Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Previous coronavirus research

The article quotes a WaPo article "debunking" that the virus was engineered as a weapon at the Institute. In some research of my own I found the following article - Discovery of Novel Bat Coronaviruses in South China That Use the Same Receptor as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus, and a summary - Bats Identified as Source of Pig-Killing Coronavirus in China. It is certainly no conspiracy to say that the Institute had a history with or was familiar with such a virus. It would, at this point, not be accurate to say that the virus came from that Institute, as there's no RS making that claim. Maybe it is just a coincidence that a virology research facility has experience with the very virus that began spreading across the globe from an area very close to said facility. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

There has been more written about this topic, since the WPO pieces, including this from Vox (magazine) aggregating the state of the evidence on this: The conspiracy theories about the origins of the coronavirus, debunked. Seems like it is just pure coincidence. Britishfinance (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we please base our opinions on this subject on a source whose objectivity in this discussion is less questionable? Vox immediately attempts to politicise the issue within their first few paragraphs. Can someone please find a non-partisan discussion to cite? The article in question correctly notes that suggestions of Chinese biological-weapon development are improbable; but does little to nothing to undermine the validity of the argument that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was a possible accidental source of the contagion. The deliberate labelling of such a theory as a "conspiracy theory" is a deliberate attempt to stifle legitimate intellectual inquiry. 2A00:23C5:94D7:7300:9CA5:6FBB:AC69:511F (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, Vox is not a reliable source. Further, I counted four usages of the term "conspiracy theory" in this article. This is more of an argument for the main article, but using such a term which has negative connotations is introducing bias. It would be accurate to say "source X investigated a claim regarding Y from social media source Z and deemed it to be a conspiracy theory without evidence" but not to make such a declaration in the unquoted body. --2620:114:2012:18:581:2C0E:1120:7474 (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Vox is considered a reliable source by the Wikipedia community, and is listed in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Britishfinance (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I reused a Nature RS predating this, so non-partisan for sure, with a verbatim claim of danger of accidental release. Q.v. Zezen (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Vox is fucking trash. Insane that Wiki considers it reliable. https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/46-times-vox-totally-fucked-up-a-story-1673835447 Colonycat (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are you tarnishing Vox's reputation?--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Colonycat, Vox is not currently a deprecated source. If you wish to discuss a change to its rating, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.Forich (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Removed section on international inquiry

I've reverted (diff) the addition of what looks to me like an essay on the calls for an international inquiry. The essay included highly POV phrases like By May, 2020, China had been resisting an increasing number of requests by the international community to allow an independent investigation into the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, After weeks of bitterly resisting such proposals Chinese leader Xi Jinping on 18 May indicated his support for an international review as soon as the pandemic is over and Critics also say that the proposed approach is unlikely to produce any real results since it may be years before the pandemic is over (MERS, which appeared in 2012, is still not over) and then an investigation may take many more years, by which time China will be out from under the current pressure and will have a greater ability to resist a thorough inquiry. The statement that Such assertions have not been supported by solid evidence and some scientists are unconvinced, saying that it is more probable that the virus entered the human population naturally is a major understatement. No evidence has been provided for the theory that the virus comes from a lab, and the idea is widely rejected by scientists in the field. As written, the sentence gave the impression that this is a "he said, she said" issue, and that only some scientists disagree with the theory that the virus comes from the lab. As the whole section was only tangentially related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and was written in a highly POV manner, I removed it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: If you had taken the time to read the reference article in Science magazine you would have seen that the text you reverted was a faithful depiction of its tone and wording. The article said that "So far, however, the Chinese government has given no public sign it is interested in cooperating. Its silence and signs that China is stifling origins research by its own scientists, have fueled theories that the virus accidently leaked from a lab there." Is this a gross misrepresentation? Science magazine is the preeminent scientific journal in the United States. It also said "So far, however, the assertions that the new virus was in that facility have not been backed by hard evidence, and some scientists are skeptical of the escape claim, saying it is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 naturally emerged elsewhere." Is this a major understatement and distortion? He said she said? The article is only tangentially related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Then why is a big picture of the Wuhan Institute of Virology displayed right above the article in the original publication?

Please explain either how I misrepresented what the article said or your reasons for claiming that its content is unscientific or unsuitable for Wikipedia. — Swood100 (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There seem to have been a lot of editorial liberties taken there; wording like bitterly resisting isn’t really appropriate in WP:WIKIVOICE unless it’s attributed to someone directly saying that in a source. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

From the Washington Post: “For weeks China had been anticipating, and bitterly opposing, a proposal from Western countries to conduct an international probe into the pandemic’s origins.” — Swood100 (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the bitterly is wording that should probably be in-text attributed rather than in WP voice. Otherwise it would be fine. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

How about this: "After weeks of what has been described as "anticipating, and bitterly opposing, a proposal from Western countries to conduct an international probe into the pandemic’s origins" Chinese leader Xi Jinping on 18 May indicated his support for an international review as soon as the pandemic is over." — Swood100 (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I will rephrase it so that it is not WP:POV and resubmit it later today, if everyone is ok with that. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhysiqueUL09: Before rephrasing it please cite the text that you believe is WP:POV. If the text you cite is an accurate depiction of the tone and content of the article in Science Magazine and you are asserting that that publication does not have a neutral point of view, then please supply references to reliable sources indicating that. — Swood100 (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The Science Mag article in question [1] refers almost exclusively to calls for an investigation into the COVID-19 pandemic, but only once to the WIV lab. The same is true for the proposed addition [2]. I therefore suggest you propose the text at COVID-19 pandemic, not here. -Darouet (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The Science article is describing growing pressure on China to allow an independent investigation into the pandemic’s origins. It points to China’s refusal to cooperate, together with signs that it is stifling origins research by its own scientists, and says that these have fueled theories that the virus accidently leaked from a lab there. As this article describes it the lab leak theory is integral to the pressure being put on China to allow an investigation into origins. Why else would the article have mentioned it in the first paragraph, instead of not mentioning it at all? — Swood100 (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I updated the article so that it includes the specific quotes from the different articles. But not for the positive side, because in the rest of the article it doesn't need that condition to be considered WP:NPOV. Please discuss before revert. I think I did a fairly good job at removing the unrelevant parts. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Your text, and the article cited, don't mention the WIV once. -Darouet (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: Added reference to it, so that people know we're talking about WIV when we are talking about the unlikely theories that it emanated from there. I though it was general knowledge now lol but it seems that not, so I added it. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhysiqueUL09: I'm basically OK with your modifications. I made a few wording changes. I changed the wording for the WIV to simply cite some authoritative sources that the WIV is the lab that is at the center of the controversy. — Swood100 (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict here) There might need to do a bit of moving around with the sentences in the second paragraph so that it makes more sense. By the way Science Magazine is a very reliable source. It goes right after Nature(43.07) as a scientific review journal with an impact factor of 41.037.[3] No need to claim it is WP:POV, this is a battle already lost imo. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope we don’t rely too much on impact factor, otherwise we might find even Annals of Mathematics (impact factor ~3) deprecated! — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Well we're talking 41 and 43 here lol, not the same scale PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources in the second paragraph that was added mention the Wuhan Institue of Virology or the theory that the virus leaked from a lab. They discuss calls for an investigation into the handling and origins of the pandemic in a more general sense. Without direct mention of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, inclusion of this paragraph is inappropriate, and I have removed it. If there are any objections, let me know. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The final sentence of the first paragraph in the "International inquiry into origin" gives the false impression that the countries listed are calling for an investigation into the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This is not stated in the sources, most of which do not mention the Institute at all. The only references to the laboratory are in the Forbes and CNBC articles. Forbes calls the idea "misinformation" and says that it is being propagated by Trump and Republican politicians, and CNBC also only mentions the theory in connection with Trump, saying that there's no evidence for the theory. Discussing the theory that the virus leaked from a lab, and then saying that "Calls for an investigation were made by roughly 100 countries" is extremely misleading, to the point of being dishonest with the reader. Those countries have not called for an investigation into the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The discussion is about a much more general investigation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: You are right, do you think there would be a better way to rephrase it? The reference I added specifically talks about the WIV. What do you suggest? PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I find it is still relevant information to the reader, to be able to get a more complete view of the situation regarding the lab. We need to expose both views. I know that the theories proposed by Trump might not make sense to you, but there are people that believe it, including me to a certain extent (quantum tunneling type stuff lol). But you know how science works, if I find out the truth is completely the opposite I will be happy to know that and I'll even help you write the relevant paragraph about the disculpation or something XD. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The information is not relevant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, so it does not belong in this article. This article should discuss the Trump administration's promotion of the conspiracy theory about the lab, but it should not give the false impression that other countries are calling for an investigation into the lab. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:

Without direct mention of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, inclusion of this paragraph is inappropriate

The Science article is describing growing pressure on China to allow an independent investigation into the pandemic’s origins. It points to China’s refusal to cooperate, together with signs that it is stifling origins research by its own scientists, and says that these have fueled theories that the virus accidently leaked from a lab there. As this article describes it the lab is central to the pressure being put on China to allow an investigation into origins. Why else would the article have mentioned it in the first paragraph, instead of not mentioning it at all? Why else would they have put a picture of the lab above the article?

If it is established that the lab is related to the independent investigation then it is not necessary to continue mentioning the lab in every paragraph that goes on to say that, in fact, the investigation was agreed to, and that conditions were put on it that people complained about. Do you disagree?

The final sentence of the first paragraph in the "International inquiry into origin" gives the false impression that the countries listed are calling for an investigation into the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

How about this: “Calls for an investigation into the origins of the coronavirus were made by roughly 100 countries including…”

Forbes calls the idea "misinformation" and says that it is being propagated by Trump and Republican politicians, and CNBC also only mentions the theory in connection with Trump, saying that there's no evidence for the theory.

Those references are there to document that these countries made calls for an investigation into the origin. — Swood100 (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The calls for investigation by almost all countries (except the US) have nothing to do with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Trump administration is promoting the conspiracy theory about the lab, but other countries are calling for a more general inquiry into the origins of and response to the epidemic. Australia has specifically distanced itself from Trump's conspiracy theory, because the Australian government thinks the theory is undermining the Australian government's calls for an investigation.

The calls by countries other than the US for an investigation do not belong in this article, because those calls are not related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It's extremely misleading to mix up the Trump administration's calls for an investigation into the lab with the calls by other countries for an investigation of the origins and handling of the virus. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:

The calls by countries other than the US for an investigation do not belong in this article, because those calls are not related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The article we are talking about concerns increasing international pressure on China to allow an investigation. According to the article the impetus of this pressure was in part created as a result of theories that the virus accidently leaked from a Chinese lab. It is universally acknowledged that the lab in question is the WIV. The pressure being put on China consisted of calls for China to allow an independent investigation into the origins of the SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, according to the article, those calls were related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The article doesn’t say that this was everybody's principal concern, or that all the countries were of the same mind. It just says that the WIV played a part in creating the pressure.

I know that you disagree with the article. You would not even have mentioned the accidental leakage theory but I think you will acknowledge that it says what it says. We could not possibly slant it in order to leave the reader with the impression that only the United States was making such calls, or that only the United states was motivated in part by the WIV, because that would be distorting what the article says. The pressure being described is not all from the United States. I don’t think we need to list countries individually but we need to keep the fact that calls for an investigation were made by roughly 100 countries.

What are your objections to the second paragraph? — Swood100 (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Swood100: You're drawing an incorrect equivalence between the calls by countries for an investigation into the origins of the virus and the performance of the WHO on the one hand, and the conspiracy theory pushed by the Trump administration about the Wuhan Institute of Virology on the other hand. The call for investigation by 100 countries is not a call for investigation into the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and it has nothing to do with the Institute. Connecting them is synthesis, and it's intended to give the reader the false impression that 100 countries have called for an investigation into the Institute.

I've stated my objections to the second paragraph. Not a single reference used in the second paragraph even mentioned the conspiracy theory about the Wuhan Institute of Virology. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:

You're drawing an incorrect equivalence between the calls by countries for an investigation into the origins of the virus and the performance of the WHO on the one hand, and the conspiracy theory pushed by the Trump administration about the Wuhan Institute of Virology on the other hand.

Consider the following quote from the article:

“China is facing growing pressure from national governments and international organizations to open its doors to an independent, international investigation…So far, however, the Chinese government has given no public sign it is interested in cooperating. Its silence, and signs that China is stifling origins research by its own scientists, have fueled theories that the virus accidently leaked from a lab there.

“The whole world wants the exact origin of the virus to be clarified,” German Minister of Foreign Affairs Heiko Maas told reporters today, endorsing calls for China to allow an outside body to conduct field research and other studies aimed at determining how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19, jumped into humans. The Chinese government’s response to such calls, he says, will demonstrate “how transparent it wants to be with the virus.”

It says that China’s actions have fueled theories that the virus accidently leaked from a lab. The very next thing is says is the quote from the German Minister: “The whole world wants the exact origin of the virus to be clarified,” along with a suggestion that China is hiding something. Are you saying that the article is making no connection here, and that the “fueled theories” are not related to the “growing pressure” or with the accusation that China is hiding something?

A theory does not have to have validity in order to have political influence. In fact, the article points out that “some scientists are skeptical of the escape claim, saying it is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 naturally emerged elsewhere.” So it is made clear that the “escape claim” is considered doubtful by some scientists. Nevertheless, it plays a prominent role in this article. Why do you think that it was mentioned at all if it had nothing to do with the “growing pressure”? — Swood100 (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Heiko Maas' statement is not about the lab conspiracy theory. He's talking in general about an investigation into the origins of the virus. The investigation that roughly 100 countries are calling for has nothing to do with the theory about the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and should not be presented here as having anything to do with that theory.

considered doubtful by some scientists: Not by "some" scientists. It is widely dismissed as hugely improbable by virologists. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: The lab was mentioned in paragraphs one and three. In your opinion, what was the article about and how did mentioning the lab contribute to that? — Swood100 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The article talks about different types of pressure on China. There is the conspiracy theory that Trump is pushing, and there are the more general calls for an investigation into the origins of the outbreak and its handling by the WHO and various countries. The article discusses both. The German government, represented by Heiko Maas, has most certainly not pushed the lab theory, and Maas' statement about an investigation does not have to do with that theory. Calls for an investigation into something other than the Wuhan Institute of Virology are irrelevant in this Wikipedia article, so the broader calls for an international inquiry should be removed from the article. It's fine to mention Trump's conspiracy theory, and indeed that theory is discussed at length in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: The article is titled “Pressure grows on China for independent investigation into pandemic’s origins.” According to the opening paragraph China’s refusal to cooperate, along with a perceived stifling of research by its own scientists, have fueled theories that the virus accidently leaked from a lab there.

The article reports that there are calls for an investigation and that “a few” government officials (including Trump and Pompeo) have asserted that the virus escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan. Here it cites a New York Times article reporting that U.S. intelligence agencies say they have reached no conclusion on the issue; that China silenced those who were trying to report on this; that some of the evidence that Trump and Pompeo are relying on appears to be based on electronic intercepts of communications among Chinese officials, and revealing those could well expose details of how the United States keeps track of Chinese leadership; that “some” (not all) American allies also seem skeptical of the Wuhan laboratory theory; that Chinese government officials went to considerable lengths to cover up evidence about the outbreak and detained scientists who warned about it; and that the Shanghai laboratory where researchers published the world’s first genome sequence of the deadly coronavirus that causes Covid-19 was shut down by China for “rectification” after that lab shared the genomic sequence of the virus with collaborators around the world.

The Science article says that the assertions that the new virus was in that facility have not been backed by hard evidence, and that “some” (not all) scientists are skeptical of the escape claim, but despite this, both politicians and scientists are increasingly calling on China to allow independent scrutiny.

So here is what the Science article reports:

1. “a few government officials” (not just Trump and Pompeo) have asserted that the virus escaped from a lab in Wuhan.
2. The motivations for these assertions are described in the NYT article.
   1. The NYT reports that the actions of the Chinese government have raised suspicions that they are trying to cover something up.
   2. The NYT reports that U.S. intelligence agencies have reached no conclusion on the issue.
   3. The NYT reports that “some” (not all) American allies are skeptical of the Wuhan lab theory.
3. Even though the assertions that the new virus was in that facility have not been backed by hard evidence, only “some” (not all) scientists are skeptical of the escape claim.

If you believe that the following statement is false please explain how:

According to the Science article, and the NYT article it referenced, the lab release theory is not just held by Trump but is held by others, including “a few government officials,” “some American allies” and “some scientists.” U.S. intelligence has reached no conclusion on the lab release theory. The lab release theory was fueled by actions of China that appeared to be an attempt to cover something up. The lab release theory plays a part in the international pressure growing on China to allow an independent investigation into the pandemic’s origins. — Swood100 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There has been extensive reporting on the fact that American intelligence agencies are under pressure from the Trump administration to find evidence for the theory or a lab leak, but that they have reported to the Trump administration that they have no evidence for the idea - and that they have not detected the sort of alarm inside the Chinese government that they would expect if there had been a lab accident.

The Science article discusses claims by American officials that the virus came from a lab in Wuhan. It does not say that foreign governments have supported these claims. Suggesting in any way that the international calls for an investigation are directed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is misleading. The Science article does not support that text. Unless you can find statements from other governments that call for the lab itself to be investigated, the "international investigation" section should be removed. My suggestion is that any material in that section worth keeping be merged into the "concerns as source" section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: The Science article talks about “government officials” who have asserted that the virus escaped from a lab, not “American officials.” But please directly respond to the statement I proposed last time, with reference to both the Science article and to the NYT article it cites. If you believe that the statement is false please explain what about it is false. — Swood100 (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

And you think that "government officials" refers to non-American government officials? The article does not explicitly say that, and it only refers to Trump and Pompeo. According to the Science article, and the NYT article it referenced, the lab release theory is not just held by Trump but is held by others, including “a few government officials,” “some American allies” and “some scientists.” Neither article states that "some American allies" or "some scientists" hold the lab release theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: And you think that "government officials" refers to non-American government officials? The article does not explicitly say that, and it only refers to Trump and Pompeo.

The Science article says that “a few government officials” in addition to Trump and Pompeo are influenced in part by the lab escape theory. How do you support the proposition that “a few government officials” (not including Trump and Pompeo) can only refer to “American government officials”? Besides Trump and Pompeo, which American government officials would be worth mentioning in this context?

Neither article states that "some American allies" or "some scientists" hold the lab release theory.

The Science article says that “some scientists are skeptical of the escape claim.” The NYT article reports that “some American allies also seem skeptical of the Wuhan laboratory theory.” Why would these statements have been made unless “some scientists” and “some American allies” are not skeptical? How can this be disputed?

Unless you can find statements from other governments that call for the lab itself to be investigated, the "international investigation" section should be removed.

Please reference your authority for the proposition that if a reliable source reports that some American allies support X, this may not be cited in Wikipedia unless official statements to that effect by American allies can be cited. (Is that your position?) — Swood100 (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Science article says that “some scientists are skeptical of the escape claim.” The NYT article reports that “some American allies also seem skeptical of the Wuhan laboratory theory.” Why would these statements have been made unless “some scientists” and “some American allies” are not skeptical? How can this be disputed? You're reading things into these articles that the articles do not state. You can't read the statement that some American allies also seem skeptical of the Wuhan laboratory theory and then claim that that means that some American allies are not skeptical. Maybe those other countries haven't stated anything about the theory at all. Maybe every country that has officially made a statement is skeptical. You're just picking the possibility that you like - that the countries that aren't mentioned support the theory - and claiming that that's what the article means. I think that at this point, you're simply misrepresenting what the NYT and Science Magazine articles state. Please stop doing this. You'll have to find articles that actually support the claims you're making - that countries other than the US are calling for an investigation into the WIV and that some scientists support the lab escape theory - if you want to put those claims into the article. But please don't keep stating that the NYT and Science articles say something that they do not actually say. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: See the following: — Swood100 (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If the Science article is about growing pressure China is facing from national governments and international organizations, and the lab release theory is prominently mentioned in the article as being an element of that pressure, then how can we conclude that that lab release theory is not a part of the international pressure?

Suppose there is international pressure to allow an investigation, and some countries have motivation X and other countries have motivation Y and other countries have motivation Z. Then X, Y and Z are all elements of the pressure and in an article about X it would be relevant to mention that X played a role in forcing an investigation. This is especially true if the countries that have motivation X possess significant political, economic and/or military influence. So even if only the United States was motivated by the lab release theory their portion of the pressure is a component of the international pressure that brought about the result. — Swood100 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Swood100: maybe put it back here so that we can analyze it, I'm not on my PC. But yeah, same thing here with the references, the guy tries to use stylish wording but failed. Next time, try and correct it instead of putting all to trash and come here say it needs more work. It might not sound like it but I respect your work and I always try to talk first. Next time you make a mistake I might end up doing what you do... Which is making a regression. Even if the build is broken, you find have to erase all the code and start again, you debug. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhysiqueUL09: I'm having a little bit of difficulty understanding what you are trying to say here. Could you rephrase it in simpler terms? — Swood100 (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Swood100: Yeah I think I was talking to you at the start about putting the paragraph here and then I started talking to Thucydides411. Either way I was very tired and it might only be rubbish XD, sorry. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhysiqueUL09: Do you think that my summary of the Science and NYT articles, just above, accurately represents their content? — Swood100 (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Swood100: I don't have time to read them right now, I will get back to you. But I think it makes sense. What you must avoid is something that is irrelevant to this lab or cannot be sourced properly. You must also avoid to come to conclusions by yourself, wikipedia is only here to present what has been said on a subject. It must absolutely be neutral. There must also be a balance between approval and criticism. We can't just fill it with articles that are negative to the lab, or the inverse. This is why I always prefer to quote the article directly, no one can say no to that XD PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Here it is:

After China had resisted such proposals for weeks Chinese leader Xi Jinping on 18 May, 2020 indicated his support for an international review as soon as the pandemic is over. The WHO leadership has agreed that the inquiry should wait until the pandemic has been contained, rejecting a call by the U.S. and Japan for an "immediate investigation." Regarding the timeline of an outbreak investigation, a CDC document on principles of epidemiology concluded that "Once the decision to conduct a field investigation of an acute outbreak has been made, working quickly is essential — as is getting the right answer". One critic stated that "China made it clear it will only support an investigation into the origins of the virus after the pandemic has ended. That could be years away, and the longer it takes, the less likely it will be the source will be accurately identified." An analysis in Foreign Policy said that the investigation "is unlikely to produce any real results...China’s influence within the organization means that the results are likely to come late—and to be compromised." CNN analyst James Griffiths came to a similar conclusion. — Swood100 (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, none of the sources referenced in that paragraph even mention the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Any connection to the WIV is synthesis, and appears to be meant to give the false impression to the reader that countries (other than the US) are calling for an investigation of the lab conspiracy theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence about 100 countries calling for an investigation, because that sentence is highly misleading - the call is not for an investigation into the lab conspiracy theory. It's a call for investigation into the origins of the virus in general, and the performance of the WHO during the pandemic. The section heading, "International inquiry into origin," is still highly misleading, because it suggests that the international calls for an inquiry have something to do with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As the sources (including the Science Magazine article that the section quotes from) point out, the Trump administration has been largely alone in promoting the unsupported conspiracy theory about the lab.

This section should be deleted, and whatever material is salvageable from it (the material directly discussing the lab conspiracy theory) should be merged into the preceding section. As it is, the section misleads the reader into thinking that the international calls for an inquiry have to do with the lab. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Thucydides411, Swood100, and PhysiqueUL09: Would it be possible for one of you to break this discussion into manageable subsections without distorting the context? This might not be possible for the existing discussion, but it would be helpful if it could be reasonably done :) Or perhaps a new subsection for the current outstanding issues? — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: I'm also having difficulty following the discussion, since the newest comments are in the middle of this section. I'll just succinctly state how I see things here:

• The "International inquiry into origin" section is misleading, because it mixes up two completely different things. On the one hand, there is the conspiracy theory about the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which as far as I can see has not been supported by any government other than that of the United States. On the other hand, there is the World Health Assembly resolution that calls for an investigation into the origins and handling of the pandemic: [4]. The conspiracy theory promoted by the Trump administration is relevant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The World Health Assembly resolution is not. Blurring the lines between the two, and suggesting that the 100+ countries that signed on to the WHA resolution are somehow calling for an investigation of the WIV is just plain misleading.
• For that reason, the "International inquiry into origin" should be removed, and any material salvaged from it (only material directly relevant to the WIV) should be incorporated into the section titled "Concerns as source."

-Thucydides411 (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

(Agree to move to "Concerns as source")@Thucydides411: I agree that it should be moved to the "Concerns as source" section, because from this article it seems like the US report blaming WIV is not a Five Eyes report as I previously thought[5]. You can make the move if you want to make sure it is how you like and I'll do a pass afterwards and see if it satisfies me? We should make sure it also pleases @Swood100: and maybe @MarkH21: if he was involved enough, in order to continue. Thanks for the good discussion! PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411, MarkH21, and PhysiqueUL09:

Science magazine published an article titled "Pressure grows on China for independent investigation into pandemic’s origins." The contents of the article are perfectly described by the title. The reasons why pressure is growing were described in the first paragraph of the article as (a) China’s refusal to respond to calls for an investigation into the origins SARS-CoV-2, (b) signs that China is stifling origins research by its own scientists, and (c) theories that the virus accidently leaked from a lab. A large picture of the WIV is displayed at the top of the article.

This was included in the Wikipedia article on the WIV since this international pressure is described as being caused, in part, by the theory that the virus leaked from the WIV. Thucydides411 responds that item (c) above, though described by the article as related to the international pressure, is in fact not related to the international pressure. He says:

The conspiracy theory promoted by the Trump administration is relevant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The World Health Assembly resolution is not. Blurring the lines between the two, and suggesting that the 100+ countries that signed on to the WHA resolution are somehow calling for an investigation of the WIV is just plain misleading.

Thucydides411 believes that the escape theory motivates only the United States but fails to cite any authority for that proposition, from this article or elsewhere, and takes the position that even though pressure from the United States is a part of the total international pressure, it is improper for Wikipedia to report that the escape theory is related to the international pressure unless it can be shown that some other country is also motivated by that theory. Thucydides411 fails to explain why, if the WIV is not related to the pressure on China described in the title, a picture of the WIV dominates the article. Nor does he explain why the escape theory was conspicuously included at all if it has no relation to the pressure on China that the article described. Furthermore, it is a straw man to pose the issue as whether or not 100+ countries applying pressure all had the WIV specifically in their sights. The escape theory can be a component of the international pressure without being part of the motivation of all 100+ countries, and certainly without each country declaring that to the news media and provoking the ire and retribution of China.

Thucydides411 states in a straightforward manner that the escape theory “as far as I can see has not been supported by any government other than that of the United States.” But if the escape theory is prominently named in an article that describes international pressure on China, as it was, then it is not the role of Wikipedia editors, citing only their personal beliefs, to deny that this theory is in fact a part of the international pressure, and claiming that additional proof is needed. Nor is there any text in the article suggesting that this theory is not a part of the international pressure. The burden is on the editor to provide a source to that effect if he believes that the Science story is mistaken or gives a false impression. If it is felt that clarification is needed we can explicitly say that the number of countries who were motivated by the escape theory is unknown.

I agree that it should be moved to the "Concerns as source" section, because from this article it seems like the US report blaming WIV is not a Five Eyes report as I previously thought.

This appears to take the position that the Science article’s inclusion of the escape theory as a part of the international pressure is refuted because a “dossier” giving weight to the theory is not a Five Eyes intelligence document. But the escape theory can be a motivation for pressure on China without there being conclusive proof that the theory is valid and certainly without individual countries releasing all their intelligence to the public, thereby disclosing sources and methods to all. It clearly is such a motivation for the U.S. (though they on occasion have alluded to such proof). The Science article did not purport to declare that the theory is valid. In fact, it clearly said that these assertions “have not been backed by hard evidence, and some scientists are skeptical of the escape claim.” It simply said that the escape theory was the result of the suspicion that China was hiding something and did not want the true origin of the virus to be discovered. That’s hardly an airtight logical proof. It is enough, however, to contribute to the pressure on China that the article described. Whether or not it is included as a Five Eyes intelligence document is no more relevant to the creation of pressure on China than whether virologists interviewed by NPR believed that the virus escaped from the lab.

The subsection titled "Concerns as source" deals with whether or not the WIV actually did release the virus. International pressure on China to allow an investigation is a different issue and does not belong in that section. It deserves its own subsection. If a WP:RS disputes whether the escape theory was a part of the pressure on China, then that can certainly be included as well. A claim that the article did not intend to include the escape theory as part of the international pressure on China needs to (a) cite the text that establishes this, (b) explain why a picture of the WIV dominates the article, and (c) explain why the escape theory was included in the article at all.

A second paragraph originally described events that occurred after the article was written. It should be included in order to give the reader up-to-date information:

After China had resisted such proposals for weeks Chinese leader Xi Jinping on 18 May, 2020 indicated his support for an international review as soon as the pandemic is over. The WHO leadership has agreed that the inquiry should wait until the pandemic has been contained, rejecting a call by the U.S. and Japan for an "immediate investigation." Regarding the timeline of an outbreak investigation, a CDC document on principles of epidemiology concluded that "Once the decision to conduct a field investigation of an acute outbreak has been made, working quickly is essential — as is getting the right answer". One critic stated that "China made it clear it will only support an investigation into the origins of the virus after the pandemic has ended. That could be years away, and the longer it takes, the less likely it will be the source will be accurately identified." An analysis in Foreign Policy said that the investigation "is unlikely to produce any real results...China’s influence within the organization means that the results are likely to come late—and to be compromised." CNN analyst James Griffiths came to a similar conclusion. — Swood100 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411 believes that the escape theory motivates only the United States but fails to cite any authority for that proposition, from this article or elsewhere: You're asking for me to prove a negative. You've repeatedly misrepresented the Science Magazine article, claiming that it says some government officials outside the US and some scientists believe the lab escape theory. It does not say either of those things, and it's up to you to find sourcing if you want to claim either of those things. It's not up to me to prove you wrong. As I've said before, the international calls for an investigation are not related to the WIV, and the Science Magazine article does not say that they are. That's why they don't belong in this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:

You're asking for me to prove a negative.

Despite the fact that the escape theory is listed in an article devoted to describing the international pressure on China, and despite the fact that a picture of the WIV dominates the entire page, you keep claiming that the WIV is not related to the subject of the article and your sole support for this is your personal affirmation that only the U.S. holds the escape theory. I can give personal affirmations as well but where does that leave us? Is there an inability-to-prove-a-negative exception to the WP:RS requirement? In any event it doesn’t involve proving a negative. It simply involves finding a WP:RS that says that the escape theory only motivates the U.S. But even if you found such a source it would only go toward rebutting the position espoused by the article (i.e., Science magazine says this, source x disagrees), which is that the escape theory is a component of the pressure being placed on China.

You've repeatedly misrepresented the Science Magazine article, claiming that it says some government officials outside the US and some scientists believe the lab escape theory. It does not say either of those things, and it's up to you to find sourcing if you want to claim either of those things. It's not up to me to prove you wrong.

I did not rely on either of those arguments above. They need not concern us at this point. But just to clarify, I am sure you recognize that the phrase “some scientists are skeptical of the escape claim” is used to indicate that other scientists are not skeptical. It is disingenuous to insist, as you seem to, that it might as easily be meant to indicate that some other scientists are not aware of the controversy. Who would such scientists be? And when the article says that “a few government officials,” including Trump and Pompeo, “have asserted that the virus escaped from a laboratory,” you insist that those officials are probably lower American officials such as assistant secretaries of state. How likely is it that this article would speak about such officials as if their opinions on the escape theory could affect the dynamic in any significant way given the opinions of Trump and Pompeo? But let’s just drop this line of discussion.

As I've said before, the international calls for an investigation are not related to the WIV, and the Science Magazine article does not say that they are.

But then why was a picture of the WIV placed above the article? Wasn’t that placed there for context? Doesn’t your position require us to believe that Science magazine placed an unrelated image on the page knowing that this would create confusion? And why was the WIV discussed at all in the article? Are you claiming that it was included and discussed even though it was entirely unconnected to the international pressure growing on China for an independent investigation? Could you please respond to these questions directly? — Swood100 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: In addition to the above, the subject of the Science article, as stated in its opening sentence, is that China is facing growing pressure from national governments and international organizations to open its doors to an independent, international investigation into the origins of the novel coronavirus causing the current COVID-19 pandemic, as well as into the nation’s early response to the outbreak.

Why would there be pressure to allow an international investigation into the origins of the coronavirus if all these countries did not doubt that the virus entered the human population naturally, directly from some animal, and without any involvement by China? How would such an investigation even proceed? Would the investigators go on a bat collecting expedition, or start testing all the animals around Wuhan for antibodies to find the likely source? If there is pressure on China to allow investigators in to investigate how the virus entered the human population and China is resisting, as the article said, then the proposed area of investigation cannot be any of the above, which China certainly would not resist. What kind of an investigation into origins would China resist except for one that might conclude that China had some culpability in this matter, and that might result in the disclosure of some information that they don’t want disclosed?

This is a serious question. What sort of international investigation into the origins of the coronavirus would be resisted by China except for one that investigates whether their virus labs played any role? — Swood100 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411, MarkH21, and PhysiqueUL09: I think that it is difficult to contest that the Science article was in fact drawing a connection between the WIV and the growing pressure on China to open its doors to an international investigation into the origins of the coronavirus. Nothing else has been given to explain why they would include a picture of the WIV at the top of the page, describing it as being "at the center of so far uncorroborated allegations that a lab accident released the coronavirus that causes COVID-19," if such allegations were unrelated to the subject of the article, or why they would discuss the WIV prominently within the article. Nor can it be explained why China would resist an inquiry into the origin of the virus unless the WIV was to be a focus of the investigation, or even what else an investigation into the origin could focus on. The current status of this section is incomplete since action has been taken by China in response to this. I propose the following additional paragraph:

On 18 May, 2020 Chinese leader Xi Jinping indicated his support for an international review as soon as the pandemic is over. The WHO leadership has agreed that the inquiry should wait until the pandemic has been contained, rejecting a call by the U.S. and Japan for an "immediate investigation." One critic stated that "China made it clear it will only support an investigation into the origins of the virus after the pandemic has ended. That could be years away, and the longer it takes, the less likely it will be the source will be accurately identified." A CDC document on principles of epidemiology concluded that "Once the decision to conduct a field investigation of an acute outbreak has been made, working quickly is essential — as is getting the right answer". An analysis in Foreign Policy said that the investigation "is unlikely to produce any real results...China’s influence within the organization means that the results are likely to come late—and to be compromised."

I also propose to remove this sentence: "Virologists interviewed by NPR have said that there is virtually no chance that the virus emerged from a lab." First, the section already says that some scientists are skeptical of the escape claim. Second, this is the sixth time in this article that this reference has been cited. Isn't five times enough? I think the reader has got that one down. Third, the reference to this as a "conspiracy theory" along with all the reasons it should not be believed, are already repeated mantra-like throughout this article. Surely the saturation point has been reached. Fourth, it is not relevant to this section, which is describing the pressure on China to allow an investigation despite the facts rendering the escape theory dubious. The section already says that "assertions that the new virus was in that facility have not been backed by hard evidence." Perhaps we should follow that with this sentence (as in the original): "Still, both politicians and scientists are increasingly calling on China to make any investigations it is conducting into the matter more transparent—and to allow independent scrutiny." This way we can make it clear that the point of the Science article was that pressure on China was growing despite the absence of hard evidence. The opinions of the NPR virologists have already been presented and in any event they are superfluous to this issue. We know they don't believe it. The important factor here is that this issue played a role in creating the pressure on China even though solid reasons to believe it have not been presented.

Are there any comments? — Swood100 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I've found the actual text describing the inquiry. It's very vague, and full of lawyer-ish annotations. Here [6] Here we go: " (10) to initiate, at the earliest appropriate moment, and in consultation with Member States,1 a stepwise process of impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation, including using existing mechanisms,2 as appropriate, to review experience gained and lessons learned from the WHO-coordinated international health response to COVID-19 – including (i) the effectiveness of the mechanisms at WHO’s disposal; (ii) the functioning of the International Health Regulations (2005) and the status of implementation of the relevant recommendations of previous IHR Review Committees; (iii) WHO’s contribution to United Nations-wide efforts; and (iv) the actions of WHO and their timelines pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic – and to make recommendations to improve capacity for global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, including through strengthening, as appropriate, the WHO Health Emergencies Programme;"

Means absolutely nothing anyway... I don't expect any of this to bring light upon the source of the virus until the CCP crash-burns like the Soviet Union. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhysiqueUL09: It authorizes an impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation. China will probably deny entrance to the WIV on the grounds that that would be an investigation and only an evaluation was authorized, or simply that neither one authorizes entrance to the WIV without some proof that the WIV has some connection to the pandemic. This is why critics think that China is trying to delay this as long as they can in the hopes that the public pressure will have dissipated and China will have had a chance to work out agreements with a number of countries not to push too hard on the evaluation, in exchange for a favorable economic trade relationship. Those who don’t play ball get treated like Australia. — Swood100 (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Swood100: You still see that the wording is vague (existing mechanism, as appropriate)... I stopped caring a week ago I think when they said it did not come from the market finally. I looked at the SARS 2003 timeline and they hid the info exactly like they did here and no one protected the international community thinking they were past this BS. I truly think it came from the lab... Or if it didn't, they didn't do a good work at preventing suspicion... I think it would have been in their interest if it didn't to invite people in. I think they're smart enough to have done so. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I haven’t looked carefully at the rest of this wall of text (again, it would help to organize your discussion into subsections or at least a numbered list) or the linked sources carefully, so I’m not making any general comments yet. But I wanted to point out that the specific arguments of Nothing else has been given to explain why they would include a picture of the WIV at the top and Nor can it be explained why China would resist an inquiry into the origin of the virus unless the WIV was to be a focus of the investigation are fairly WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Something has to be said directly. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21:

1. If a picture of the WIV accompanies an article that indicates that the publication believes that the picture is related to the article.
2. The legend under the picture says that the WIV “is at the center of so far uncorroborated allegations that a lab accident released the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.”
3. The subject of the Science article is: “Pressure grows on China for independent investigation into pandemic’s origins.”
4. The above, alone, indicates that the publication believes that pressure is growing on China and that the WIV is related to that pressure. It also indicates that the WIV has something to do with an investigation into the origins of the virus.
5. The article says that because of China’s refusal to cooperate, and signs that it is stifling research by its own scientists into the origin of the coronavirus, theories that the virus accidently leaked from a lab in China have been fueled.
6. If an article describing growing pressure on China says that theories have been fueled, then the article is saying that the theories are related to the pressure unless something in the article indicates otherwise.
7. When the article says that a few government officials, including U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have asserted that the virus escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, this indicates that, according to the authors, the theories have resulted in governmental pressure, including pressure from the U.S.
8. The article goes on to say that these theories have not been backed by hard evidence, and that some scientists are skeptical. This implies that some scientists are not skeptical. Then it says “Still, both politicians and scientists are increasingly calling on China to make any investigations it is conducting into the matter more transparent—and to allow independent scrutiny.”
9. The sentence above beginning with “Still” indicates that despite the arguments that these theories have not been backed by hard evidence, and that some scientists are skeptical of them, politicians and scientists persist in calling on China to allow independent scrutiny into them. In other words, the arguments were intended to show the theories to be false, and to foreclose any further inquiry into them, but politicians and scientists persisted in requesting an investigation into them.
10. These references within the article, together with the picture that accompanies it, indicate that according to the publication, the WIV is related to growing pressure on China.

Thucydides411 asserts that the Science article does not involve the WIV, and so does not belong in this article. He believes that despite the above, Science magazine is not saying that there is any connection between the WIV and the pressure growing on China for an independent investigation. In his view, apparently, the publication put a picture at the top of the article unrelated to the article and likely to create confusion for the reader, and the article prominently discussed the accidental release theory, but without intending to imply any relationship with the international pressure — Swood100 (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@CowHouse: The comment on the edit that you deleted was “Report events since article was written, as per discussion on talk page.” Did you take a look at the discussion on the Talk page? I believe it would have answered your questions. It was clearly explained why that paragraph was relevant to the WIV article, as well as why the NPR reference was removed. There were no objections. What are your objections? You can see my most recent edit just above this one. If that one is not sufficient to explain why the international investigation is related to the WIV then go up about three pages to where you will see the following line by itself:

@Thucydides411, MarkH21, and PhysiqueUL09:

Starting from there will present all the necessary points, interrupted at one place by three posts between PhysiqueUL09 and me. Keep in mind that the original article being quoted comes from Science magazine, the preeminent scientific journal in the United States, so any objections along the line of WP:RS or WP:POV are going to be difficult to make.

As far as WP:LONGQUOTE is concerned, the first paragraph was originally written with the quoted material rephrased but maintaining an accurate depiction of the tone and content of the original. In order to circumvent objections as to content the exact quotations were used. — Swood100 (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the Science Magazine article, in itself. The problem has been your repeated misrepresentation of the article (claiming that it says that some scientists support the lab escape theory, and claiming it states that officials outside the US have called for an investigation of the WIV). -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:

• The title of the article is “Pressure grows on China for independent investigation into pandemic’s origins.”
• Just above the title is a picture of the WIV.
• The legend under the picture says “The Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, which includes this high-containment laboratory designed to work with the deadliest pathogens, is at the center of so far uncorroborated allegations that a lab accident released the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.”

Question 1: Do you agree that the article is indicating that the WIV is related to the growing pressure on China to allow an independent investigation into the pandemic’s origins?

Question 2: Do you agree that the article is indicating that the lab accident allegations described above are related to the growing pressure on China?

• The story says that China’s refusal to cooperate, “and signs that China is stifling origins research by its own scientists, have fueled theories that the virus accidently leaked from a lab there.”

Question 3: Do you agree that the article is indicating that these theories are related to the growing pressure on China that the article is describing? — Swood100 (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Persistent reversion of my edits while refusing to respond to my arguments or explain what you believe are the errors in my reasoning is WP:DISRUPT.

At 18:04, 3 June 2020 I proposed on the talk page exactly what I intended to do and why, and asked if there were any comments. You were pinged on this post, but you did not comment or object. MarkH21 replied and I responded to his post. Again there was no comment from you. Then you deleted the entire section dealing with this, giving as your reason (a) that I claim that some scientists support the lab escape theory, and (b) that I claim that the article states that officials outside the US have called for an investigation of the WIV.

But those are not the reasons I am giving. In fact, I explicitly told you in my 23:47, 31 May 2020 post not to consider those arguments, yet you continue to raise them while steadfastly refusing to respond to the arguments I am actually making. Why? The arguments I am giving are contained in my 18:04, 3 June 2020 post, to which you did not reply, in my 15:54, 4 June 2020 post, to which you did not reply, and in my 18:03, 7 June 2020 post, to which you also did not reply.

Let me be clear. I am not arguing that what some scientists are or are not skeptical about has any bearing on the rationale for including this information in the article. In fact, the article made it clear that there is a lack of hard evidence and unanimous scientific support. “Still, both politicians and scientists are increasingly calling on China to make any investigations it is conducting into the matter more transparent—and to allow independent scrutiny.” So we have calls from politicians and scientists, and this is why pressure is growing on China. And who are the “politicians and scientists” issuing these calls? That is answered in the first sentence of the article: the pressure is from “national governments and international organizations.” And what is to be the subject of the “independent scrutiny”? That is also explained in the first sentence: it is for China “to open its doors to an independent, international investigation into the origins of the novel coronavirus causing the current COVID-19 pandemic, as well as into the nation’s early response to the outbreak.”

So it’s clear that an investigation in the origins of the virus is part of the pressure. How is the WIV connected to that? A big picture of the WIV is above the article, indicating that it clearly has something to do with this pressure. The legend under the picture says that the WIV “is at the center of so far uncorroborated allegations that a lab accident released the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.” That obviously establishes that the WIV is related to the pressure. The article tells other elements of the increasing pressure, including that the WIV “studies and stores samples of coronaviruses found in bats and other species,” as well as that “signs that China is stifling origins research by its own scientists, have fueled theories that the virus accidently leaked from a lab there.”

Can you clearly explain your objections to the proposition that the Science article establishes a link between the WIV and the pressure on China. Please also explain, if the WIV is linked to the pressure why it wouldn’t be also linked to the second paragraph explaining the actions by the WHO and by China in response to that pressure, even though that second paragraph did not explicitly mention the WIV. Also please explain why the reference to the NPR article needs to be included for the sixth time. What does it add that was not already mentioned in the section? It already said that some scientists were skeptical. Why is it necessary to say that twice in a row?

Do you think that including the gist of the Science article would violate WP:NPOV? What other reason do you have for resisting its inclusion? — Swood100 (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

We've discussed this Science article ad nauseam. The article doesn't directly state the things you're claiming it implies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please answer Questions 1, 2 and 3 above. If your answer is no, please explain why and point out the flaw in my reasoning. — Swood100 (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@MarkH21, RandomCanadian, CowHouse, and Thucydides411:

Is anybody willing to give a reason why the story from Science magazine should not be reported in this article? If so, please address the reasoning in my last few edits above. Thucydides411 says simply that article doesn't directly state the things I'm claiming it implies. So when I state certain facts, such as:

• The title of the article is “Pressure grows on China for independent investigation into pandemic’s origins.”
• Just above the title is a picture of the WIV.
• The legend under the picture says “The Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, which includes this high-containment laboratory designed to work with the deadliest pathogens, is at the center of so far uncorroborated allegations that a lab accident released the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.”

and I say that the article is indicating that the WIV is related to the growing pressure on China to allow an independent investigation into the pandemic’s origins, Thucydides411 would say that since the article does not "directly say" that "the WIV is related to the growing pressure on China to allow an independent investigation into the pandemic’s origins," therefore that statement is not supported by the article. Nor can it be presumed that the lab accident allegations described above have anything to do with the WIV. And when the article says that China’s refusal to cooperate, “and signs that China is stifling origins research by its own scientists, have fueled theories that the virus accidently leaked from a lab there,” this provides no indication that these theories are related to the growing pressure on China that the article is describing, nor do they indicate that the lab is in any way related to the growing pressure.

Is everybody on board with the view of Thucydides411 on this matter? That evidence is entirely lacking that the WIV is at all related to the subject of the article, which is growing pressure on China, and that the most reasonable assumptions are that Science magazine displayed a picture above the article that was not related to the content of the article, and that they discussed the WIV prominently within the article but the WIV is not related to the subject of the article. — Swood100 (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Look, do you need to make out long and protracted discussions for every issue? What I can say is that whatever it is, we should be trying still to shorten the section on conspiracy theories; not expand it. The pressure on the Chinese governement is not part of the article subject, which is the WIV: the Science magazine article you link states exactly two things about the lab:

1. The Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, which includes this high-containment laboratory designed to work with the deadliest pathogens, is at the center of so far uncorroborated allegations that a lab accident released the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

2. And they come as a few government officials, including U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have asserted that the virus escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, where SARS-CoV-2 was first identified. That lab studies and stores samples of coronaviruses found in bats and other species. So far, however, the assertions that the new virus was in that facility have not been backed by hard evidence,

Both of these bits of information are already in the article. Adding yet another citation would be more patently useless WP:CITEBOMB, and writing walls of texts is not going to change that. Pro forma, since you ask, Agree with Thucydides. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: You omitted two other references to the lab:

3. So far, however, the Chinese government has given no public sign it is interested in cooperating. Its silence, and signs that China is stifling origins research by its own scientists, have fueled theories that the virus accidently leaked from a lab there.

4. So far, however, the assertions that the new virus was in that facility have not been backed by hard evidence, and some scientists are skeptical of the escape claim, saying it is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 naturally emerged elsewhere.
   Still, both politicians and scientists are increasingly calling on China to make any investigations it is conducting into the matter more transparent—and to allow independent scrutiny.

Look, do you need to make out long and protracted discussions for every issue?

I am just trying to get somebody to respond to the questions I raise below. If you will do that then we can have a quick end to this discussion.

What I can say is that whatever it is, we should be trying still to shorten the section on conspiracy theories; not expand it.

This section is not about conspiracy theories. It is about the contribution of the WIV to pressure on China to allow an independent investigation into the pandemic's origins.

The pressure on the Chinese governement is not part of the article subject, which is the WIV

The pressure on China is related to "theories that the virus accidently leaked from a lab there," and therefore to the WIV, which is the lab in question. If the pressure on China is not related to the WIV, then

1. Why is there a big picture of the WIV at the top of an article about pressure on China?
2. Why does it say under that picture that the WIV "is at the center of so far uncorroborated allegations that a lab accident released the coronavirus that causes COVID-19"? Why was that included in an article about pressure on China if the WIV is not related to that pressure and has nothing to do with an investigation into the origins of the virus?
3. Why are the accidental leak theory and the WIV discussed within the article if they are not related to the subject of the article? What are they doing there?

Even if the lab-escape theory is a conspiracy theory, and even if it is lacks evidence and is false, it can still influence pressure on China, which is exactly what the Science article says has happened. If the article is correct that the WIV is related to the pressure on China, and if that pressure is noteworthy, then that pressure is reportable in this article, accompanied by statements about the lack of evidence. It the pressure is not notable then why did Science magazine write an article about it? The reasons for the pressure, even if lacking support, are also relevant, in the same way that a false rumor is relevant to any notable consequence caused by the rumor. If you say that the WIV has not influenced pressure on China then what are your answers to the three questions above? — Swood100 (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

All of this is already included in the article (and by the way, no. 4 is the same as my number 2, just with the tail end which has nothing to do with the lab), and what we should be doing is trying to condense the material to avoid WP:RECENTISM - we're not a newspaper and we don't need to report every headline, unlike the content which I removed and shortened recently. The pressure on China has little to do with this lab: it is part of the international reaction to COVID and writing more on it here would be WP:UNDUE; since the primary topic of this article is not the conspiracy theories but this lab. As I said, adding the Science magazine reference would be just more WP:CITEBOMB. Now either move on to something other than writing walls of texts; or don't (with the risks therein attached...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian:

All of this is already included in the article

Where in the article does it say that theories that the virus accidently leaked from the WIV have contributed to international pressure on China to allow an independent investigation into the pandemic’s origins? And where does it say that China resisted this pressure for a number of weeks and then finally consented to an investigation, to begin after the pandemic has been brought under control?

The pressure on China has little to do with this lab

If the pressure on China has little to do with this lab then why is there a big picture of the lab at the top of the article? — Swood100 (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I do think that a brief mention should be made, but much of RandomCanadian's points about WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE are valid.

Regarding your second point: if there was a big picture of the Forbidden City, would it the pressure have to do with that? The use of a picture doesn't say much compared to a quote; the picture at the top of the article is only circumstantial evidence. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Enough mention is already made of the lab escape theory. The Science article does not directly link the WIV to the international call for an investigation, and based on my understanding of the international resolution calling for an investigation, such a linkage is incorrect. The international call is much more general (the origins and handling of the pandemic, not the WIV in particular). Swood100 is arguing that the Science Magazine article somehow implies a connection, but that connection is based on a lot of reading between the lines of the Science Magazine article (and is probably incorrect, as I've said). -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Virus Origin

Hi, I have lost track of the talks in the preceding sections, can we continue in here instead? PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don't. This issue has been talked to death. If WP:MEDRS sources lend support to the lab escape theory, then you can raise it here again. Until then, there's no point in discussing tabloid articles that promote the theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you ought to watch that video: [7] By the way I checked and Sky News Australia is not in the perennial list of unreliable sources... Well at least I don't think. They reference another expert interview from ABC, which would surely be a reliable source. Good watch. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow, another scientist working in immunology says it can't be ruled out! [8]. I found the actual interview, it starts at 9m in the video on this page [9]. @Thucydides411: you said what now? If WP:MEDRS sources lend support to the lab escape theory, then you can raise it here again?. @Swood100: You might like this also. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: It's been how many times now that I told you about people saying it cannot be excluded (including the preprint at the start of all this XD)? I guess you will still say that somehow because Sky News is right leaning everything they do is rubbish. You will also try to discredit the scientist I mentioned saying he's the only one or he's crazy or something else. I won't stop man, I still think it should not be excluded from this page! Even if it's false I think that posterity alone is a good reason to include that. I've never seen anyone that's not an expert in a field discrediting so much people closer to being experts than him. And with only the basic argument that it's fringy. I'm starting to believe now that maybe your arguments should be related to the fringe. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow, by looking at his page I really think that Petrovsky's interview qualifies as WP: MEDRS yes, he's an actual physician lol. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait for WP:MEDRS. Please stop wasting everyone's time with every new claim you see on Sky News, read in a tabloid, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, for now Petrovsky only released a pre-print but I can't wait until a journal publishes it. Now that there is concensus that it didn't come from the market, why were scientists so keen to point towards a market zoonosis theory? Can they realize now that official information from China is basically irrelevant? The evidence is starting to pile up towards a scientific mistake, be it in the lab, or in the transport of animals or samples. The lab is in the middle of a 11 million population city. As another scientist said, this research is like looking at a gas leak in the dark with a lit candle. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Here from the ANI postWhatever ends up being in the article; what is a largely discredited conspiracy theory without any supporting evidence should not be occupying what appears to be nearly half the length of the article (the specific consensus at the main page on the topic was that it should not go in that article - it could nevertheless be mentioned here, but only in a short and passing manner so as not to give WP:UNDUE weight to it). Quoting every appearance in a news paper and such is clearly not encyclopedic... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I agree about cutting down the amount of material related to the lab escape theory. It's a fringe theory, and should not take up such a massive amount of space in the article. The fact that these conspiracy theories have become a subject of political discussion means that there should be some coverage in this article. However, there's a lot here that can be cut, such as the discussion about calls for an international inquiry - calls which do not actually have to do with the WIV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I've cut down on the article length a bit by removing the claim based on geolocation (which was briefly reported in the news and which came under heavy criticism) and the subsection on calls for an international investigation (as discussed extensively above, the international calls for an investigation are not related to the WIV). -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, we think alike and edit conflict... Well, in any case, I've cut down another paragraph and kept but shortened the final one into something more reasonable, while quoting a proper MEDRS. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: In case you haven't watchlisted this page: I've made another drastic cut to make this more in line with WP:DUE so if you have improvements to suggest... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for making these changes. The section on the conspiracy theories is much more focused now, and better in line with WP:DUE. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added in one sentence about Trump and Pompeo's claims, since I think the fact that such high-ranking politicians have supported the theory is itself notable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The Chinese CDC now says the coronavirus didn't jump

to people at the Wuhan wet market — instead, it was the site of a superspreader event. https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-did-not-jump-wuhan-market-chinese-cdc-says-2020-5 Also, did you watch new DNI Ratcliff senate confirmtion?? There he was really pressed into confirming that it was not wet market -- by democrats (!). 94.29.3.116 (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)