's supporting evidence, with one unnamed person saying it needed "further investigation and additional corroboration."" - this means this is, at best, a relatively weak source (at worst, it would be anything ranging from SYNTH speculation [the closest to a link with COVID we have is "A State Department fact sheet released near the end of the Trump administration had said "the U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.""] to politicking and misinformation). This wouldn't really go in this article anyway. Also please avoid raising the same discussion at multiple talk pages? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, after looking here, it appears that China has a large and active program of biological weapons, and Wuhan is a part of it. This is the only official level-4 facility in China (although the source suggests there could be other undisclosed/hidden level-4 facilities). It does not mean that they actually worked with COVID-19 or produced it, only that they technically could, including genetic engineering of course. My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Any mention of that would likely need more sources (and better sources than a think-thank). As for genetic engineering (in regards to COVID), academic sources flatly reject that, many based on the analysis by Andersen et al.. Also the relatively recent (only a few months) review in Rev Med Virol. about conspiracy theories (of which genetic engineering is but one among many) and in Infect Genet Evol.. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I saw these studies. They only show that COVID-19 is related to other viruses and has a natural origin, just as all viruses and bacteria that were weaponized in the Soviet biological weapons program, for example. What people did in these old programs to develop biological weapons was merely an artificial selection, plus technology for delivery. This can not be detected or "rebutted" by bioinformatic analyses. These studies prove nothing. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Without a source that says that it is more than utter bollocks, the best we can describe it as is, unsurprisingly, per WP:V, as utter bollocks. The Andersen paper seems to directly contradict that artificial selection could not be detected - it makes clear that the known features of the virus are signs of natural evolution, and that "the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I personally agree with you that unnamed intelligence sources during Trump administration deserve zero trust, but it was so widely published in mainstream press that it needs to be mentioned on the page. Second, I am only trying to explain what exactly these scientific studies say and what they do not. The researchers found no signs that the virus has been genetically manipulated or that it was produced in the lab. Yes, sure. But it is widely known that all pathogens that were used in Soviet biological weapons program, for example, were not genetically manipulated. Actually, they even did not do selection, but just selected the most pathogenic strains (and extracted a "stronger" virus from bodies of people who died from the virus in the lab). Some of these strains were stolen from Western labs and transported by Aeroflot pilots. Maybe they are doing genetic engineering right now? I have no idea. I would be surprised if they do not. Now, Biden just requested new reports by intelligence [18]. Somehow I also have zero trust here, even if they find anything because this administration is even trying to block release even the Full Memo On Trump Obstruction Decision. My very best wishes (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: This in the Guardian puts forward a lot of information about politics, and also makes an interesting link with the Iraq war ("intelligence reports", UN-body investigation, ignoring experts). As I said in the section below, a few sentences about calls for investigation might be warranted, but we must not unduly promote it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Continued discussion

@Sgnpkd:, can you please attempt to build consensus for your edit here instead of repeatedly reverting to include the disputed content? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, my recent edits are regarding on recent findings about the subject of the article, merely relay of relevant and notable information reported by various well-known mainstream news outlets, in the context that President Biden has recently ordered review the lab leak theory of COVID-10 origins, which the result will definitely has direct implications on both the lab in subject and the investigations on theories of origin of COVID-19. I can't see how this cannot be included in the article and I am object to the multiple reverts without stating a clear reasonings beforehand. Sgnpkd (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This is already under discussion at WP:RSN, where many concerns have been expressed. It would not be productive to repeat them here, nor would it be productive to duplicate that discussion here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of pending WP:RSN concensus, and regardless of results of lab leak debate, in my opinion, sources are Strongly reliable and faithfully inform on FACTUAL events such as the disclosed State Deparment report and the Biden probe regarding the lab the subject. Sgnpkd (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"On May 23, 2021, the Wall Street Journal published a report according to newly disclosed U.S. intelligence obtained that three researchers working at the BLS-4 laboratory of the Wuhan Institute of Virology were hospitalized with COVID-like symptoms, renewing calls for a broader probe on the theory whether the COVID-19 virus could have escaped from the laboratory. [19] The U.S. State Department also issued a fact sheet claiming that the institute had worked secretly with the Chinese military. [20]

On May 25, 2021, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told during a U.S. Senate hearing that scientists working at the Wuhan Institute had US public funds between 2015 and 2020 to investigate whether bat coronaviruses posed a risk to humans. However he denied that the experiments constituted gain of function research. [21]

And your proposed additions are not taking account the multiple concerns raised at RSN, such as the doubts expressed about the intelligence report (in the WSJ article which you cite), or the fact that the researchers had "non-specific symptoms" which could just as well been regular seasonal flu or something, and the fact that primary care in China is often done in hospitals (per, again, the RSN discussion, which I suggest you go contribute to instead of trying to ignore it here); and the fact that even just including it in articles would entice readers to make incorrect SYNTH that these researchers were sick with COVID (while that is not proven and not supported by the sources themselves) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to think factual events regarding the article's subject should not be included. Doubts expressed surrounding something does not dismiss its existence, and it should be annotated with more information, not censored. Even mentions about fringe theories are all explained in the article and proven wrong, and this is not even in the fringe territory anymore, but again, the Biden probe is being widely reported by mainstream outlets, so IMO your opinion is not NPOV. This concensus discussion, in the verge of things to come, will be proven to be obsolete. Sgnpkd (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat arguments, other than saying that putting an unconfirmed "intelligence" report which does not support the claims it is being used for would be misleading. The rest is already given at WP:RSN, and the only thing that would be ridiculous would be needless WP:FORUMSHOP by having that discussion on multiple pages. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The information simply states the claim, whether the claim is supported by facts or not is a different scope that should not prevent inclusion. Even if there are fringe theories regarding the lab, it should be included in the article if it's notable enough. The article, it is not a shrine to be kept clean of all time? Could you please explain why other passage about the Senate hearing should not be included into the article? Is the Financial Times not a reliable source per WP:RSN? Sgnpkd (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

One matter at a time. As for the US Senate hearing, what does that have to do with a lab in China? US politics are best left to articles which discuss US politics, and given a summary description (if at all relevant) here. WP:SUMMARY and WP:COATRACK are things, you know? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Why not? It tells about U.S. direct funding towards to lab. Did you read all the sources at all before blanking them? Sgnpkd (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

That's already in the article, mostly: "The National Bio-safety Laboratory has strong ties to the Galveston National Laboratory in the University of Texas.[9] It also had strong ties with Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory until WIV staff scientists Xiangguo Qiu and her husband Keding Cheng, who were also remunerated by the Canadian government, were escorted from the Canadian lab for undisclosed reasons in July 2019.[10] Researchers from the WIV have also collaborated in gain of function research on coronaviruses with American colleagues.[11]". We don't need Rand Paul asking Fauci questions for that. If there is funding from the NIAID to the WIV, then that's simple to report, without adding unecessary details about an American political controversy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is it that pretty much every mainstream media outlet has done a 180 and said that an accidental lab leak may be the origin os SARS COV-2? The person who wrote the initial letter calling people who claimed that the virus may have leaked from a lab ***was funding the Wuhan institute of virology for gain of function testing on bat coronaviruses*** that is a definite conflict of interest.

The 'conspiracy' part needs to be removed and it needs to be changed to lab leak hypothesis. A 'conspiracy theory' suggests that something was intentional. A lab which had been given warnings for not conducting tests using the correct biosafety levels (for example working on SARS COV1 in BSL2 labs) that just so happened to have a number of workers come in sick with a mystery virus before the pandemic started is pretty sus bro.

Even more so when China refuses to let anyone even test this hypothesis or check their labs.

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4119101

Peter Daszack wrote the letter calling people who claimed the lab leak hypothesis was a conspiracy theory, he funded gain of function testing in the Wuhan lab, he wrote the letter before people even went down that line of thinking.

Are you claiming that there were no conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus? In which case, wrong. Or are you claiming that the lab leak is not a conspiracy? In which case, read the article, because it doesn't say that the lab leak is a conspiracy. In fact, given that it is explicitly mentioned, and that we even mention a scientific investigation into it, claiming otherwise would be being economical with the truth. As for "obstruction by China", yeah, of course, they screwed up either way (as have many governments worldwide, once the virus spread beyond China), but "As the experience of the Iraq weapons inspectors demonstrated, obstruction can be profoundly misunderstood as suggesting a motive: ie Saddam Hussein was not hiding WMD but had substantially disarmed."... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Well if you gents choose to add it in. Then you should fairly give context that the journalist starting those claims of sick Wuhan workers from "anonymous intel". Is literally the very same dude that famously but falsely claimed that Iraq had WMDs. Omg. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/06/01/wuha-j02.html

In addition, you should also add in Danielle Anderson's claims since unlike that dodgy "journalist". She was actually there and didn't observe anyone getting ill. She also tested negative to the virus herself after working there.

Anderson told Bloomberg that no one she knew at the Wuhan institute was ill towards the end of 2019.. She explained there is a protocol in place for reporting symptoms corresponding with pathogens being studied in high-risk containment labs....Anderson told Bloomberg: "If people were sick, I assume that I would have been sick—and I wasn't...."I was tested for coronavirus in Singapore before I was vaccinated, and had never had it," she said

https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-danielle-anderson-australian-scientist-1604711 Nvtuil (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Why isn't the WIV's database of bat coronaviruses, and its taking down of this database, mentioned in the current version of this article?

This article, published on June 3, 2021, says the following:

...the WIV’s database of some 22,000 virus samples and sequences...had been taken offline on September 12, 2019, three months before the official start of the pandemic...

Why isn't the WIV's online database of bat coronaviruses, and its taking down of this online database, mentioned in the current version of this article? Isn't the failure of the current version of this article not to even mention this database a glaring, inexplicable, and unacceptable omission? Please correct it (as I was unable to do, as the article appears to have been locked from editing). Thank you. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If we start adding every conspiracy-theory claim, we'll end up with a very long article, filled mostly with highly dubious speculation. My understanding is that the database you're talking about was only online for a few months mid-2019 anyways. I fail to see its relevance, and I'm skeptical about using conspiracy-theory articles to source content here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a "conspiracy theory claim" and the criteria for classing something as such is not "Donald Trump said it," as I hope you're now learning. EGarrett01 (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Coronavirus research is STILL conducted in WIV's BSL-2 and BSL-3 laboratories

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Similarly, "Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, coronavirus research at the WIV was conducted in BSL-2 and BSL-3 laboratories.[17]" is sourced to a recent document that states, authoritatively, "A: The coronavirus research in [WIF] laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories." "is" not "was".

Propose: "Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, coronavirus research at the WIV was conducted in BSL-2 and BSL-3 laboratories, and continues to be conducted in BSL-2 and BSL-3 laboratories.[17]" --50.201.195.170 (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Partly done. I've changed it to Prior to and throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, coronavirus research at the WIV has been conducted in BSL-2 and BSL-3 laboratories. Good point regarding what the source says. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! (Minor nit: Seems a bit crystal to say 'throughout', as it's not over. (And claiming it's over can get you "permanently" banned on Twitter.)) --50.201.195.170 (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I reverted addition of a popular media source that engages in speculation about SARS-CoV-2 supposedly being a lab construct, but it has been added back in: [22]. This is a WP:FRINGE position, and we should not be referencing non-scientific, popular media articles that engage in this speculation. The fact that a magazine has the acronym "MIT" in the name does not make it a scientific journal. It's still popular media, which is to be used only with extreme caution for anything remotely related to the origins of SARS-CoV-2, claims about virology, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Saying that an institute carries out a certain type of research is not MEDRS. As for MIT Technology Review, it seems to be a standard WP:NEWSORG, and has an editorial and fact-checking policy. I suspect you'd need a WP:RSN discussion to find it generally unreliable. Rowan Jacobsen has no special credentials in the area, but does appear to be an actual journalist, so. That said, just skimming I don't see how the source verifies the statement made. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not a question of general unreliability of the magazine MIT Technology Review. It's a question of referencing a particular popular media article that makes fringe scientific claims. If you open up the article, it is full of scientific claims about the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2, about SARS-related coronaviruses, about what sorts of viruses and research methods are dangerous, etc., and it strongly suggests a hypothesis that is fringe in the scientific community. We should be referencing the scientific literature. Popular media articles purporting to cover scientific questions are bottom-of-the-barrel sources, and there's no excuse for using them, particularly when they're pushing fringe ideas. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a better source that disputes this fact? As I say, I don't see how the source verifies the given statement, but assuming it did then I think this discussion is better suited for RSN. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of widespread reporting of WIV from media speculation and conspiracy theories in to the lead

Any search of recent online articles with reference to the WIV over the last 16 months will result in a substantial amount of content, including from journal articles and reputable sources, in regards to possible lab leak or other various conspiracies. The noteworthy nature of these articles and the content of the article itself justifies why it should be included in the lead. Aeonx (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This was a discussion already had (see Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology/Archive 2) around this time last year, after which the article was significantly trimmed down because of the obviously WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS nature of that stuff. A slight re-write of the lead might be in order to accommodate the existing article content as of right now, but the explanations of the conspiracy theories and speculations are grossly out of place here (since there's no way to give appropriate context to this without spending an excessive amount of text on it) - we can leave a short mention, with the existing links to the misinformation and investigation articles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I already made such an edit as you described but it was reverted twice, although the specific reason of why it is WP:UNDUE is yet to be fully described to me. Noting the talkpage discussion 12-months ago, I think it is fair to say the situation has changed, the level of media reporting about the WIV has increased significant and has it's mention in relation to a possible lab leak or prior knowledge of the virus. The article as it stands has an undue bias which makes it appear as though there is a cover-up, potentially even one supported by registered editors on Wikipedia. I also don't believe the argument of having to spend an excessive amount of text on the issue is a valid one and I don't believe there is any reason why it would be necessary to do so. As it stands roughly 1/6th of the article discusses it's involvement in the COVID-19 pandemic and it's potential involvement in various conspiracy theories and speculation about a lab leak. That in itself makes it justified for inclusion in the lead. What further amazes me is that sentences like "The institute has strong ties to the Galveston National Laboratory in the United States, the Centre International de Recherche en Infectiologie in France, and the National Microbiology Laboratory in Canada." which is blatantly false which the article itself goes on to correct clearly stating the ties (which were never "strong") between WIV and the NBL in Canada have been severed; still remains in the lead; and yet my edit was reverted. I can only question as a result the integrity and bias of the editing here. Aeonx (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't question the "integrity" and the "bias" of editors. That was a simple fix to implement. As I've said, the lead might need a rewrite, but that's not a reason to include details about relatively minor aspects, especially when that would unduly legitimise theories which are not supported by relevant reliable sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No need to lecture. If you read again, I didn't make any personal attacks (personal in this case meaning they are targeted at someone), I simply stated that the article in it's current editing shows evidence of poor integrity and bias. I did however elude that the two recent reverts of my article edit were contributing to that. Not a comment about any particular editor, just a comment about the article and the edit process, not surprising given this article is currently rated C-Class. With regards to the claim on UNDUE, you seem to base your assertion on misconception that the associated speculation and conspiracy theories around the WIV are relative;y minor aspects; as I already pointed out, twice, this is not true, both in terms of reputable news reporting[23] and in terms of the article content (COVID-19 section makes up 1/6th of the article). So again, I ask you to identify, in reference to WP:UNDUE what is the issue? Frankly, I do believe WP:UNDUE is present, because the article in it's current form does NOT fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. In reference to my change which was reverted twice, are you suggesting the reference was unreliable? Aeonx (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

NPOV means "according to the WP:BESTSOURCES". You already know what these are saying, so I don't understand how you can characterise the current article as "unfair". Yes, it is unfair towards lower quality sources and politicians. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:Academic bias, that's perfectly normal and what we should be aiming for. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What part of "Any discussion prior to the lab leak hypothesis going from censorable to not, is stale. " do you not accept?

And would you please read the article that led to it going from censorable to not? :

^[1]

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The piece by Wade (a non-virologist, known for his previous "scientists are unethical" claims, publishing in a completely unrelated journal) is already discredited and was already so before it was even published (see here and here (section 1.1)). It's not an acceptable source for anything here. As to your question: all of it, cause we're not a newspaper and to avoid recentism. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I reject your ad hominem attacks. Not appropriate.

I reject your counter temporal claim. Absurd.

Your argument against recentism is likewise absurd. It's an (absurd) argument for deletion of anything about WIV from the last few years, not just the news you don't like.

So your position is that the lab leak hypothesis is no more legit now than it was months ago?

Again, I asked, "would you please read the article that led to it going from censorable to not?". Did you read it? It's not clear from your answer whether you're dismissing it without having actually read it.

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Selecting sources according to their competence and derangedness is not ad hominem, it is one of the basic pillars of Wikipedia. See WP:V. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You are persisting with and defending your ad hominem attacks. You are attacking a person. E.g. "competence and derangedness" are adjectives you are applying to a human being named Wade. You are warned again. See WP:V yourself. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

References

^ "The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora's box at Wuhan?". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2021-05-05.

Yes, I am persisting with and defending my insistence on high-quality sources and rejection of low-quality ones, because it is the right thing to do according to WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You have been warned. Again, by all means, argue against unreliable sources. But do so without ad hominem attacks like this and your other Wade comment there. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I am merely checking this page for recent comments and don't have an opinion on the issue (I don't even know what the issue is). However, your warning and your above comments are incorrect. This discussion should focus on whether a particular source is suitable in the terms defined at WP:V and "Selecting sources according to their competence and derangedness is not ad hominem, it is one of the basic pillars of Wikipedia" is correct. Without unduly repeating arguments, please restrict discussion here to the suitability of the source for whatever assertion it is supposed to verify. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Ebright

Why does the current version of the article quote Richard Ebright only in a favourable way and why are editors omitting his quotes in reliable sources that are less favorable? CutePeach (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Because the other quotes would be WP:FALSEBALANCE of a minority position ("COVID came from a lab") which is not supported by the vast majority of academic peer-reviewed sources which are competent on the matter. This article, once a while ago, included way too much detail about the lab leak stuff. Because putting it here while keeping it into context with the mainstream view would put too much weight on this one aspect, it was decided long ago that this should only provide a short summary (per WP:SUMMARY) and instead link to the relevant articles (the misinformation and the investigations page). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Wet-market

Since the article is protected (why?) it would be worth to add the following paragraph in the opening section.

Wuhan Institute of Virology is often confused with the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Wuhan. The institute is 8 miles from the wet-market that was considered a source of COVID-19 coronavirus, while the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention is 280 yards from the market. Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-and-the-laboratories-in-wuhan-11587486996

Cambr5 (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

|| Are there any plans to add this to arcicle? Because now it looks that China Communist Party admins just censor the article Cambr5 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated speculation" about the origin of the virus should be changed to just "speculation"

Multiple people in the US government and the sciences, including both democrats and republicans, the director of the CDC, people in US intelligence, and media on both sides including the Wall Street Journal (and even Jon Stewart) are reporting on, giving evidence of, and investigating and concluding that the Wuhan Virology Lab played a key role in the emergence of this -virus. It's not a "conspiracy theory" nor is it "unsubstantiated." It's been reported by US intelligence and the media that the first apparent infections of COVID-19 were three scientists at this laboratory. It's just speculation now and I suspect in the near future this article will be amended in a major way to give some specific information on what exactly did happen at this laboratory, and anyone here still seeking to end-run this whole issue and declare it in these reference sources to be non-newsworthy or a "conspiracy theory" should be investigated themselves. EGarrett01 (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Your WP:CRYSTALBALL has no place here, because we base our coverage of scientific topics on peer-reviewed journal articles, not on politics. We're not a newspaper. And yes, there have been plenty of conspiracy theories ("virus engineered in a lab", for one) and unsubstantiated speculation (plenty of journals describe the accidental release theory as having "no evidence" or being "unnecessary to explain the pandemic"), so there's no reason to remove this. Focusing unduly on what the US media and politicians are saying would also be obvious systematic bias. See also this recent piece from a non-US paper for contrast... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

No. Removing a conclusion about a point of view is not speculation from a crystal ball. You're just totally wrong and you're attempting to discuss from a pure ideological bias. Data from US intelligence, the director of the CDC, and multiple other scientists and media sources, and that's been investigated by two Presidents with no conclusion so far, is not a "conspiracy theory," since conspiracy theories multiple assumptions while this would reduce them. A study from the WHO, which also declared that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission, has no reason to be weighted over theories that say otherwise. Furthermore, the fact that one conspiracy theory has been propagated does not allow you to blanketly label everything said about a topic as a "conspiracy theory." If that were the case then the Donald Trump article could be edited to just say "he has been the subject of unsubstantiated criticism" since the Steele dossier led nowhere, and in the process dismiss any other criticism of Trump by appearance. Just flat-out wrong. EGarrett01 (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The text says "conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated speculation". That's 2 different things, stop confusing them... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the one who was confusing them. The person who wrote that phrase in the article is. If a person was getting investigated for murder and they referred to it publicly as "unsubstantiated speculation," that would imply that there was nothing to the investigation. To use phrasing like that, intended to deliberately give a certain impression to the reader, then try, poorly, to defend it in the way you did shows an obvious lack of neutrality. You're not doing well here. EGarrett01 (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems like this definition, misses the fact there is some circumstantial and partially-substantiated speculation which has been widely published in news articles. Aeonx (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I just realised the massive howler of "A study from the WHO, which also declared that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission". Whatever you meant to say, that is a categorically false statement. The only thing I can find is an early tweet from January 14, 2020 [not a "study"] (which was soon thereafter proven wrong, after clearer evidence emerged) that there was "no clear evidence"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to a study that the WHO published, then added that they also stated there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. You have reading comprehension issues. The person below me also showed where the WHO made those erroneous statements. EGarrett01 (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Off Topic, but Relating to H-to-H transmisssion, the WHO stated it in a Press Conferences not merely a tweet. [24] and [25]. The WHO stating there was no evidence of H-to-H transmission was unfortunately a result of very limited information sharing from PRC and the WIV, since the only specific outbreak and immediate transmission information they had in early January was from the Chinese authorities. Aeonx (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Is this a scientific topic? It seems to be it's an article about a scientific facility, not a scientific topic; and unsurprisingly most of the references are not from peer-reviewed journal articles as it stands. Aeonx (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian (talk · contribs), Looking back at the history of this article, a number of the changes you have made similar to the one you reverted by CutePeach (talk · contribs), are inconsistent with the WP community consensus (built on WP:BESTSOURCES) which has been established on other articles such as, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, which already has a section on the possible 'Laboratory incident' which also doesn't seem to fit into the current wording of conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated speculation. In fact, this is already I change I made[26], but it was reverted and I'm still trying to understand the reasons, it seems a number of other editors have tried to edit this unsuccessfully with little explanation in talk. Aeonx (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The explanation, as already given, has been that the WIV page is not the most appropriate place to discuss this, since there are many factors at play which go way beyond what could be covered in sufficient context here (we'd need to go in-depth between the different theories; we'd need to include the political aspect [which has strictly nothing to do with the WIV], we'd need to include the overwhelming scientific opposition to most of these ideas: basically, we'd need to copy material that is already covered at these other articles). So it's better to leave a short summary here, which mentions only the aspects relevant to the WIV, and point the reader to the relevant articles which discuss this in more depth. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the tone biased toward defending WIV?

We are currently using this wording The laboratory has been the focus of conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated speculation about the origin of the virus to mention the lab involvement in the investigations on SARS-CoV-2. I propose we use a more neutral tone (neutral in that it removes pro-WIV bias). I have brought an example, from the 2004 edits made to the page on Lance Armstrong, which were the first ocurrences of edits documenting the doping allegations made against him. Please consider a change of tone in which we cover the subject along the lines of

Throughout the pandemic, the Institute has been dogged by allegations of a lab leak. Particularly vocal have been [insert person names here], and the newspaper [insert name here]. The Institute has strenuously and repeatedly denied the allegations. The accusers have produced no hard evidence to substantiate the rumors and have readily admitted that "There's no smoking gun. It's all circumstantial evidence."

. Forich (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is a another option, also from the Armstrong example:

Like with many hard-to-falsify hypotheses, The Institute has long been dogged by allegations of a lab leak. However, despite being subjected to a visit by a team of WHO scientists it has never proved to have had biosafety issues. Particularly vocal have been [insert person names here], and the newspaper [insert name here]. The Institute has strenuously and repeatedly denied the allegations. The accusers have produced no hard evidence to substantiate the rumors and have readily admitted that "There's no smoking gun. It's all circumstantial evidence." Despite that, many still hold doubts about the biosafety of WIV's research. Conversely, many have no doubts at all, seeing the Institute as one of the best in their field of research.

. Thoughts? Forich (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how this is any less unfriendly to the leakers, just as it should be. Is the main point that it does not use the trigger word "conspiracy theory"? (Conspiracy theorists really do not like that one.) "Speculation" has gone too. The biological weapon idea is clearly a conspiracy theory, and by omitting the dreaded CT term, it is dropped completely, concentrating on the lab leak idea, which is speculation with a conspiracy theory thrown in. (When people like an idea very much but cannot find any evidence for it, conspiracy theories are needed: the evidence cannot be found not because it does not exist but because someone hid it.)

Also, the two "many"s make it WP:WEASELy, suggesting an even distribution of leakers and nonleakers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the proposed versions. It is not our role to accuse or defend the business. despite being subjected to a visit by a team of WHO scientists it has never proved to have had biosafety issues" is a blatant manipulation, because the WHO team was not there to check on biosafety issues. strenuously and repeatedly is WP:WEASEL. The accusers is a mischaracterisation. seeing the Institute as one of the best in their field of research is a WP:PROMO.

The only criticism I have for the current version is that suggestions of lab leak should not be termed a "conspiracy theory". Pathogens leak from labs regularly and this is no "conspiracy" but a fact. In the context of WIV, a number of reliable sources confirm that the probability of a lab leak was negligible. Yet, unlikely explanations should not be called conspiracy theories in an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Based on the responses received, I've redrafted the proposal:

Like with some past outbreaks of unknown origin, during the COVID-19 pandemic there were rumours that the outbreak was non-natural. The Institute has long been dogged by allegations that the inital Wuhan outbreak was provoked by either manipulation or accidental release of a virus held in their facilities and that the direct participants conspired to cover it up. However, a WHO report commisioned to study the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic commented positively on the biosafety practices of the institute. Notable supporters of the lab leak rumours have been the members of DRASTIC, and the newspaper Washington Post. The Institute has denied the allegations. The proponents of the lab leak hypothesis have produced no hard evidence to substantiate the rumors. Although no conclusive evidence has been found, these rumors persist.

Responding to the specific comments above. @Hob Gadling:, the term "Conspiracy theory" is replaced by the simpler "rumours", and in the first ocurrence it is expanded to explain that "and that the direct participants conspired to cover it up." which spells out the conspiracy part without the stigma of the "conspiracy theory" term. I removed the uses of "many" per your suggestion.

@Kashmiri:, I agree that it is not our role to accuse or defend the business, that's why my draft repeats the accusations and rebutals as RS have registered them. My opinion that the original version is POV is based on it being too general, too easy-to-dismiss, with a lack of detail on the important aspects of what exactly is being rumoured/theorized, by who, and what rebuttal if any was produced to counter it. In other words, the old wording implies that some crazy flat-earth people said some dismissable things and that the case was a dead horse since the start. The new wording gives a better sense that some investigations is being made because the allegations are not easy to dismiss and hold some water. On your point that the WHO team was not there to check on biosafety issues, you are right and I fixed that part. Your other point of the mischaracterization implied by "accusers" was also addressed. Please give it a new look. Forich (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the minor inconsistancy in the spelling of "rumor", and maybe overuse of that word, it looks good to me. You do not need to ping me, this is on my watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft of RfC on speculation wording

Should article include a sentence for the widespread reporting of WIV from speculation and conspiracy theories in the lead, and should article changing the current wording of 'conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated speculation' to simply 'conspiracy theories and speculation'? Aeonx (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Just from a purely linguistic standpoint, I have a hard time parsing the question being posed in this RfC. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Same here. I think it's asking whether the lead should mention the "conspiracy theories and speculation", and the answer is yes within WP:DUE limits because this is frequently covered in RS; and it is separately asking whether "unsubstantiated" should be removed, and answer is yes, as editorializing and as redundant with the basic meaning of "speculation". As for whether they should be called "conspiracy theories", that's a separate thread below. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree that "Conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated speculation" about the origin of the virus should be changed to just "speculation". And presume that's what Aeonx meant to have the RFC ask. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I have disabled the RfC. Please work on draft wording with a concrete proposal so a productive discussion can occur. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean its a conspiracy theory.

It's pretty proves by rs that this lab is where this outbreak started. CDC and Biden Adminstration want investigations. 72.221.88.59 (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

We do not call it conspiracy theory. The laboratory has been the focus of conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated speculation about the origin of the virus does not name any specific ideas and call them one or the other.
If you say there are RS, you also have to name those RS. Claiming that "there is proof" is not proof itself.
If it is already proven, what do "CDC and Biden Adminstration" want to investigate?
Biden is a layman, and it does not matter what he thinks.

Congratulations! Putting that many mistakes in such a short text is quite an achievement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It absolutely not pretty proves (sic) by rs that this lab is where this outbreak started. Given your comments on Hunter Biden 1 I think your opinion can be safely ignored. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree2600:8805:C980:9400:F146:3F6:6802:44A4 (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

[1] "Covid-19 lab-leak theory puts Wuhan research in spotlight". FT.com. 29 May 2021.

[Bulletin-2] "The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora's box at Wuhan?". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2021-05-05.

[1]

[1]