Talk:Li-Meng Yan/Archive 2

NPOV tag
Can you explain what the neutrality issue is, specifically? CowHouse (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There seem to be various issues; but the main one I care about is the continued obfuscation of the scientist's notability in the lead, which is tied to what various sources say: that she went to the media and exposed that covid was human transmissible before China and the WHO revealed that information. -- Kendrick7talk 11:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't appear to be her notability, and I don't see any sources saying that she went to the media first, or in fact any sources at all on that matter beyond her claims to have been threatened, and fleeing the country - which is all well and good but places her earliest public speaking out as 3 months later than the disease was already acknowledged by China / WHO etc.
 * Instead her notability appears to be tied to her claims about what she knew and when, and that she didn't actually tell anyone in the media or public until much later in the year after arriving in the US and doing some talk shows and talking heads type interviews, then publishing her paper.
 * Indeed we don't have any sources covering her actual whistleblowing before she also started her made-in-China claims? So, yeah. NPOV seems irrelevant as we are taking her (largely) self published testimony as fact. I would argue the lede is a distinctly misleading summary of the one source linked to, or any others. Koncorde (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Referencing myself; the DW.com article makes vague reference to "Lutheran Media", or "Lutheran", but no specific article, how this is broadcast / transmitted etc. From what I can see it appears to be a youtube channel. If anyone can find the actual article referred to (or video if it is part of one) then that would be handy but at present this seems to be another claim. Koncorde (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Kendrick7, if you're saying we should use non-neutral words like "exposed" and "revealed" (see WP:SAID), I fail to see how that would solve a neutrality issue. CowHouse (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Second the NPOV Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Just checking the status of the neutrality dispute. Are there any outstanding issues that haven't been resolved? Chiffball (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to assert that the neutrality dispute issue is either unclear or has become dormant, or both. In this case, the POV dispute template should be removed Template:POV. Any thoughts?--Chiffball (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 23:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The latest pre-print.
The current text "Yan argued in October 2020 that COVID-19 was a bio-weapon", should be replaced with something a bit more informative, like "On the 8th of October, Li-Meng Yan released another co-authored pre-print titled "SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud". And then maybe a bit about what is actually written in the pre-print.... 84.208.222.11 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'll have to repeat what I told you last month: Wikipedia is just not the place to summarize or document the contents of a non-peer-reviewed, unpublished scientific paper within hours of it being posted on a pre-print file hosting service. It will have to be covered in reliable secondary sources before more content is added here and even then, since this article is supposed to be about Yan as a person, Wikipedia editorial consensus is going to decide at some point to stop covering new file postings by her. -- ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 21:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole saga will need condensing, as she could pretty much be summed up within the first few paragraphs for the full article. Koncorde (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I would love to see how John Hopkins dismiss this one....84.208.222.11 (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Man, she really gets into it at the end there, making lists of people and organizations who have to be investigated to see whether they were merely misled or if they've been working with the communists. For a second I thought Wikipedia was going to show up on the list and I thought, hell, the CCP doesn't pay me enough to deal with being investig... I mean... never mind, you didn't hear that.  No hablo inglés. ✳Jumps Out Window✳ — ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 22:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain there are hundreds of 50 cent members editing WIkipedia. 72.53.248.45 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many WP:SPAs and other accounts boosting pro-China sentiment and pursuing overseas censorship of Chinese issues on Wikipedia in multiple languages, many of those are undoubtedly undisclosed WP:PAID editors, and many of the paid editors are undoubtedly members of the 50 Cent Army.But the reason why scientists so thoroughly regard Yan's work as poppycock, and say that it contains and, so that she won't even bother submitting these preprints to journals, and the reason why I and other established Wikipedia editors are documenting that fact in this article, is not because of a communist conspiracy we're all involved in. -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 05:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

National Geographic interviewed Prominent virologists about Yan's paper
Sep 18 2020, The National Geographic reported two virologists Kristian Andersen from Scripps Research and Carl Bergstrom from University of Washington described the paper (of Li-meng Yan) as unscientific. Also David Robertson, a viral genomics researcher at University of Glasgow concluded that “It's encroaching on pseudoscience, really. This paper just cherry-picked a couple of examples, excluded evidence, and came up with a ridiculous scenario.”

== there have been more articles showing Yan's thesis failing peer reviews. Propose to include these facts in order to help the article to be more NPOV https://www.osap.org/news/529072/Yan-reports-claims-that-SARS-CoV-2-was-created-in-a-Chinese-lab-are-misleading-unethical.htm https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/pubs_archive/pubs-pdfs/2020/200921-in-response-yan.pdf Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Kristian Andersen is the farthest from a neutral source on the matter, he is the lead author behind the Nature paper alleging zoonosis. meaning he has intense interest to suppress and downplay the lab-made theories, and should definitly not be used as a source here!
 * that is like asking edison what he thinks of tesla's ac current.
 * I'm new to wikipedia, but this is obviously wrong and should be removed Shturmavik71 (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So a virologist claims it is man made. We should listen to them despite the fact that they have an "intense interest" in their own theory. A virologist says it's not true. We should ignore them because they have an "intense interest" in their own theory. Novel concept. Koncorde (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Great Quote from Tucker Carlson Interview
She has a heavy Chinese accent and so it takes some time to figure out exactly what she is saying, but the best quote from the entire interview IMO is when she talks about how the virus is man-made and "not from nature", she characterizes the virus as if it were a "...cow, with a deer's head, rabbit's ears, and a monkey's hands, so they can never get it from the nature." I find this metaphor extraordinary, and explains her opinion very clearly to the average layperson. If possible, I advocate that Wikipedia include this characterization in the article, since it will go a long ways towards cutting through the scientific jargon, and effectively convey meaning to the greatest number of people.68.206.249.124 (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll reiterate my original point so that it does not get lost in the other side-conversatins here. I have no opinion on Yan's credibility or reliability for purposes of Wikipedia.  My only point is that, if anything of Yan is included in this Article, it should include the quote above, for the simple reason that it's "punchy" and makes her position very clear to the average layperson.  I'm interested in forming a consensus on this point alone, and will leave it to others to work out other details.68.206.249.124 (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I also think that we should use the quote. This article makes her look bad (perhaps justifiably). Therefore, I think we should let her defend herself in her own terms. Perhaps more important for Wikipedia purposes, if you search for the text you'll see that it's been picked up by at least some sources that seem to be WP:RS. That would indicate WP:WEIGHT --Nbauman (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The article makes Wikipedia look bad to me, as they have clearly formed an opinion. The attacks are all on credibility rather than on the actual research.


 * Which reliable sources used the quote? We need to be careful not to lend undue weight to fringe views. CowHouse (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

‘We need to be careful not to lend undue weight to fringe views’ - sounds like censorship to me, why not let the information emerge on its own terms? Jordon Hill (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because WP:PROFRINGE tells us that if the only person pushing the theory is the person coming up with the theory. To quote the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable. We already present her position waaaaaay more than we probably should. Koncorde (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Angela Rasmussen
I would just like to ask everybody if Angela Rasmussen is the right person for a fair criticism on this article. She works for Ian Lipkin at the same institute of Columbia University NY. If you look up Ian Lipkin´s entry on the University page, you find the following entries: Award of Appreciation, People's Republic of China, 2020; China International Science and Technology Cooperation Award, 2016; Honorary and Founding Director Beijing Center for Infectious Diseases, 2005. As anyone knows, China does not fully support the idea of a lab origin of Sars-CoV-2, to say the least. So it seems to be possible that there might be a reason for the tonality and the bias of Rasmussens statements against Dr. Li-Meng Yan´s work. I think that a voice like this should be removed.--2A02:908:1987:7A80:298B:F1C6:98D8:2AF9 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * One, obvious smear attempt is obvious. Two, being recognised by a country for the efforts you have taken over a decade or so to help them to be healthier is kinda par for the course for someone whose job and lifes work has been dedicated to it. Three, lots of famous people are recognised by organisations and countries - there is no obvious indication this suggests a conflict of interest. Four, guilt by association for Rasmussen would require firstly evidence that Lipkin is guilty of something, and then evidence that she was working under his direction as an interested party of the Chinese government. I doubt your original research covers that. Finally: a man who works closely with Chinese health authorities is probably better informed than someone that isn't, or at least will be aware of their processes and have a realistic assessment of their capabilities. Koncorde (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Smear attempt? Try to be factual, please. I told you some facts only. Being recognised by a country can of course be an honourable thing. But China? In this case? I do not have any doubt that Lipkin is far better informed about Sars-CoV-2 than you and me. And about the Chinese involvement, too. That is why I doubt that a statement of one of his employees is something that should be part of this article. Wikipedia is a lexicon and not a propaganda platform. She was also not acting independently, he was also involved in all the interviews with National Geographic e.g. And finally, do you really believe, this virus would have come from the wet market in Wuhan when a Chinese virological lab is one mile away? And no one is able to find the virus in any wild animal? Santa Claus is a way more convincing concept to me. --2A02:908:1987:7A80:39D2:E73:AAD4:E3C0 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You said a couple of facts. You then proposed that these facts meant neither Lipkin or Rasmussen could be trusted. Blatant conspiracy theory / smear / personal attack and a BLP violation to boot. Koncorde (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, you are concerned about the rights of Rasmussen and Lipkin. I am also concerned about Dr. Yan. So we have to discuss on the talk what is being posted in the article. This is not a violation, this is exactly the opposite. You will not put me in the role of a defender. I tell you that the article including a definitely non neutral statement of Rasmussen which is bluntly offensive, might be a very obvious violation of BLP rights of Dr. Yan. BLP is applicable to the article first. --2A02:908:1987:7A80:45C7:BFA3:858C:B877 (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not putting you in the role of defender. You are the one attacking two individuals with clear attempts to smear one because they work with China, and smear the other because they work with him. Your baseless attacks are exactly that. Unverified speculation of yours is what makes this a BLP violation. Koncorde (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OMG when Rasmussen said that the 2012 MERS coronavirus had furin cleavage sites too I gasped because it was so bluntly offensive. I was like, you kiss your pet poodle with that mouth?  But it's just the way scientists talk so I don't think it's a BLP issue. -- ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 09:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course there is no BLP issue, thanks. But words like "basically all circumstantial and some of it is entirely fictional" are shining in a different light when you know about Lipkins China connections. I think we should remove this stuff. It is very obvious that Rasmussen is not neutral in this matter. --2A02:908:1987:7A80:48B7:6BFD:3593:3C12 (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you are casting aspersions about two people who already have BLP on wikipedia. They do not need to be neutral to have an opinion about another BLP subject. We however should be neutral and you are repeatedly crossing the line with your conspiracy theory. Koncorde (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely neutral. I am neither paid by the Chinese government nor Steve Bannon. I never violate BLP rights of anyone. And specifically, I don't spread conspiracy theory. But I clearly point out that two of the loudest reviewers of Dr. Yan are obviously being paid directly or indirectly by China. Since no one can prove at the moment whether the origin of Sars-CoV-2 is based on GOF experiments, other laboratory processes to accelerate mutations, direct genetic engineering or a natural development, critics of a theory presented should be critically examined with regard e.g. to their connections to the Chinese government. In the case of Rasmussen and Lipkin, it is obvious that their criticism is not based solely on scientific considerations, but obviously on considerable other motivations behind it. Otherwise the tone of voice and the sharpness of the utterances would not be explainable. As far as your opinion is that they do not have to be neutral at all, this is difficult to understand. Wikipedia is not a place for defamation of scientific opponents, but a lexicon. So if an obvious defamation disguised as scientific opinion finds its way into an article about a person, it is likely to be a BLP violation. And such a voice should be removed immedeately. Incidentally, would you please stop defaming my statements as a conspiracy theory, as this violates my rights and I am not prepared to tolerate such allegations any further. Thank you. --2A02:908:1987:7A80:48B7:6BFD:3593:3C12 (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You have no evidence of anything you claim. Your suggestion is to impugn the reputation of two scientists with vague assertions of your own creation. That is both original research and a blatant BLP violation. I have asked you to stop.
 * In contrast criticism of a fringe scientific theory by other scientists is exactly due and relevant regardless of how critical it is. The day you being evid3nce of soke form of collusion or corruption, let us know. Koncorde (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice qoute from some lines above: "Since we speak German, I can say, "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens"."--95.223.228.54 (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Much though I enjoy being accorded the status of an unpaid "god" because I make distinctions "with stupidity" between published, peer-reviewed science and pre-print uploaded .pdfs, some of which explicitly say that their subject matter cannot be evaluated scientifically through peer review or published at all... if you want to read the non-divinely-mediated Truth about Dr. Yan Li-Meng and her work it's right next door and it's pretty much all freely available to read. That would be the entire rest of the internet: it's all non-"gods" saying exactly what they think, which is what you get when you have no editorial standards governing how you write about a topic. -- ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 09:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering something that was not the question. --2A02:908:1987:7A80:39D5:F314:C286:59D5 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should I have responded to your statement involving Santa Claus instead? Or perhaps you didn't say that and you are yet a different IPv6 address coming here to share your deep concerns about Angela Rasmussen, Ian Lipkin, and/or orthodox properly-scoped use of Wikipedia talk pages. If you are anxious for input on what little substance there was in the opening comment of this talk page section, I am content to let Koncorde speak for sober Wikipedia consensus; consider my opinions a duplicate of theirs. -- ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 22:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

"Angela Rasmussen criticizes travel restrictions the Trump administration has implemented in response to the virus" https://www.salon.com/2020/03/03/virologist-why-the-us-governments-response-to-coronavirus-lacks-the-appropriate-level-of-concern_partner/ 72.53.248.45 (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You know that all the major scientific journals, some for the first time in their histories, have by now officially condemned President Trump, urging voters to not re-elect him, and Scientific American and Nature have even endorsed Vice-President Biden in the 2020 presidential election, right? Criticizing the Trump Administration's science-related policies and practices pretty much just demonstrates that someone is actually a scientist.(My apologies if this is actually your point; it's hard to tell and you're posting to a talk page discussion where other IP addresses are attempting to smear Rasmussen.) -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 05:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Since when is Scientific American a science journal?72.53.248.45 (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Since 1845. (Note in the masthead.) I guess you're new to this science stuff and the related sources, huh?Of course, you can take it up with Forbes too if you object to them counting the twenty-first century incarnation of Scientific American among "top scientific journals" and "prestigious scientific journals" in the article I linked to. -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 10:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Somebody makes a claim against the CCP and then another person, who works for the CCP attacks that claim, then finally Wikipedia halts any editing/contributing.... seems like a waste of everyone’s time Jordon Hill (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no suggestion any of the people criticising the unfounded claims of Li-Meng Yan are in any way employed by the CCP. In fact they all have well paid jobs in the United States. Meanwhile if you do not understand verifiability and cannot look up basic dictionary definitions, the protection is probably well placed. Koncorde (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I just want to correct basic grammatical errors.
This article repeatedly uses the phrase ‘publication entitled _______’. The words ‘entitled’ and ‘titled’ have very different meanings. Please open this article back up to the community for editing. How can an article that talks disparagingly about a paper that was not open to peer review simultaneously prevent the editing function of the article? I’m not sure I can donate to Wikipedia in future. Disappointed and confused. Jordon Hill (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, if you are going to throw around grammatical claims be accurate: quote:Entitled: 2. give (something) a particular title. "a satire entitled ‘The Rise of the Meritocracy’". Koncorde (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Collins Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Minor Edit Requests
Hello, I just noticed that references 5 and 9 are the same July article from Fox News. At some point it might be worth consolidating when someone has time. Cheers. Chiffball (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.The Little Platoon (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

There are misattributed quotes in the last paragraph under "Responses from the scientific community": "Lucey said that the methodology Yan had used was "flawed" and described the pre-print as "junk science", "leaps of logic" and "window dressing"." These are not quotes from Lucey but from unnamed sources in the CNN article: "As part of its review, CNN spoke with a half-dozen experts from multiple institutions, and all of them found Yan's methodology to be flawed. They described her report as "junk science," "leaps of logic" and "window dressing."" The CNN article makes explicit that Lucey's "criticism was more muted than that of the other scientists who spoke with CNN; Lucey said he found some of what Yan had to say noteworthy" which makes the misattribution more glaring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HunterStephen (talk • contribs) 06:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
This article is a perfect example of how useless Wikipedia can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.164.219 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a perfect example of people trying to use Wikipedia for a variety of purposes. Wikipedia being useless as a vehicle for promoting claims that their author says can't be published in any scientific journal is Wikipedia working as designed, however.Wikipedia has its flaws, which are legion, but promoting that sort of thing is basically what the entire rest of the internet is used for; Wikipedia shouldn't be used for it too. -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 04:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times
Someone already added a link to this to the article, but this story from The New York Times is very informative: --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How Steve Bannon and a Chinese Billionaire Created a Right-Wing Coronavirus Media Sensation
 * Yeah, it's a good piece. I do think the article is at a place now for summarising for conciseness and detail. It's carrying a lot of bloat at present with multiple claims / criticisms. Koncorde (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is she being described as a "virologist"?
The article repeatedly makes the assertion that Yan is a virologist, but there are no sources cited for this claim. In the "Education and early career" section it simply says that she "earned a PhD in ophthalmology from Southern Medical University and sources differ on whether beforehand she received an MD degree or a master's degree in ophthalmology from Xiangya Medical College of Central South University." In the infobox, it states "Education: Central South University (Xiangya Medical College) MD or master's degree / Southern Medical University PhD in ophthalmology". Again, no evidence to support the claim that she is a virologist. One does not become a virologist by being an ophthalmologist moonlighting as a virus researcher; it is an actual profession which requires credentials. She appears to have none. Most researchers post their CV on-line, and usually in whatever relevant languages their work might reach. Despite searching, I could not find a CV for her. Under the heading "Origins of SARS-CoV-2" it accurately describes how her "research paper" on SARS-CoV-2 was not published by a scientific journal, much less peer-reviewed; it was posted on an open-access platform that will accept anything anyone writes. Given the near-unanimity of actual virologists dismissing her notions as false, and given that the onus is on the claimant to prove a claim to be true, rather than being on the skeptic to prove it false, I submit that the article be edited to reflect the apparent truth, that Yan is, at best, a "self-described virologist", or some such. Otherwise WP is lending credence to her claims by assigning her credentials she has not earned. Bricology (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The page reflects what reliable sources say, and multiple references on the page describe her as a virologist (e.g. National Geographic, Snopes, PolitiFact, NY Times, etc.). Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the references on the page call her a "self-described virologist" or otherwise dispute the description. Also, her peer-reviewed work in the "Previous co-authored publications" section is related to virology. CowHouse (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As Cowhouse says. In addition Yan the complexity is that (I don't think anyway) Virologist doesn't appear to be a protected term. As in it doesn't appear to require a virology degree or to be accredited by virology board or membership of a virologist group - certainly not in China. We therefore have the issue that she was working / is claimed to have been working on virology based projects, and being an opthalmogist doesn't stop her being a virologist as there are others with similar backgrounds dealing with viral infections of the eye.
 * As the subject of our BLP policy I would suggest raising it at thr BLP Noticeboard to ask advice there for more feedback. Koncorde (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Origins of SARS-CoV-2
Please help to reconcile the contradictory claims documented at Fringe theories/Noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Convince me we need this much text to describe the notable topics
We seem to spend a lot of time discussing in detail the SARS-CoV-2 origin scenario Yan is a proponent of, instead of Yan herself. While the preprints are obviously notable and belong on this page instead of another article where they'd be given undue weight, it seems that we don't really need to spend more than 3 paragraphs to summarize everything in the Origins of SARS-CoV-2 and Media coverage sections and be WP:DUE and WP:NOTE. Before seriously trimming back on the unnecessarily elaborate description of a WP:FRINGE theory, does anyone have an argument that this isn't WP:BLOATED? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * courtesy ping, as past editors who put much of the information here. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support major reduction of material about the fringe theory (a "main article: covid misinformation" link would be far better) but I wouldn't mind an expanded and well-referenced timeline of when the YouTuber started talking about her, when Gnews started pushing her conspiracy theory, when the owner of G-news paid her to go to the US, gave her a place to live, etc. I tried to create such a timeline, but The YouTuber was posting in the Chinese language and thus I couldn't verify all of the dates. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Per my comment a few weeks back, article needs a hard prune back to what is relevant and best conveys a summary of her claims and counterpoints. Koncorde (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, . It needs pruning. I think that the virus origin theory is probably the only thing she's notable for at this point though, and the links to Steve Bannon & co., so not surprising there's little personal biography. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Took a hatchet to it, cleaning out the minor events and reactions to focus on the mast notable to produce what I feel is a reasonable summary of the top-level events and concerns. For instance, the MIT reviews succinctly cover the claims made and debunk them in significantly less text that previously. Much of the media section was removed for failing the WP:10YEARTEST, some like the allegation of a temporary Twitter ban are arguably already outdated. As always, feel free to refine. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As another task, can anyone find a reliable way to not need to directly cite (and link to) the Zenodo pre-prints? I gather the various secondary sources we have more than cover the claims being cited, and that would be a beneficial cleanup task. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I gave this a copy edit today. Two thoughts. 1) She was a "postdoctoral researcher at Hong Kong University", which I added. Is this also the virology lab that she worked for? If so, we should find a source that makes the link clear and add it in. 2) I am tempted to remove that giant block quote and summarize it with one or two sentences instead, although I could see an argument for keeping it. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking much better, nice work. The HKU claim can be confirmed directly from the HKU presser further down the page (refuting her claims about working on human transmission). I considered shortening or paraphrasing the blockquote as well. I kinda liked having the three main points listed only in that refutal, but would agree with trimming them. Perhaps replace it with: The multidisciplinary group of reviewers found that the claims made in the paper were directly refuted by "peer-reviewed literature and long-established foundational knowledge". All reviewers independently concluded that the paper's motivations were "better explained by potential political motivations rather than scientific integrity". Those seem like the two strongest refutations. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

First sentence
Should this
 * Li-Meng Yan (simplified Chinese: 闫丽梦; traditional Chinese: 閆麗夢) or Yan Limeng

not rather be
 * Li-Meng Yan or Yan Limeng (simplified Chinese: 闫丽梦; traditional Chinese: 閆麗夢)

because 闫 or 閆 is Yan and 丽梦 or 麗夢 is Limeng? The way it is written now is misleading in that way. I checked a few other articles about Chinese people, in order to find out how this is normally done, but could not find another one where the family name is at the end like here, at first. WP:ZHNAME says There is an exception for people whose Chinese name is familiar but with English ordering, giving Wen Ho Lee 李文和 (Li Wenho) as an example. Well, that does not help... --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just moved it. Does not look very controversial to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Article needs links to two more papers
The current version of the article says that "Yan authored a series of four preprint research papers," but links to only two papers are included in the "External links" section. Can links to the other two be added? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually suggest the opposite, that we not link to any of the preprints directly. Primarily to avoid WP:SELFPUB and favor reliable WP:SECONDARY, and especially since those secondary reviews have essentially dismissed them. Removing. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest that but beat me to the punch. In any case, we are not a link-directory service for preprint nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  02:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

HKU statement on Yan's former employment
I've re-added the HKU statement, adding a source from Snopes (which is GR). See WP:SNOPES. The statement was also reported by The New York Times (which is GR), SCMP  (which is also GR and the newspaper of record for Hong Kong, though some have said it should not be regarded as reliable for matters about the Chinese government), and Newsweek  which, according to RSP, should only be used on a case-by-cases basis.

Aside from this coverage, HKU is an internationally recognized research university, one of the most prestigious universities in Asia, one of the most international faculty bodies in the world, etc etc. It has had political pressures from the mainland in recent years, which is why I would absolutely not want to report what they said in Wiki-voice.

But to me, it's clear that their opinion, as Yan's former employer, is worthy of inclusion. Also as the place Yan has asserted that she was "kicked out of and forced to flee, after being assigned a "secret" project to investigate the virus and having had her findings suppressed." (a paraphrase of what she has said on various news networks)

So, I ask, in an informal survey, should we include the HKU's statement? Options include:


 * A) including it as an attributed statement, like this
 * B) not including it at all
 * C) including it, but in a broader or more prominent way
 * D) including it, but in a narrower or more subdued way

-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 14:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * D.1) See below version from :

Survey
I would personally opt for option A. But I understand there could definitely be some differences of opinion here, in such a controversial thing. Please, I welcome any and all criticism on this. Thanks.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 23:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I would say D. Yes, this can be reliably sourced. But given the political issues, I think the statement by HKU can be used only to support non-controversial info. For example, they confirmed that Yan was a post-doctoral researcher at the institution [yes, sure]. They said Dr. Yan never conducted any research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU - possibly true, could be included if does not contradict other sources, but is it relevant? Did she ever explicitly claim to conduct such research? If not, then do not include. They say much of her claims were "hearsay" with little scientific basis - do not include as a their own hearsay. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Agree that we should not include their criticism about hearsay. But disagree about human-human transmission, see this preceding paragraph in that same section: "Between July and August, Yan was interviewed by Fox News, Newsmax TV, and the Daily Mail. Yan claimed in interviews that she became aware of person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 in late December 2019, and that she attempted to communicate the risks to her superiors in late December 2019 or early January 2020."
 * We don't describe it well, but if you go and watch those interviews, or just read the sources I linked above, you'll see that she actually claimed she was given a "secret project" to investigate human to human transmission. And also that when she found proof of it, she was forced to flee the country.
 * Of course, leaving out the fact that Yan had no relevant expertise in contact tracing or epidemiology.
 * Anyway, more to the point, yes she did claim that she conducted "secret" but official research on human-to-human transmission, and that's why this statement is important. We don't have BLP for universities, but I think it's important if we quote/paraphrase the claim that she was conducting the research, that we also include the categorical denial.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 02:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not object to the inclusion of HKU's statement since it is mentioned in numerous reliable sources. However, it should be attributed and the date of the press release should also be mentioned. It also does not really make sense to include HKU's response to her claims from an interview unless those claims are already mentioned. The page currently says HKU "disputed the accuracy of other elements of her account" but the reader has no idea what "her account" even is. HKU's July 11 press release refers to a TV interview and, according to an article in the South China Morning Post, this is referring to an interview on Fox News. At 1:05, during the July 10 interview with Fox, Yan says: I'm one of the first one[s] [to] get involved to COVID-19 research in the world, from [the] end of December. Since the 31 December, once we know there is a SARS-like coronavirus in China, in Wuhan, my supervisor, WHO consultant Dr. Leo Poon, asked me to do some secret investigation of what really happened in mainland China. The China government refused to get overseas expert, even including ones in Hong Kong, to do research in China. So I turned to my friends to get more information. This is a conversation that happened 31 of December. I talked to a friend who is a scientist in the CDC in China. That friend has firsthand information. And this person told me there is family cluster cases, so there should be human-to-human transmission. CowHouse (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with HKU's statement is it says Dr Yan never conducted any research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU. Yan does not claim to have conducted research at HKU, she claims to have contacted a friend from the CDC who has firsthand information. CowHouse (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't need to include every detail of Yan's story. FWIW, it does say "Yan claimed in interviews that she became aware of person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 in late December 2019" (that seems like an appropriate one-sentence summary of the above) - therefore the bit about research into that is entirely relevant. What we don't need to do is take her words at face value (even less so if they are sourced to an interview - a WP:PRIMARY source - on Fox (a poor source for anything related to American politics: which this, as you well know, is)), since most of her claims have been both contradicted and/or widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Also, FWIW, if it wasn't clear enough from the previous, option A. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The HKU statement is talking about what she said in the Fox News interview: Dr Yan never conducted any research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU during December 2019 and January 2020, her central assertion of the said interview. (My emphasis added). The video of her being interviewed is not a "poor source" for what she said in the interview. It doesn't matter that it was on Fox. You seem to be misunderstanding the difference between believing her statement and correctly representing her statement. The video shows there was no assertion in the interview that she conducted research on human-to-human transmission at HKU. She said the Chinese government didn't allow researchers from overseas, including Hong Kong, so she asked her friend in the CDC who she says had firsthand information. Even if this was all a complete lie, that is irrelevant. We do know that, whether correct or incorrect, it was not the "central assertion of the said interview." CowHouse (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not just the Fox interview, she gave multiple interviews. Fox wasn't even the first. We need secondary sources to determine what to sift out of the primary sources (the interviews). Luckily, we do have that, in the sources I linked above. Especially Snopes and the NYT. From Snopes: In a September 2020 interview with the hosts of the British talk show “Loose Women,” Yan claimed that she had been chosen to do a “secret investigation” while studying a cluster of SARS-related viruses in December 2019 when she found out that the Chinese government was manufacturing a virus to use as a bioweapon. After confronting her supervisor, she claimed, she was allegedly forced to flee to the U.S. for her own safety. The story was reiterated in an interview with Tucker Carlson the following day when she directly blamed the Chinese Communist Party for manufacturing the virus. Furthermore, we shouldn't spend our time trying to tease out the internal logic of Yan's statements (was she doing research? was she just asking around? who said what, when?) because many experts have pointed out the many internal inconsistencies in her writings. You cannot expect to hold a conspiracy theorist to a consistent set of facts, when they haven't done so in other venues (i.e. her preprints). From NYT: But outside experts have found no validity in either Yan report. The first was “full of contradictory statements and unsound interpretations” of genetic data from viruses, said Kishana Taylor, a virologist at Carnegie Mellon University. It doesn't matter whether we think HKU is right to state that, or whether they're responding to her "correctly" All that matters is that we believe their statement is WP:DUE. And I believe the sources demonstrate that it is.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 16:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt HKU's statement from July 2020 was referencing her interview in September 2020. CowHouse (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I risk repeating myself, but HKU's statement referred to a "TV interview". The specific interview is not stated but according to the SCMP it was the July 10 Fox interview. Do you have anything to suggest it was a different TV interview? CowHouse (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I asserted their July statement was referring to the september interview. She repeated the same story multiple times over several months. We don't need HKU to be responding to one specific interview. It doesn't matter. They are addressing her employment at HKU and the nature of that employment. She also discussed her "secret mission" in the Fox interview in July. See the SCMP and this University World News article: In a statement on 11 July, HKU confirmed that Yan was a post-doctoral fellow who had left the university. “HKU notes that the content of the said news report does not accord with the key facts as we understand them,” it read. “We further observe that what she might have emphasised in the reported interview has no scientific basis but resembles hearsay.” HKU also clarified that Yan had not conducted any research on that topic at the university from December to January.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 16:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This also is all irrelevant and off-topic to the question "Should we include HKU's statement?" and "how should we include it?"
 * We shouldn't misrepresent when the statement was made, we should put that it was in July. But that doesnt' change the importance of including their statement on her employment and that she wasn't researching human-human transmission as part of that employment.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 16:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We are talking about if/how we should include the statement. To quote They said Dr. Yan never conducted any research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU - possibly true, could be included if does not contradict other sources, but is it relevant? Did she ever explicitly claim to conduct such research? If not, then do not include. According to HKU's July 11 statement, Yan's central assertion during one TV interview was that she conducted research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU between December 2019 and January 2020. Is this an accurate representation of what Yan said in any TV interview from 11 July 2020 or earlier? If not, why should we include that statement? The SCMP article says it is referring to her Fox interview, and I cannot find any sources which contradict this. I also cannot find any other TV interviews of Yan from 11 July or earlier. Once again, there is a difference between believing her and accurately representing her. Her statement could be an incoherent mess and have no consistency at all, but that wouldn't change the central question – is there a TV interview during that time where she made the assertion that HKU's statement attributed to her? Her consistency and credibility could not be less relevant to this discussion. CowHouse (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This also is all irrelevant and off-topic to the question "Should we include HKU's statement?" and "how should we include it?"
 * We shouldn't misrepresent when the statement was made, we should put that it was in July. But that doesnt' change the importance of including their statement on her employment and that she wasn't researching human-human transmission as part of that employment.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 16:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We are talking about if/how we should include the statement. To quote They said Dr. Yan never conducted any research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU - possibly true, could be included if does not contradict other sources, but is it relevant? Did she ever explicitly claim to conduct such research? If not, then do not include. According to HKU's July 11 statement, Yan's central assertion during one TV interview was that she conducted research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU between December 2019 and January 2020. Is this an accurate representation of what Yan said in any TV interview from 11 July 2020 or earlier? If not, why should we include that statement? The SCMP article says it is referring to her Fox interview, and I cannot find any sources which contradict this. I also cannot find any other TV interviews of Yan from 11 July or earlier. Once again, there is a difference between believing her and accurately representing her. Her statement could be an incoherent mess and have no consistency at all, but that wouldn't change the central question – is there a TV interview during that time where she made the assertion that HKU's statement attributed to her? Her consistency and credibility could not be less relevant to this discussion. CowHouse (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We are talking about if/how we should include the statement. To quote They said Dr. Yan never conducted any research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU - possibly true, could be included if does not contradict other sources, but is it relevant? Did she ever explicitly claim to conduct such research? If not, then do not include. According to HKU's July 11 statement, Yan's central assertion during one TV interview was that she conducted research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU between December 2019 and January 2020. Is this an accurate representation of what Yan said in any TV interview from 11 July 2020 or earlier? If not, why should we include that statement? The SCMP article says it is referring to her Fox interview, and I cannot find any sources which contradict this. I also cannot find any other TV interviews of Yan from 11 July or earlier. Once again, there is a difference between believing her and accurately representing her. Her statement could be an incoherent mess and have no consistency at all, but that wouldn't change the central question – is there a TV interview during that time where she made the assertion that HKU's statement attributed to her? Her consistency and credibility could not be less relevant to this discussion. CowHouse (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * So, just to follow-up. It appears that Li-Meng Yan said: "I'm one of the first one[s] [to] get involved to COVID-19 research in the world, from [the] end of December. and so on. She did not clarify what exactly she did (that could be whatever). Now, according to HKU statement, "Dr. Yan never conducted any research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU" There is no any contradiction here, but the statement by HKU is constructed to imply that she is a liar. And the HKU administration is currently controlled by Chinese government. Hence, definitely do not include anything from the HKU statement, except supporting the fact that she worked there. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * She clarified what she did in the rest of the quote. HKU's statement says she asserted in the interview that she conducted research on human-to-human transmission at HKU. The only time she mentions human-to-human transmission is based on what her friend at the CDC told her, not research Yan conducted and not at HKU. If you are correct that she "did not clarify what exactly she did", then HKU's statement is still incorrect as they said her "central assertion" was that she researched human-to-human transmission at HKU. So there is a contradiction. CowHouse (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. So do not include directly the HKU statement. BTW, the Snopes link does not work for me anymore. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the snopes article (does this one work?) and here's a PDF if not . -- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, great. So, I think it would be best not to cite the HKU directly on the page, but instead use the summary from Snopes (a secondary source): At the time, Hong Kong University (HKU) issued a news release confirming that Yan had previously been affiliated as a post-doctoral fellow but that she had since left the institution.. As about further claims by HKU, Snopes is careful here: "Snopes contacted HKU for further comment but did not receive a response at the time of publication.". So do not include. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * A. HKU's official position about Yan's activities is a pretty important piece of the puzzle. Readers should be presented with it. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that this is a primary source as "reliable" as Xinhua News Agency. Of course it was cited by better sources, however it does not make it better, unless other sources say there was an independent verification. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If somebody does something controversial while employed at employer A, and employer A puts out a statement of their side of the story, as an encyclopedia reader I'd like to know what that statement is. Yes, as a reader I will assume that the employer has some biases, since they are involved in the dispute. But I do not find this a strong argument to omit the information. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If the issue is highly controversial (such as that one), it is much better to provide the summary of views by the employee and the employer as summarized in the secondary RS instead of directly citing the PRIMARY. This is needed to provide context. My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I believe that is what we have done.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 03:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

How should we incorporate HKU's statement?

 * Option A:

Between July and August, Yan was interviewed by Fox News, Newsmax TV,[27] and the Daily Mail.[1] Yan claimed in interviews that she became aware of person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 in late December 2019, and that she attempted to communicate the risks to her superiors in late December 2019 or early January 2020.[20]

She stated that the Chinese government and the World Health Organization (WHO) knew about the person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 earlier than they reported or made public, and she stated that the Chinese government suppressed both her research and that of others.[11]

An official statement issued by Hong Kong University (HKU) on July 11, 2020 confirmed that Yan was formerly a post-doctoral researcher at the institution, but disputed the accuracy of other elements of her account, adding that "Dr. Yan never conducted any research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU", and that many of her claims had very little scientific basis.[6][28][29]


 * Option B:

Between July and August, Yan was interviewed by Fox News, Newsmax TV,[27] and the Daily Mail.[1] A July 2020 press release from the University of Hong Kong (HKU) confirmed Yan had left HKU and was a post-doctoral fellow.[28] The press release was in response to Yan's interview on Fox where she accused HKU of failing to act on evidence from her friend in the CDC of human-to-human transmission in late December 2019.[29] HKU's statement said Yan's views did not represent those of the university, the news report "does not accord with the key facts as we understand them" and Yan's comments during the interview had "no scientific basis".[6]

She stated that the Chinese government and the World Health Organization (WHO) knew about the person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 earlier than they reported or made public, and she stated that the Chinese government suppressed both her research and that of others.[11]


 * Option C (none of the above)

CowHouse (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I support Option B for the following reasons: CowHouse (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option B is more concise (about 10 words shorter)
 * Option A is too vague and unclear by referring to "her account" and "her claims" without clearly telling the reader what specific claims HKU is responding to. Option B incorporates the second sentence in Option A in the context of HKU's statement, which is much more clear and informative to readers.
 * Option B makes clear that Yan's accusations were directed at HKU which explains why they responded.
 * Option A says HKU disputed the accuracy of other elements of her account, adding that "Dr. Yan never conducted any research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU". However, as already mentioned several times on the talk page, Yan never made this claim (which HKU's statement incorrectly said was her "central assertion" in the interview). Yan said her friend at the CDC told her about human-to-human transmission and she said China did not allow researchers from Hong Kong. This is not research at HKU nor research Yan conducted.
 * Option A misrepresents HKU's statement as saying "very little scientific basis" instead of "no scientific basis"
 * Option A cites the New York Times for quotes that are not provided in the article. The article only mentions that HKU confirmed she was a research fellow and left the university.
 * Option B refers to HKU correctly as the "University of Hong Kong".
 * I have made what should be considered uncontroversial changes and struck them out from my list of reasons. CowHouse (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Option D : don't start a new section to continue arguing the same thing as the previous, still active, section? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , yeah this is FORKING to create a smaller window of choice. This very easily could have been incorporated into the section above,, for which we have a real, but narrow consensus in favor of my option A. Just add your pitches to the section above. Hatting this.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 14:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)