Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology

Coronavirus

The lab is the possible source for the current coronavirus epidemic. 47.137.181.252 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

"The"? I wouldn't say that's an accurate statement. It's speculatively a plausible source. Anyway, the article does say it. LjL (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"which was refuted as a conspiracy theory by The Washington Post in a piece titled: "Experts debunk fringe theory linking China’s coronavirus to weapons research"

The linked Washington Post article only attempts to debunk the idea of the current coronavirus epidemic being a bioweapon. The Washington Post article states the facility specialized in research regarding diseases carried by bats. It did not at all 'debunk' the idea that the virus escaped from this facility. The article should be reflected to reflect this very real possibility.

Colonycat (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

We don’t chronicle unverified conspiracy theories on WP under the guise of "not proven". If high quality RS raise new concerns it can be considered. Note also there are also WP:BLPviolations linked to this conspiracy theory (see Twitter bans Zero Hedge after it posts coronavirus conspiracy theory), that can have serious implications to editors who try to promote them. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia want to be party to a coverup?47.137.181.252 (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources that are not speculation on social media and other editors will consider it. Wikipedia can only publish verifiable facts. No cover-up here as evidenced by the open minded editors who continue to engage on this talk page about the topic Slywriter (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, it took a bit of time for the allegedly-RS media to pick it up, but it's here now: Sources believe coronavirus originated in Wuhan lab as part of China's efforts to compete with US. Can we at least remove the "conspiracy" from "conspiracy theory" on the page regarding this? Thenaterator (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a reasonable approach, in fact the only approach Wikipedia can take and stay true to its principles. I think that there is rason to be suspicious of the virus origin, but it does need to be confirmed in reliable sources for us to include it in this article. 47.137.181.252 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand, virus labs do create viruses in vitro (for gene therapy, e.g., as a popular vector besides CRISPR CAS). This is also not a bioweapon, too simple to be one. So lets call the name of a lab first. CAS Key Laboratory of Special Pathogens and Biosafety. Crazy, first link in google https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/the-pandemic-discussion-forum/824572-discussion-chinese-academy-of-sciences-cas-in-wuhan-has-been-working-with-bats-and-coronavirus-for-many-years-dna-manipulations-cloning and this (read comments only, they were very dismissive first and THEN WHEN I found out that Lab of Special Pathogens published those viruses in GenBank that completly destroyed the article ideas after the article was published) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1 2A00:1FA0:482C:1CE0:41AF:57A5:9C1C:2DF5 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

How many days are in April? In the last paragraph, it currently reads, "On April 31, Trump claimed he has evidence of the lab theory, but offers no further details on it." My calendar only has 30 days in April. Jack Bee Nimble (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Jack Bee Nimble

The page needs a controversy section

Currently the page is merely a propaganda page for the Institute, listing all the awards and fame. It neglects ongoing national debates in China alleging the improper handling of lab animals inside the Institute may be the source of the 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, as well as the Institute's lack of respect of intellectual properties, trying to steal an experimental drug from Gilead Sciences.

Suggest add a "Controversy" section.

Controversy

In February 2017, in a news article published in Nature , scientists warned that a SARS-like virus could escape a lab set up that year in Wuhan, China, i.e., the Institute, to study some of the most dangerous pathogens in the world.

In February 2020, a debate in Chinese social media alleged that the improper work of the Institute may lead to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak possibly due to improper handling of samples and lab animals.

In February 2020, the Institute applied for a patent in China for the use of remdesivir, an experimental drug owned by Gilead Sciences, in treating the coronavirus infection . The application was made on Jan. 21 together with a military academy, according to a Feb. 4 statement on the institute’s website. The move revived longstanding concerns about China’s respect for intellectual property rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs)

DavidGeorge1977. This is an encyclopedia, and not a blog or chat space. Everything we post must be a verifiable statement from a high quality independent source. We cannot use anything from social media. We also cannot use diverse sources to come to our own conclusion (called WP:SYNTH), as you are attempting above. More importantly, when the highest quality sources (we call WP:RS/Ps), like Washington Post debunk a conspiracy theory (several more high-grade sources followed WPO), then we don't carry it as "unproven". However, one of the most serious things to do on Wikipedia is to use a discredited theories/other conspiracy theories to damage the reputation of a living person (per WP:BLP). We only carry "Controversy" sections, when the highest grade sources specifically confirm the controversy is correct and valid. Ironically, we have already seen Twitter to that to Zero Hedge for trying to push that exact theory: CBS. Britishfinance (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The conspiracy is about an intentional utility of the bats coronavirus as a bio-weapon, which is not discussed here. The controversy is about the possibility of the 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus was leaked from this Institute, most likely unintentionally, which is the only lab in China capturing bats and studying bat coronavirus. There is currently a serious debate ongoing in China, with this institute being in the center. Wikipedia should have a balanced view, and reflect the existence of this national debate. Besides, amid the 2019-2020 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, this institute tries to profit from it through a patent application on an experimental drug owned by someone else. This should be reflected in a balanced view.

And in fact, the concern of the bio-safety of this lab was raised as early as in 2017 in Nature - a prestigious science journal . This should be mentioned. Wikipedia should not become a propaganda page for any organization or person. Right now, this page looks like an advertisement with all the decorations but neglecting the debate and warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs)

DavidGeorge1977, I have incorporated the Bloomberg and Nature references into the article. I have also fleshed our Richard E's concern in 2017 re the lab and the fact that other SARS leaks from Beijing labs. Again, I note that Nature have explicitly put on their article heading and update to clarify that they have no belief that WIV is the source. Ultimately, Wikipedia is not the ongoing news, we are always deliberately behind the news, because we only chronicle what has been explicitly said by the highest quality sources. People may put A and B together to get C, but we cannot use it until a high-quality source explicitly says "A and B equal C". This is an encyclopedia, and what we are bringing is an are verifiable correct facts that have occurred and are accepted by the best sources. Britishfinance (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts and the clarification. I understand. Just one piece of food for thoughts: why would you think that Nature put that heading to that old 2017 news article? It was an old news after all. Nobody should even care. Why is it worth of a heading today? That's because a huge debate is ongoing now and many people, especially those whose voices are censored in China, believe otherwise. Whatever that debate conclusion is, tens of thousands have been infected, hundreds died. And even more will follow. Wikipedia will not necessarily reflect the truth. It reflects the verified source. I get it. It should not be a propaganda page either.

Chinese bats don't suddenly all fly to Wuhan altogether. They were brought there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs)

My pleasure, your frustration is a very common occurrence to people not fully familiar with WP. We are more like Nature, recording stuff that has "broken" as news a long time ago (or at least sufficiently long ago that nobody disputes it). The Nature reference you provided is very interesting as it directly contradicts that Richard E said a few days ago on WPO, who I am very happy to include it and flesh this contradiction out. If you have any other references like Bloomberg, Nature, etc. post them here and let's discuss them for the article. If you want an article that is really impactful, and that people really listen to and understand, stick to the unambiguous facts, and even avoid any kind of "controversy" assertions (unless it is a term widely used) - it is amazing how 95% of the public are not familiar with such facts and will appreciate them. They however get very dismissive when they think what they are reading is somebody's point of view/angle on a story. That just gets ignored. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that, as it stands today, this page does not accurately reflect the high (and intensifying) degree of controversy surrounding the institute. Take this statement, for example: "During January and February 2020, the Institute was subject to further conspiracy theories, and concerns that it was the source of the outbreak through accidental leakage,[22] which it publicly refuted.[23]" "Refuted" is absolutely the wrong word. At best, "denied." Not the same thing.--98.111.164.239 (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Support The Wikimafia controllers have blood on their hands with their censorship RandomUser3510 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no "Wikimafia ", but I agree that the institute is best known for this controversy or speculation.--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Things have moved on in this, and while the initial bioweapon allegations have been discounted, a recent WPO article with Richard E has added further credible concern over the WIV as a source of the virus through lab accident. I have updated for this article for this, and split out a "Concerns as source" section (which I think it the best wording). Britishfinance (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Updates

Update1. On Feb 5 2020 by BBC China:

In this BBC China article, Richard H. Ebright, a researcher at Rutgers University who warned about the biosafety of WIV on Nature in 2017 and paid close attention to Shi Zhengli's work since then, said to BBC on Feb 5, 2020: (1) There is no evidence showing the genomic sequence of the Wuhan coronavirus was intentionally engineered; (2) The possibility of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak was due to a lab accident could not be ruled out; (3) The genomic sequence of the coronavirus causing the 2019-2020 Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak is very close to a bat coronavirus species RaTG13, which was collected from Yunnan Province and stored in WIV since 2013.

The article is titled "Wuhan Pneumonia: "Wuhan Virus Research Institute" in the eyes of the outbreak and fake news storm". Nothing new here above the stuff from our Nature ref and WPO refs (both in the article). We can use non-English references in an article but preference is en. I suspect that this sub-story is being monitored actively by most news agencies, so if anything tangible comes up, we will see it; also possible that WPO, NYT, BBC etc. will write a major piece in a week or so on WIV, summarising all the known facts/concerns about WIV's possible role as the source of the virus, which we could obviously use. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You missed the point here. The point is exactly the fact that WIV is in the eyes of the storm, and this fact is not reflected in the Wiki page. As Richard Ebright has pointed in 2017, and repeatedly now again, "The possibility of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak was due to a lab accident could not be ruled out". Right now, there is an inconclusive storm going on. And this is not correctly reflected on Wikipedia. This Wikipedia page is taking a side and a conclusion of the debate, which it should not. The storm is inconclusive and debating, but Wikipedia is taking a conclusion. And this is wrong.

It should also be pointed out that, in China, any idea, news, fact that are not in agreement with the central government are deemed as "rumor" and "fake news". Most ironically, the Chinese medical doctor who first warned the public about the outbreak of the 2019-2020 Wuhan outbreak was deemed "spreading rumor". He was punished by the Chinese police, and lated died of coronavirus infection himself in Wuhan. His "rumor", as deemed by China news agency, is now truth.

This should not be taken lightly. Tens of thousands are infected, and hundreds are dead by now. Everybody hopes it is not a lab accident. But if it is, the WIV and the person who did this, should be held responsible.

Also an update: there is officially an investigation started . We will see how it goes. Hopefully the truth will be revealed. We all hope there is no criminal. But if there is, the criminals should get their deserved punishment - only when there is a conclusion to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs)

Per our earlier discussion, Wikipedia can only publish material that high-quality independent reliable sources say. We already have a who paragraph of the WIV being part of conspiracy theories? If we get more updates from high-quality reliable sources on these allegations, we will carry them. Britishfinance (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Update 2 about WIV's patent application on remdesivir:

As the owner of remdesivir (Gilead) is supplying free of charge trial drugs to Chinese patients in clinical trials during the 2019-2020 outbreak, WIV is applying for a patent application (yes, for a drug that is invented and owned by somebody else), writing up a paper for submission, and withholding the potential efficacy information to the patient public until Gilead shipped their investigational drug to China. WIV and Zhengli Shi's group kept the patent application of remdesivir, the efficacy information, and the manuscript to themselves until their plan was disrupted by Gilead's free-of-charge clinical trial started and trials drugs were given, when WIV had to disclose and claimed it as a "domestic success of drug innovation". And WIV said they will not exercise the patent right? Come on. This is shameless. Remdesivir was invented by somebody else and patented for coronavirus treatment since 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

From what I can see, none of these extra references mention the WIV, so are not really relevant (perhaps for the main 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak article)? The article does mention this patent issue (per Bloomberg and NYT), I am not sure if there is more to be said on it - this is China and they have their own patent law, it is not the place to have a discussion on the rights and wrongs of Chinese patent law? Britishfinance (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

These extra references are listed here to describe 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and the closely linked China media censorship, public concern and suspicion, in which WIV is heavily involved in the storm eye. These references are not intended to be included in the WIV wiki page directly, but as supporting evidence for the debate. I saw you added the section: "During January and February 2020, the Institute was subject to further conspiracy theories and concerns that it was the source of the outbreak through accidental leakage,[13] which it publically refuted.[14] Members of the Institute's research teams were also subject to various conspiracy theories,[15][16] including Shi, who was forced herself to make various public statements defending the Institute.[17]". which is an improvement. I would not prefer the word "conspiracy" though. How does anybody know if it is a conspiracy or not before any conclusion can even be drawn? It is a debate. And people have good reasons to question. But yes, it is a "concern" indeed. Also, about Shi, she was not "forced" by anybody to make that statement. She posted that statement on her own WeChat (China's most powerful social media) moments voluntarily and also told everybody else to "shut *** up" (in Chinese). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGeorge1977 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I have put a "comma" into the first sentence between conspiracies and the potential for accidental leakage (which I think has the most credibility given quotes, although by no means probable). Ultimately, give most of the refs use the term "conspiracy" (or even "fake news" per BBC CHina), we have to follow that. If a high-quality RS comes out saying that they were most likely the source of the leak (e.g. from a credible investigation), then we can include it. I have deleted the word "forced" per your comment. If you find any high-quality RS that specifically cover the WIV, then definitely alert us to them. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Coordinates different than address

The official website shows the address as 湖北省武漢市武昌區小洪山中區44號 which is many km. away from 30°22′28.0″N 114°15′58.4″E. Perhaps they are different offices of the same organization?

Also please add an English address to the article. Jidanni (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q30292611 Jidanni (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

In short there seems to be two branches: one closer to the wet market.

Zezen (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The address "Xiao Hong Shan No.44, Wuhan, PR China." On the relevant page (http://english.whiov.cas.cn/About_Us2016/Contact2016/) of the institute official website English language is very low searchability, so it is more accurate to search in Chinese language.

The official notation on the official website (Top page of Chinese language edition, http://www.whiov.ac.cn/) is "湖北省武汉市武昌区小洪山中区44号". Keep in mind, for example, that on google earth, this search method does not show issue #44（44号）. --Seibi hancho (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(Additional information) Although the location as HQ has been edited by me, the following is considered to be important supplementary information, so please note it.

The official website of the BSL-4 laboratory, the "Chinese Academy of Sciences Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory" (中国科学院武汉国家生物安全实验室) has either been deleted or is not reachable from my country (Japan).

After I confirmed the archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20200125094658/http://nbl.whiov.ac.cn/ ), the location of this laboratory is "湖北省武汉市江夏区金龙大街郑店黄金工业园" (Huangjin industrial park, Zhengdian, Huangjin road, Jiangxia District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province) was written on the corresponding page. For your reference. --Seibi hancho (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Coordinates do not align with to addresses from maps in China, due to random distortion patterns. See Restrictions on geographic data in China. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thankful for your tips. Let me clarify my point. The location of Wuhan Institute of Virology: WIV and National Biosafety Laboratory, Wuhan: NBL are completely different, and the first coordinates indicate the position that is considered to be the rough coordinates of the latter. Please forgive me because English is not my native language. --Seibi hancho (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

After all, the address and street number can not be confirmed on the map, the name of the building called P4 laboratory can not be confirmed on the map either. After I confirmed the google map ( https://www.google.co.jp/maps/place/30%C2%B022'35.0%22N+114%C2%B015'44.1%22E/@30.3763889,114.2607548,540m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d30.3763889!4d114.26225 ）, the location of this P4 laboratory is that The address is unknown on map list. This laboratory-like building was next to "華南新型材料工業園".This building is near the intersection of national highway G107 and highway "jinlong ave 金龙大道", It will be near "Keshicun 柯石村" on the map.The address and street number cannot be confirmed on the map, so please confirm it in the shape of the laboratory building. I confirmed the building in the same way on Google Earth.--Eddyground (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Coordinates are now 580 meters wrong. The lab is 580m to the northwest from the place the coordinates are now pointing at. You can see this if you compare to the pictures of the lab on different news sites (NBC etc.) 2001:2060:85:100:15A0:5D61:193D:E25D (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, see Restrictions on geographic data in China. Satellite images do not align with road maps in China. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

CAS Key Laboratory of Special Pathogens and Biosafety

And not Wuhan institute itself is in this "conspiracy" "theory". Please edit, smth like "The Institute was rumored as a source " to "The Institute (practically CAS Key Laboratory of Special Pathogens and Biosafety) was rumored as a source" 2A00:1FA0:482C:1CE0:41AF:57A5:9C1C:2DF5 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

How WuXi AppTec and WuXi PharmaTech are connected to Wuhan Institute (if they even are)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WuXi_AppTec https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/coronavirus-outbreak-climbs-to-more-than-6-000-cases-track-pharma-response-here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:482C:1CE0:41AF:57A5:9C1C:2DF5 (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Missing scientist: H.Y. and details on the index case (Patient 0) conspiracy theory

Let us concentrate here on the presumed conspiracy theory involving the disappearing WIV scientist H.Y. (nomina sunt odiosa, see the links) and the related retracted papers.

See "The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus" http://archive.is/JrGmY and the Beijing Times article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQFCcSI0pU&t=6m40s (I could not find an archive) plus the arguments raised there by the YT poster and the Chinese sources quoted there.

Of course, let us avoid WP:OR and use only WP:RS instead, while mentioning this theory, the disappearing papers (factual, see the Archive link above) and the WIV staff (as imputed).

Zezen (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I have updated with an article from the WPO on the origins of the virus that quote Richard E and some of the concerns you note above. As with all these things, best to wait until it does get to RS like the WPO/NYT/WSJ before using, however, given the mega-notability of this event. if the material is credible, it gets into the highest grade RS pretty quickly. Britishfinance (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. See also https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2035568207_Yanling_Huang Zezen (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

WaPo joins the crowd, with 2018 details: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/

Zezen (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This is the most recent update to the theory yet put forward, from Fox News. (Waiting to see how many RSs will follow.)

“Sources believe coronavirus originated in Wuhan lab as part of China's efforts to compete with US”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-china-compete-us-sources Gramm3 03:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

How is Charles Lieber connected to all of it?

He was arrested Jan 28. 2A00:1370:812C:91A8:9D1A:4BA1:B223:FE6 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories vs theories

The article states:

"During January and February 2020, the Institute was subject to further conspiracy theories"

Oxford defines a "conspiracy theory" as "the belief that a secret but powerful organization is responsible for an event".

The organization or individuals responsible if COVID-19 did originate from the Wuhan Institute of Virology would not at all be secret. People could debate about the amount of blame given to the employee(s) of the lab, leadership of the lab, leadership of the government official(s) overseeing the lab(s), or the Chinese Communist Party leadership itself. The fact that the Communist Party is both powerful and ultimately in charge of the lab is not at all a secret. Oxford defines "theory" as: "a formal set of ideas that is intended to explain why something happens or exists".

The use of the word "conspiracy" to describe what is in fact a non-conspiracy theory is entirely inappropriate.

The article cites a Washington Post article ("Experts debunk fringe theory linking China’s coronavirus to weapons research") which contains a statement by Mr. Richard Ebright: "Some of the speculation has centered on a virology institute in Wuhan, the city where the outbreak began. One fringe theory holds that the disaster could be the accidental result of biological weapons research. But in conversations with The Washington Post, experts rejected the idea that the virus could be man-made. “Based on the virus genome and properties there is no indication whatsoever that it was an engineered virus,” said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University." https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/01/29/experts-debunk-fringe-theory-linking-chinas-coronavirus-weapons-research/

An article published April 4, 2020 in The Tennessee Star quotes Mr. Richard H. Ebright:

But Richard H. Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University, told the Daily Caller News Foundation on Thursday that there is a real possibility that the virus entered the human population due to a laboratory accident. When asked specifically if he believes the virus could have leaked from Shi’s lab in Wuhan, Ebright said: “Yes.” “A denial is not a refutation,” Ebright said. “Especially not a denial based on ‘nature punishing the human race for keeping uncivilized living habits.’”

Richard H. Ebright tweeted on Feb 22, 2020:

"Some..researchers..sell..lab..animals to street vendors after they..experiment..on them..Instead of properly disposing..infected animals..they sell them..One..researcher..made..million..selling..monkeys and rats" Coronavirus may have leaked from lab

https://twitter.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1231373527271514114.

How Richard H. Ebright is being used as a source to "prove" the idea of the virus coming from the lab is a "conspiracy theory" is nonsensical when he is explicitly stating it could have come from the lab.

Washington Post obviously flubbed, or should we say faked, this one up - not surprising as it fake news.

The Wikipedia text currently states:

"During January and February 2020, the Institute was subject to further conspiracy theories, and concerns that it was the source of the outbreak through accidental leakage,[24] which it publicly refuted.[25] Members of the Institute's research teams were also the subject of various conspiracy theories,[26][27] including Shi, who made various public statements defending the Institute.[28] While Ebright refuted several of conspiracy theories regarding the WIV, he told BBC China that this did not represent the possibility of the virus being "completely ruled out" from entering the population due to a laboratory accident.[24]"

This entire paragraph is trash honestly. It gives uses the word conspiracy inappropriately to discredit a theory and gives undue weight to the statements of the institute and the employees of the institute. The statements of the institute and the officials in China are not credible given the efforts the Chinese government has taken to stifle dissent and criticism of their handling of the virus. If any researcher said anything otherwise they would probably disappear. https://www.businessinsider.com/china-coronavirus-whistleblowers-speak-out-vanish-2020-2#fang-was-arrested-on-february-10-14

Does Wikipedia consider a statement from CCP such as: "We assured the world that the Muslims in educational groups have voluntarily enrolled in a wonderful education program to embrace Chinese culture! They are having a great time, enjoying a wonderful vacation!". If not, Wikipedia should not given the weight to statements from the institute and its employees the credibility it currently does.

Just wanted to say that it also could have been natural virus from the lab, it is not like the natural AIDS in lab is different from the natural AIDS in real world (and actually most of genbank data is AIDS because of its high mutation level). Also there is this https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2020/04/15/wapo-debunks-their-own-story-criticizing-sen-tom-cotton-for-spreading-conspiracy-theory-about-wuhan-lab-n2566991 and today Trump was asked the question about BSL–4 lab by Fox news reporter. Also I support this as there is already an investigation into this. Also see what Fox news reported. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-china-compete-us-sources2A00:1370:812C:1791:49CE:62D9:6D84:6B46 (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur. See also my Talk contribution above. Zezen (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Probability

This institute, apparently the only one in China doing experiments with the coronavirus, is about 13 km from the location of the wet market where the first outbreak occurred (according to Google maps). What is the probability of the outbreak falling into this rectangle of 26 by 26 km, 676 square kilometers, centered on this institute? The total area of China is 9 597 000 square kilometers. So the probability is 1 against 14 196. So lottery odds then! Nothing to see here! 46.109.138.188 (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is a wrong number. I did a gmap search of the Huanan Seafood Market and all the biotech research labs in that area of Hubei, Wuhan. This market forms the bullseye in concentric rings of biological facilities, Polytech Institutes, Colleges of Pharmacy, the Virology Institute, Med schools, Center of Applied Biotechnology, the School of Biological Engineering, two Peoples Liberation Army Hospitals (a center for biological warfare?), Hubei Tech, Technology Buildings, many of which are on the SAME street as this market. Two lesser known laboratory buildings in particular are IMMEDIATELY overlooking this market square, one to the NE and one to the SW. And it is not just a market, but large number of small restaurants and ATMs where the researchers of those two laboratories can be... 91.76.18.15 (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Lede

The lede needs to make a clearer distinction between the conspiracy theories of the creation of a bioweapon at the WIV and the non-conspiracy theories of its accidental origins there. Reliable sources have offered the latter as a theory, and whether it’s true or not, it ought to be covered neutrally. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: I briefly revised the lead statements to specify the January hypotheses. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the current draft of the lede is definitely an appropriate summary of the matter. Thank you. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Colonycat: I don’t understand your edit, which somewhat undoes some of the distinction between the two different hypotheses. You refer to talk but I don’t see any explanation for your edit. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Conspiracy theories vs theories section above. Colonycat (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Colonycat: Ah, thanks. There’s a point to not use the term conspiracy theories in WP voice for some situations. I think that it makes sense here to use attributed calls of the term, i.e. something of the nature of what the New York Times has called “conspiracy theories”, since there are RSes that use the exact terminology to describe the January hypotheses. I’ll look for the sources and attribute them accordingly. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: I understand Wikipedia might have NYT as a 'reliable' source but it is trash. The NYT is not using the correct term.

Again, Oxford defines a conspiracy theory as "​the belief that a secret but powerful organization is responsible for an event".

You state "I think that it makes sense here to use attributed calls of the term"[...]. Why? If there is a conspiracy theory regarding the virus, who is the secret but powerful group? Do they have a name such as the "The illuminati"? The term conspiracy theory is used incorrectly and serves only to discredit a legitimate theory that the virus was released from the lab, even if it occured accidently. Richard H. Ebright, cited in the Washington Post a reliable source, stated explicitly "Coronavirus may have leaked from lab". https://twitter.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1231373527271514114. So choosing to quote the NYT above other reliable sources is cherry picking. Colonycat (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

If RSes say something, then we should use an WP:INTEXT attributed statement if it's pertinent and WP:DUE. Competing viewpoints can both be represented. A conspiracy theory isn't always defined as a secret but powerful group (some 9/11 conspiracy theories posit that it's the US government which is hardly a secret group), but in this case it's supposedly the Chinese government/military anyways. Also a Twitter statement is typically viewed as less reliable than a Twitter post.

I also think you're misunderstanding the actual viewpoints here. The January hypotheses refers to COVID-19 being called a conspiracy theory by different RSes is: COVID-19 is a man-made virus was created in a laboratory intentionally and possible as a biological weapon. The hypothesis for which the article mentions the April investigation is: a natural virus was accidentally spread to researchers in the lab who would have then spread it to the outside community. The Twitter post that you quote doesn't differentiate between the two. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: "A conspiracy theory isn't always defined as a secret but powerful group (some 9/11 conspiracy theories posit that it's the US government which is hardly a secret group), but in this case it's supposedly the Chinese government/military anyways.". A conspiracy theory, by definition, involves a secret but powerful group. To your example of 9/11 and the wiki article on 9/11 you linked, most 9/11 conspiracy theorists would probably claim a smaller secret group of individuals within the US government are responsible - not the entire government down to every USPS worker being in on it. I understand there are two different theories and agree the virus is likely not a 'bioweapon'. However, neither theory about the virus and the lab is a conspiracy theory. How about calling the bioweapon theory 'discredited' based on the many researchers who have come to that conclusion? The theory that the virus escaped the lab is simply a theory. Please forgive lack of text syntax abilities. Edit: Here is a great BBC article using only the word theory without the word conspiracy once. A very balanced take: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52318539. Colonycat (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Some definitions that don't require a secret but powerful group (the plot can be secret but the group doesn't need to be):

• Merriam-Webster: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
• Cambridge Dictionary: a belief that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people

But regardless of that lexical technicality, the January hypothesis is a theory postulating that a small group within the Chinese government / lab are responsible, with many RSes describing the man-made virus hypothesis using the word conspiracy theory whether you agree with them or not:

• The Guardian: In the US, according to a new report by the Pew Research Center, about a third of Americans surveyed believe that Covid-19 was created by humans in a laboratory [...] About four in 10 conservative Republicans who replied believed in the conspiracy theory
• ABC: Conspiracy theories claiming COVID-19 was engineered in a lab as part of a biological attack on the United States have been gaining traction online
• Science: Scientists ‘strongly condemn’ rumors and conspiracy theories about origin of coronavirus outbreak
• The Lancet: strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.
• New York Times: The coronavirus has given rise to a flood of conspiracy theories [...] Claims that the virus is a foreign bioweapon

Saying "discredited" is okay if there weren't many RSes use the term. The fact that they call it so can be noted in an in-text attributed way. It's WP:DUE and not WP voice. On the other hand, it would be WP:UNDUE to omit that RSes are calling it a conspiracy theory. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The best grade RS (i.e. WP:RS/P), are pretty strong that the bio-weapon/engineered virus were "conspiracy theories". They use this term consistently to describe that story. However, the second concern of an accidental leak is not referred to as a "conspiracy theory", and in fact, some heavyweight sources (major scientists, historical U.S. Embassy cables, and WP:RS/P), highlight it as a possible cause. I agree with MarkH21 on this, and it is worth clarifying the distinction. Our interpretation of the term "conspiracy theory" is not a useful discussion here; our job is to chronicle what the quality RS said about WIV. Britishfinance (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I think it should be obvious that the January theories were conspiracy theories now. it's the later ones in April that deserve attention. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I originally said that it should be given with in-text attribution, but there are so many RSes with this description that it seems a bit unwieldy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems like there are some theories given more credit by reliable sources. It's important we carefully distinguish between a legitimate active investigation/baseless conspiracy theories. It all seems far fetched to me, but I think as long as we faithfully follow the sources we'll be fine. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I'm with you. Deb (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Let us add to "according to [list of sources]" to achieve balance. Zezen (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Because the list of quality RS calling the bio-weapon/engineered virus theory a "conspiracy theory" (and showing that it is false as the virus has been shown to have a naturally occurring structure), is so large, I don't think it needs particular attribution. The concerns over accidental leakage are different, and attribution here is more useful here. Britishfinance (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree.

See a new one: https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-complicated-origins.html

"The result of these experiments is a virus that is highly virulent in humans but is sufficiently different that it no longer resembles the original bat virus," Petrovsky said in a statement from the Australian Media Center. ... If that virus infected a staff member and that person then traveled to the nearby seafood market, the virus could have spread from there, he said. Or, he added, an "inappropriate disposal of waste from the facility" could have infected humans directly or from a susceptible intermediary, such as a stray cat. Zezen (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• RS call the entire thing a conspiracy theory. Comments like those of Zezen above invite novel synthesis. So what if it could happen? There is zero evidence it did, and no remotely plausible reason why it would. Guy (help!) 12:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I've included the views of two leading figures in the field of emerging infectious diseases, both of whom heavily dispute the idea that the virus leaked from a lab. The interviews comes from NPR and Vox. There are actually a whole number of virologists interviewed in those articles, all of whom reject the idea of a leak. I've only included one statement by Daszak and and one by Mazet so far, but the virologists interviewed explain several different reasons why they view the lab leak theory as far-fetched. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

In the article it should be clear that both theories (originated at the market and originated at the lab) have been the subject of controversy. Feel free to mention those sources. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Shi Zhengli

Her name should be linked in the article. 2601:602:9200:1310:D558:D263:2057:A99A (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It is, several times? Britishfinance (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Cables

Is the text of the 2018 U.S. diplomatic cables publicly available? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of, although you can find some quotes in the original Washington Post article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No, Josh Rogin, who wrote the opinion piece based on the cables, says he's not going to provide the full text. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Trevor Bedford

The link to Trevor Bedford is not correct. It guides a former professional rugby league footballer. EssamMSharaf (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@EssamMSharaf:  Done, thanks! — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

non sequitur: natural origin -> no involvement

"In January 2020, conspiracy theories circulated that the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic originated from viruses engineered by the WIV, which were refuted on the basis of scientific evidence that the virus has natural origins". To me this looks like a non sequitur fallacy. A natural origin of the virus does not rule out an involvement of the institute, which could have served as a catalyst. Such things are not unknown in history (e.g. in case of the Marburg virus). I've looked at the given sources and they all focus on a scientific consensus that SARS-CoV-2 is not an engineered bioweapon. None of the sources really say, or set out to prove, that the virus could not have been researched, collected, or cultivated at the institute, and escaped from there in an accident. -- Seelefant (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Seelefant: The January 2020 sentence you quoted refers to the hypothesis that the virus was engineered (i.e. an artificial coronavirus). Later paragraphs describe the separate hypothesis of accidental exposure of a natural coronavirus to which you allude. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right of course - it sometimes pays of to read the whole thing, before writing an angry reply :/ -- Seelefant (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

NPR and Vox have interviewed several leading virologists: [1] [2]. All the virologists they interviewed heavily disputed the idea that the virus leaked from a lab. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yet many other virologists claim that it is either way.

See the current article or Newsweek for details: https://www.newsweek.com/controversial-wuhan-lab-experiments-that-may-have-started-coronavirus-pandemic-1500503

Zezen (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Chinese laudatory article Feb 2020 about WIV but

containing some useful info about the experiments, history and people:

In addition, because the research object of the P4 laboratory are highly pathogenic microorganisms, once the test tube for storing viruses is opened in the laboratory, it is like opening the Pandora's Box.

Read all here: http://pr.whiov.cas.cn/gzdt/202001/t20200108_536635.html

Zezen (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Concerns as source: May 2nd biorxiv preprint about zoonotic origin and human adaptation

I want to talk about adding this preprint article to the concerns as source section because it seems that their data suggest that the virus was already adapted to humans when entering the Wuhan seafood market. And that we should not rule out the lab accident theory just yet.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.073262v1.full.pdf

"Even the possibility that a non-genetically-engineered precursor could have adapted to humans while being studied in a laboratory should be considered, regardless of how likely or unlikely (39)."

I also want to see if we can correct this sentence: "The result showed none of the sequences matched those of the viruses her team had sampled from bat caves". along with citation #38 because it seems that from an earlier paper, the virus showed 96.2% genomic sequence identity to another virus. Maybe it could say that a perfect match was not found.

Earlier paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7

"Simplot analysis showed that 2019-nCoV was highly similar throughout the genome to RaTG13 (Fig. 1c), with an overall genome sequence identity of 96.2%"

And the genome sequence shows that it was uploaded by WIV when they released this article. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN996532

@Britishfinance: If you could help me with this, I haven't done much wikipedia stuff... thanks

Feynstein (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't cite a preprint, which can be uploaded by anyone and is not peer reviewed. The citation the paper provides for the quote above is to Josh Rogin's opinion column in the Washington Post.

Also the correction you propose regarding SARS-CoV-2 and bat cave samples isn't a correction: I don't think that you realize that 96.2% is a relatively large difference. -Darouet (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

---

@Darouet: Yes, I would take a preprint like that with full methodology and data any day over a news story, like in #39. Especially with authors from UBC and MIT and their relevant contact information on the paper itself (which is not "anyone" by the way). It's not peer-reviewed yet but my bet is that they sent it to different journals. When you deal with a rapidly evolving situation like this one you can't always wait for the peer-review process, even if this process is now being fast-tracked for Covid-related papers. What you do is you relay the information and put a note saying it's a preprint. I'm sure I can easily find a wikipedia page that uses a preprint on ArXiv as citation btw. I'll come back to you with that.

I also want to add that in citation #39 there is actually a quote from the exact same Josh Rogin's opinion column. Making, by comparison, your argument that the reference to that quote comes from an opinion column pretty much irrelevant. The "concerns as source" section in this wiki page even talks about unverified allegations that the POTUS made. UBC/MIT preprint on biorxiv > POTUS at the moment.

Regarding the 96.2%: READ THE QUOTE -> "Simplot analysis showed that 2019-nCoV was highly similar throughout the genome to RaTG13 (Fig. ​(Fig.1c),1c), with an overall genome sequence identity of 96.2%."

Unless you're an expert in DNA sequencing your remark means absolutely nothing. The expert in the peer-reviewed nature paper is probably the best qualified person to make that distinction. I am myself M.Sc. in Electrical Engineering and Physics and 5% is a usual threshold we use. I'll check where the 96.2% comes from in the article, if its a rms error or anything. The distinction is that I know I am not an expert in the field of DNA sequencing, that's why I decided not to argue to remove the sentence completely, but rather that the word "perfectly" should be added before "matched".

By the way I find your tone very condescending. This is a place for discussion, hence the name "talk". "I don't think that you realize" this is bad faith. Feynstein (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)