Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2021

In section "COVID-19 pandemic"

please change

"Early in the pandemic a number of myths and conspiracy theories had circulated, among them that the virus has been constructed in a Wuhan laboratory. Subsequent genetic analysis of the virus laid these to rest, finding that the virus had originated in bats."

to

"A number of theories on the origin of the virus have been proposed, among these that the virus originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The institute has a published record of conducting "gain-of-function" experiments aimed at creating new, more virulent, or more infectious strains of diseases in an effort to predict and therefore defend against threats that might conceivably arise in nature. Many scientists argue experiments using this gain-of-function technique on samples from the institutes own coronavirus collection could have led to the creation of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)."

reliable sources to back up information: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/ewsu2giezk/city-of-silence-china-wuhan 2A00:23C5:F013:7900:A15B:F04C:EF66:DB8F (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Declined See the above talk page discussion and archives for why. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory claims

Some content in this article remains problematic. In the History section we have this statement "The laboratory has nevertheless been the subject of multiple conspiracy theories, widely rejected by the scientific community, about the origin of the virus.[8][9][10]". The sources 8 and 9 do not mention conspiracy theories at all, so they appear not to support the assertion. The third source is written by reporters from a US radio station. It does have a paragraph about conspiracy theories, but "multiple conspiracy theories, widely rejected by the scientific community" is not supported. I propose the sentence is removed. Arcturus (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree those sources don't support it, but multiple sources in the kludge of a discussion above do iirc, so the sources can be swapped out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, there is no consensus above on any sources supporting the assertion. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

That some editors choose to be vocal about their viewpoint doesn’t mean they are the consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is still a matter of investigation and the text should say "numerous theories..." indicating the current scientific view, but without calling minority views conspiracy theory myths. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS again

This edit[1] (repeated by ScrupulousScribe) splices a suggestive non-sequitur into the middle of a paragraph and edits text text to misrepresent a MEDRS source, which does not say the bat origin is "most likely", but that it is the case. Editors are reminded that WP:V is a core content policy, that WP:SYNTHESIS is prohibited and that this topic is subject to special sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus above that WP:MEDRS is applicable for a matter unrelated to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and there is also no consensus on that particular MEDRS source being WP:BESTSOURCE, given the way it contradicts other sources. It is clear that Jshin47 is a new user, and we should be welcoming to him, and any other editors who wish to offer a more nuanced point of view. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, WP:V is a core policy. There is in fact consensus that WP:MEDRS applies, but even it it didn't an academic peer-reviewed secondary source is still supreme in comparison to lay sources and tweets. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus that MEDRS applies. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I, for one, think we should use high-quality scientific sources (for this subject, that would be WP:MEDRS sources) for scientific claims, such as the origins of SARS-CoV-2. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

And there are others, such as I, who believe that while MEDRS should normally apply, the Chinese government has made it as such that there are no MEDRS sources to determine the origin of the virus. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, and WP:CLUE is relevant. If we allowed every outbreak of WP:PROFRINGE grutching to unseat established WP:PAGs, Wikipedia would descend into nonsense. If in doubt, double check at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Something that the BBC calls the "biggest scientific controversy of our time" (not a WP:PROFRINGE grutch) should require a much clearer approach for establishing how WP:PAG applies here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

We use serious sources, not silly hyperbolic journalism. Alexbrn (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Even generally-decent mainstream journalism is prone to false balance about scientific controversies — quoting one person from each side of a debate, or quoting people in such a way that they appear to be two sides of a debate, when in fact their views are only separated incrementally. On some topics, mainstream journalism is the best source material we have to work with and so we can't say much anything about whether the balance is false, but that's not the case here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The BBC is a decent mainstream reliable source, right? They have covered the issue, as have The Times, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, and many others. For as long as editors like you and Alexbrn continue to conflate legitimate scientific inquiry, as reported by the likes of BBC, with disproven conspiracy theories, as promulgated by the likes of Li-Meng Yan, this issue remains disputed. There is most certainly not a consensus in favor of continuing to conflate the issues, and omit key details about such inquiry from the article, as it currently does. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Weren't you just recently topic-banned (and then unbanned) from Covid? I'd suggest the issue be handled with care. Fact is, those theories are considered by MEDRS and high quality sources (WP:BESTSOURCES - its not simply because something is "reliable" that its an ok source: if better sources contradict lesser ones (and scientific journals vs mainstream press is the prime example) then we go by the best available sources). In this case, there is no serious MEDRS-level source which claims that those conspiracy theories have any grounding in anything but thin air, therefore we report what the best sources say, so no, the conspiracy bullshit does not go in. I've removed the tag since its an issue which was just discussed (and has been perpetually discussed) earlier with consensus that the current content was way too much and you re-inserting it feels a bit like WP:DEADHORSE... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

As was pointed out by myself and others, the scientific journal (MEDRS source) does not contradict the mainstream reliable sources, and addresses only known conspiracy theories (relating to bioweapons). There was also no agreement in the above discussion that that journal is WP:BESTSOURCES, specifically because it failed to address any alternative lab origin theory other than bioweapons. And since you are new to the conversation, let me also remind you that there is also no consensus that MEDRS even applies to something that clearly does not classify as Wikipedia:Biomedical information. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if MEDRS wasn't required for this article, applicable MEDR sources would still be better than MEDPOP. In this situation, we have a hypothesis (lab leak) that has been cultivated primarily by laypeople, with the opinions of a handful of scientists (of varying credentials) thrown in to provide (seemingly) mechanistic legitimacy. We don't need MEDRS to describe entirely layperson-designed scenarios, which don't include scientific assertions. But as soon as you introduce an "expert" analysis that attempts to explain how the scenario could have occurred, you need rigorous MEDRS to rebut (or support) the claim. And when a particular mechanistic claim does not have abundant MEDRS, it is not DUE: it is clearly disregarded by the scientific community and therefore should be omitted from the article. So, while the "lab leak theory" as a general concept may be acknowledged here, any supporting details inspired by a hypothetical mechanism cannot be included. This would of course include the opinions of random scientists. JoelleJay (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay, If I understand you correctly, you consider "supporting details" of the theory to be WP:UNDUE, especially when it makes a mechanistic claim. However, I would like to understand whether you would make any differentiation between the claim that COVID-19 was possibly created as a bioweapon, to the claim that it was possibly subject to gain-of-function research? That's like me asking whether you think we should merge the Biological warfare article into Gain of function research article, or visa versa, as a dual-use section, and I would expect a pretty clear answer. Also, I do not think Marc Lipsitch, David Relman and Richard Ebright are "random scientists", and they are of the opinion that the theory should be considered and the possibility investigated. Just yesterday Forbes published an interesting piece on the subject of this differentiation, quoting Ebright (and also Filippa Lentzos). Most reliable sources make the differentiation. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If we want to use non-WP:MEDRS to discuss the gain-of-function conspiracy theory, a useful source may be PMID 33442004, which is some commentary by Angela Rasmussen on the "often contradictory and sometimes outright ridiculous conspiracy theories that spread faster than the virus itself". This is already used at the Gain-of-function article. Excerpt:

A favorite version of the laboratory-origin stories relies on the fact that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered for gain-of-function studies that were also previously performed with bat SARS-like coronaviruses to understand cross-species transmission risk (Nat. Med. 21, 1508–1513; 2015). The irony is that those gain-of-function studies provided valuable information about the biology of SARS-CoV-2. Gain-of-function research is also subject to intense scrutiny and governmental oversight, precisely because of the high risk involved in conducting it safely; thus, it is extremely unlikely that gain-of-function research on hard-to-obtain coronaviruses (such as bat SARS-like coronaviruses) could occur under the radar.

This doesn't make any biomedical claims, but also does not mention the Wuhan lab specifically. Alexbrn (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

break

One point here keeps getting repeated, and is wrong. The best MEDRS does not "just" rebut the "bioweapon" claim, but lab construction in general ("conspiracy theories regarding the construction of SARS-CoV-2 in a secret laboratory in Wuhan") without even mentioning bioweapons. Alexbrn (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that is based on your interpretation of it. And also, it is not the "best" MEDRS, as you claim. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No intepretation, a direct quotation. As a MEDLINE-indexed, reputable-published, review article, PMID 32945405 is the best MEDRS (on this topic). As it says: "The genomic and bioinformatic analyses of the aforementioned studies, as well as the results of previous studies, confirm that the virus originated in bats and this way put an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue". Alexbrn (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The paper you selected, and the comment you selected from it, does not discount other lab origin scenarios, particularly the one relating to gain-of-function research. It is irrelevant to the subject at hand, and making any inference from it in relation to lab origin scenario involving GoF research, is original research. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What part of "confirm that the virus originated in bats and this way put an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue" is hard to understand? No inference necessary; to the contrary, interpreting this to mean in some way "it was maybe made in a lab!" requires interpretative contortions. Alexbrn (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Its not hard to understand, but no one said the virus didn't originate in bats. This was pointed out by other editors above, such as Forich, as it is pretty clear the paper doesn't make the necessary differentiation. It would be better for you to leave this discussion to other editors like JoelleJay, who seems to have a better grasp of the science than you do, so that we can reach a consensus and agree on content changes. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice attempt at WP:OWNERSHIP. As Forich wrote (15 Jan): "we have to follow Wikipedia rules, and it looks like a strong MEDRS against the lab leak". I agree with that. Wikipedia's purpose is to reflect reliable, relevant sources. We also know from RS that the gain-of-function "story" is a favourite one among the conspiracy theorists. Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not ownership. You have taken up considerable time to push your POV, and JoelleJay, who shares your POV, makes stronger and more direct points that I feel would enable us to reach a consensus. If you are going to quote Forich, you should also include his others on the matter, such as his "benevolent interpretation" comment (also Jan 15). Your MEDRS source is irrelevant for the reason given, and the applicability of MEDRS is also in question. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but threatening "It would be better for you to leave this discussion to other editors" is classic WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. WP:FOC. The business of editing Wikipedia is fundamentally quite simple: find the best sources, then summarize them. We're doing that with the lab leak and all the best sources are aligned: it's a remote possibility & conspiracy theory. When and if the sources change, Wikipedia can follow, but until then we're sound. Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have gatekeepers and you are not in charge of determining what sources are considered best, and which policies apply where and when. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Gatekeepers? I didn't write "It would be better for you to leave this discussion to other editors". Wikipedia policies apply throughout the project, unless you want to invoke WP:IAR. But some policies are non-negotiable, such as WP:NPOV. There was already a lengthy process on this Talk page of finding the five or six WP:BESTSOURCES on the virus' origin.[2] If we stick to summarizing those, NPOV will be safe. Alexbrn (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The lengthy process you mention above did not result in a consensus, as you did not address the concerns brought up by editors (like Forich) with the sources you selected, just like you didn't reply to Forich's debate conclusions in WP:RS/N. Unless you find a MEDRS source that makes the clear distinction between origin theories relating to gain of function research and bioweapons, and rules them both out unequivocally, then MEDRS as a policy isn't even applicable here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to find a MEDRS source to address concerns that don't exist in the realm of MEDRS, but in the realms of WP:FRINGE. I'm not making any claim beyond the sources we already use. All that's necessary is to reflect WP:MEDRS and uphold WP:FRINGE when discussing conspiracy theories, or even plausible but unaccepted ideas. Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to continue deleting contributions as you did with the contributions from Jshin47 and Aettius, then as per WP:REMOVE, you must provide reasons for doing so. You could have just fixed the problem, as per WP:PRESERVE, by adding the sources. If you believe that MEDRS applies here, then you need to find a MEDRS source to support your position, and gain consensus. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I gave edit summaries. The core problem is with NPOV, and the way to "fix" undue airing of fringe theories is to remove them from the encyclopedia. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn that removing NPOV violations is often a valid way of dealing with them. WP:PRESERVE does not mean that all material ever added to the encyclopedia has to stay. Alexbrn has been doing a lot of work to find applicable MEDRS-compliant sources, so I don't see how you can fault them there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Guest2625: Do you think this material should be reinstated, from your recent removal of material? It's a statement of fact, sourced, and tangentially relevant to WIV.

In January 2021, a WHO team went to Wuhan to investigate the origins of the virus. The WHO tweeted that "all hypotheses are on the table as the team follows the science in their work to understand the origins of the COVID19 virus." Arcturus (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Note. This text is from the source and could be added to the deleted section I mentioned above: WHO, which is based in Geneva, Switzerland, said late Thursday on Twitter that its team plans to visit hospitals, markets like the Huanan Seafood Market linked to many of the first cases, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and laboratories at facilities like the Wuhan Center for Disease Control. Arcturus (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"All hypotheses"? Which means what? Bat virus, bat virus via pangolin, lab-leaked bat virus, bioweapon by China, bioweapon by US, bioweapon by Liechtenstein, virus by 5G, virus by unicorn snot, virus by Daleks, virus by grey goo made by Greys, and so on? Tweets have that character-limit problem, which can lead to ambivalence, and they should not be used when it does.

This has been gone long enough. There has been no working argument for treating the lab leak idea as reasonable, there has only repetion, strawmen, repetition, and repetition. Drop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)