Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)

Covid 19 Lab Leak

Add this: In February 2023, the FBI concluded that "origins of the COVID-19 pandemic likely originated from a lab incident in Wuhan, China". Later in February 2023, the US Department of Energy concluded with "low confidence" that "substantial circumstantial evidence favors COVID-19 emerging from a research-related incident," adding, "These revelations also further strengthen the need to uncover why high-ranking government officials, with help from Big Tech and the media, sought early on to silence any debate into a plausible theory of a lab incident while the Chinese Communist Party stonewalled investigations by the global scientific community.". The White House responded to the DoE, saying there is no consensus on the origin of Covid-19.. Philgoetz (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Change the last sentence to "The scientific opinion has now shifted in that an accidental leak is probable." All references are from 2020 or 21, hello it is now 2022. (Source - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEh5JyZC218). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.0 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source of information about the pandemic. -Darouet (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is a joke. All references are from 2020 or 2021 and thus totally outdated. 87.207.154.21 (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thats the point. Gain a consensus, have the article locked down and gatekeep any new information with the argument "the consensus on the article has been established". DarrellWinkler (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Not an invalid point about our sources being older. And there is recent coverage. What about adding this to source #61 for "The scientific opinion that an accidental leak is possible, but unlikely, has remained steady."? Live Science is obviously not academic coverage, but it appears to be reliable, and that would provide updated sourcing for that statement. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes i think also this Science article would bolster: [3] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't watch the video, but while YouTube isn't a reliable source, Matt Ridley certainly is. He's one of the best science journalists alive today. Philgoetz (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

References

This article seems very sure there is consensus against lab leak but this consensus seems to be falling apart in the real world? https://x.com/MetroUK/status/1768623947023536264?s=20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.127.52 (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Lab Safety

The WIV has a documented issue with poor safety practices.

Vanity Fair and ProPublica downloaded more than 500 documents from the WIV website, including party branch dispatches from 2017 to the present. To assess Reid’s interpretation, we sent key documents to experts on CCP communications. They told us that the WIV dispatches did indeed signal that the institute faced an acute safety emergency in November 2019; that officials at the highest levels of the Chinese government weighed in; and that urgent action was taken in an effort to address ongoing safety issues. The documents do not make clear who was responsible for the crisis, which laboratory it affected specifically or what the exact nature of the biosafety emergency was. https://www.propublica.org/article/senate-report-covid-19-origin-wuhan-lab

Why is this not in the article? DarrellWinkler (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Because multiple reputable sources have disagreed with the content and interpretations of this report. We don't report things that are reported as true from one place, and then probably not true from dozens of other places. That is the long and short of WP:RSUW. Basically, we have a good consensus on-wiki that this report is not a reliable source. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Which sources disagreed with the content and interpretations of this report? Are there really "dozens" of other sources that disagree with this? DarrellWinkler (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theories and Unsubstantiated Speculation"

"The laboratory has been the focus of conspiracy theories[42][43] and unsubstantiated speculation about the origin of the virus." No, the laboratory has been the focus of formal theories and substantiated speculation. This article is now an excellent example of the dangers of prejudging theories in reference sources due to partisan bias. By all means, leave it this way. EGarrett01 (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Since reliable sources trump the opinion of random people on the internet, such as you, it is good the way it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, no. If a "random" editor points our inconsistencies and areas to improve, a personal attack is not an appropriate response/

@EGarrett01: you are correct, even our notice on the top of this page warns that there's no consensus to describe this as a "conspiracy theory", given the wide acceptance of such an explanation by mainstream science.

However, your accusations of partisanship are improper. It's not partisanship on Wikipedia – it's some editors always trying to be holier than the Pope, and more "scientific" than science itself. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus to define /some versions/ as a conspiracy theory. There is consensus that the bioweapons theory is indeed a conspiracy theory (see consensus #6). The passage pointed out by OP is correct. The WIV is the subject of conspiracy theories (bioweapons) and unsubstantiated speculation (the other lab leak theories not based on conspiracies). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the passage I quoted doesn't draw a distinction there and makes it sound as though the major theory, the Lab Leak, is an "unsubstantiated" "conspiracy theory." It misleads readers, just as if a Donald Trump fan phrased a passage about Trump as "Trump has been the target of many false accusations of corruption" without pointing out that he has been the target of proven accusations as well. Note that this particular article has been edited, and I'm sure has been changed since I commented on it, so I'm only discussing the passage I brought up at the time it was there as a general example of misleading phrasing. (EDIT: Having reviewed the article, the highly misleading and inappropriately phrased section is still there) EGarrett01 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Rejecting one personal attack and replacing it by another personal attack? Peculiar. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I pointed out a phrase that is misleading. You yourself haven't added anything. The sources that treat the Lab Leak as a serious and potentially or even likely true theory are VERY authoritative, by any standard you could possibly claim. EGarrett01 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You pointed out a phrase you believe to be misleading, but you gave no valid reason why.

The sources that treat the Lab Leak as a serious and potentially or even likely true theory are VERY authoritative I won't accept your word for it, and nobody else should either until you actually name those sources. It's probably some random government agency in some random country again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

WSJ Article

U.S.-Funded Scientist Among Three Chinese Researchers Who Fell Ill Amid Early Covid-19 Outbreak

A prominent scientist who worked on coronavirus projects funded by the U.S. government is one of three Chinese researchers who became sick with an unspecified illness during the initial outbreak of Covid-19, according to current and former U.S. officials. 73.36.184.146 (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Useless. This is an encyclopaedia, not a doctor's diary. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)