Talk:Chinese biological weapons program

How we refer to the IDSA article, and the US State department policy
, I appreciate your input on the article and what you're trying to do by weighing these viewpoints. But it runs counter to the NPOV and RS policies.

"According to a study by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses"

It's improper to refer to a study as "by" the institution that published it. They aren't the authors. Danny Shoham is. You could say "According to a study by Danny Shoham published in...." but you cannot say that the journal authored the study, or that the institution authored the study. Danny Shoham did.

"However, according to Nuclear Threat Initiative, no evidence of this program has been officially released, and the US Department of State believes China maintained some components of a prior bioweapons program beyond the 1984 BWC treaty"

And for statements of fact, official position statements, the actual organization that said the thing (in this case, the US Department of State) is the primary source. When supplementing it with a secondary source (such as the Nuclear Threat Initiative), it is against the goals of the wiki to pretend the NTI said the thing, when the US state department said it. I gave a source that shows exactly what the State department thinks about the Chinese bioweapons program, in detail. It's published by the State department. Why would that be overruled by what a former IDF intelligence agent says the US government thinks? And, moreover, why would we say "According to NTI" when we have the actual primary source?

We have both a secondary source saying what the state department thinks, and a primary source showing the actual thing that the state department has said. We don't need to WP:HOWEVER this. They are compatible viewpoints.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 19:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the issue that you want the phrase "no evidence of this program has been officially released" to be "according to the NTI?" That's fine, we can either do that or I can find a few more secondary sources saying the same, and then we can put it in wiki-voice. But we should not attribute the official position statement of the US government to a non-profit.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 19:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * There are two separate issues here.


 * 1) First, here is what the most recent report by State Department say :

In biief, State Department has a huge concern and no answer. If you want to cite something from here, that's fine.My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) (Shoham) No, you are mistaken. A publication in a journal by a reputable research institution is not just a personal view/opinion piece by author - per WP:RS. This is a scholarly source. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Was Shoham's piece peer-reviewed? As far as I can tell, those reports are not peer reviewed. Therefore, it is a primary source opinion piece by an expert. Which is also fine, it just needs attribution. I just found a statement of editorial policy that says the reports apparently are peer reviewed. I am skeptical, but the answer would still be to say "according to" because we have disagreement between what the government has said and what Shoham has said they've said. It's also not proper to cite him for evaluating an unsourced opinion of a foreign government. We cannot preference Shoham's entirely unsourced intelligence rumors over what the government has actually said. See below-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 19:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As for the state department official position statement, that's not the passage I was referencing. This is:


 * "The United States assesses that China possessed an offensive biological warfare program from 1950s to at least the late 1980s. Although China has submitted BWC Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs) each year since 1989, China’s CBM reporting has never otherwise disclosed it ever pursued an offensive BW program, and China has never acknowledged publicly or in diplomatic channels its past offensive program."


 * -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 19:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * (Shoham) No, this is "an article published by a reputable research institution". That was debated to nausea. See here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an ArbCom decision about articles related to the Holocaust in Poland. It does not apply here.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 19:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course it does not. I am just saying that such sources are considered scholarly and sufficiently reliable even by Arbcom. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I just found a few more sources about this and I'll add them. I think it may be appropriate to put it in wiki-voice based on those sources.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 20:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This also may be useful to this article
Timeline of the Bioweapons program in China from the NTI .-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 20:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply
To this. I think you POV-push, sorry. For example, you are trying to discredit the single scholarly, 3rd party and very detailed source on this subject, the article published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis. This is really a preferred RS per WP:Verifiability, better than journalistic sources, Primary sources (such as claims by US State department) or website of Nuclear Threat Initiative. If we want to describe this subject in depth, let's focus on what this very best source has to say on the subject, OK? It say a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * what POV am I pushing?-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, based on your editing of this page, you are trying to discredit/downgrade a reliably published study about Chinese WMD program. Why? My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * why would I have edited to include more sources and wiki-voice the very claim Shoham made if that was my POV? I'm telling you here again, I'm not trying to discredit or downgrade that source. Initially, I had to assess the reliability of that source, and now that I have, I agree it's peer-reviewed, cites inline sources, and verifies its claims. it doesn't do that for every claim, but it does it for most. So yes I agree it's a WP:RS for the statements it's used to make here. I would ask you to AGF and don't assume the POV of others so easily. Not only is it rude, it's against wiki policy to do that. -- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * More to the point,, I may disagree with you on the likelihood of the lab leak (just my guess), but that is completely irrelevant to how we edit here in this article. Please AGF and work with me. This house is big enough for the both of us. There are ways to resolve any content disputes we may have. Don't assume I will disagree with your edits just because of any bad blood you may feel for me or my opinions.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 23:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

you do not own this section. All of us do, together. I and anyone else can edit section headings that you may have created. See WP:TALKHEADING. Headings should be neutral and informative and describe the discussion contained within to an uninformed reader. "Reply" does not do that well. '''What do you think would be a better section heading? Let's agree on one. I'm happy to compromise'''.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 23:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Technically this entire section should be handled on talk pages, because it's about conduct not content. But you brought it here, so I'm okay with continuing this discussion here as long as no one else objects. But keep in mind, there's a reason I came to your talk page to discuss this.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 23:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome on my talk page. I do believe though that issues about improving the page should be discussed on article talk page. My reply was mostly about that. Do you agree that we must include a lot more content from this source to the page? My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there are parts of that source that would be helpful to building this page, but also that we must diversify our sources to include other RSes. Like these:  . High quality articles are drawn from many diverse sources.-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. These sources are just as good. But we should not be distracted from the subject. This page is not about COVID or "lab leak". It is about what is known on the program of Chinese biological weapons. My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agreed. I think there should only be an extremely brief passing mention of how some are connecting the two, which uses the article I linked above to do so. I'm not 100% convinced such a mention is necessary, but that article caught my eye and thought it would be useful. The other two are from before the pandemic. The second one in particular will be useful to describe some lax biodefense regulations which, in china, may allow non-state actors to use botulinum toxin or other bio-toxins to cause harm.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also saw this. Although it is an opinion, it cites some known claims, such as one by Alibek. But I did not know the following (can be verified using other sources):


 * 1) it was reported in Economic Times, July 25, 2020, that the Wuhan Institute of Virology of China and the Pakistan’s military establishment have entered into a joint collaboration to produce “emerging infectious diseases” and “anthrax”.
 * 2) Shoham was quoted in Washington Times in a piece titled “Coronavirus may have originated in lab linked to China's biowarfare program” dated January 26, 2020 that “SARS is included within the Chinese BW program, at large, and is dealt with in several pertinent facilities”.
 * 3) The Chinese strategy to integrate bioweapon programme as part of its defense strategy was also emphasised by Zhang Shibo, a former President of National Defense University who in his book New Highland of War emphasised use of “biotechnology” for augmenting an “offensive capability.”
 * 4) China’s quest for achieving status of global power by employing bioweapons was succinctly outlined by Qiao Lang and Wang Xiangsui, two serving army officers of PLA, in their book published in 1999, and titled "Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America." My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

the Washington Times is most definitely not a WP:RS. given that they've also posted pieces in support of conspiracy theories about Barack Obama and arguing that global warming is a hoax. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 04:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

among menu other reasons, this has been covered at WP:RSP. that source is particularly unreliable for controversial topics of politics or science like this. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 04:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem, the claim was also mentioned (i.e. verified) in WaPO which is a strong RS. This article in WaPo provides a range of opinions by experts, and as relates to this page, Of course, if they are doing bioweaponry, it is covert,” Leitenberg said in a phone call, but added it was unlikely the Chinese government would use such a facility for production or even research and development of bioweapons because Wuhan lab is well-known and it is relatively open compared with other Chinese institutes. Oh yes, it is logical they would use other labs, however in the former USSR some people engaged only in the open research (like myself) had no idea that some other labs in the same building are involved in BW projects. Then it says An annual State Department report released last year said China had engaged “in biological activities with potential dual-use applications.” [true] Then it say: Elsa Kania, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said that while Chinese officials had expressed public interest in the potential weaponization of biotechnology, a coronavirus would not be a useful weapon. Also true, none of BW is actually a useful weapon. People who are developing them as we speak are criminals. My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition, according to this The government is handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to scientists researching the virus’ origins in southern China and affiliated with the military ... Military teams and others are working hard on this [, but whether it gets published all depends on the outcome. Why military? My very best wishes (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Potential additional sources for this article
KristinaLu (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I quickly looked at 1st source. I think we absolutely must use this source as a secondary RS on the opinion by US State Department, instead of citing the primary publications by the Department itself as above. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguably, we will need both because that first article only barely mentions China in lists of other countries with concerning activities. It does not describe China's program in depth. It does not describe much about the State Department's view of China in particular.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 23:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help, I'm glad you find the source to be useful.KristinaLu (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and welcome to fix this page, but I am busy right now with something else. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That second article has nothing to do with a possible biological weapons program in China. It has one passing mention, from Richard Ebright, in reference to other countries being suspicious of the US's high number of BSL-4 labs: "governments will assume that such excess capacity is for the potential development of bioweapons." Any connection to a Chinese bioweapons program would be original research.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 23:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like we have a very different read of that passage. Ebright is referring to other countries being suspicious of China's hypothetical expansion beyond a single BSL-4 lab.
 * Here's the quote, in case other editor's are behind a paywall:
 * "But Ebright is not convinced of the need for more than one BSL-4 lab in mainland China. He suspects that the expansion there is a reaction to the networks in the United States and Europe, which he says are also unwarranted. He adds that governments will assume that such excess capacity is for the potential development of bioweapons.


 * 'These facilities are inherently dual use,' he says. The prospect of ramping up opportunities to inject monkeys with pathogens also worries, rather than excites, him: 'They can run, they can scratch, they can bite.'"KristinaLu (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , didn't see that part, thanks for pointing it out! I agree with your conclusion that it's probably fair to say he's referring to both domestic and foreign BSL4s there. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's another source, perhaps better for a controversy section:

KristinaLu (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So, it mentioned that Eric Croddy and that his paper published in 2002 . As about Richard Ebright, I do not think citing him can add much to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Just posting for other editors to review.

KristinaLu (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "A classified study found that ...". I am very skeptical about all such secret/classified "studies". If they know something, they must openly publish it. Too many things on this subject are just an assumption/speculation to my taste. But you are welcome to improve this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Redundant Content Fork?
This page seems like a redundant content fork as most of this information is already available on China and weapons of mass destruction and no content which could not simply be added to the page mentioned (that is also acceptable here) seems likely to be added as that page already provides sufficient or close to sufficient detail on the topic. Given the POV pushing by some editors here i worry this could also turn into a POV fork. What do editors here think? Is there any content here that could not be provided on the article i linked? If so, why is that the case. Corinal (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)