Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology/Archive 1

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.

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.
 * Controversy

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)


 * . 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)


 * , 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)


 * 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)
 * See the following two well-sourced articles which support the possibility of WIV being the source of the outbreak, here and here . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.37.162 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 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)

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. — MarkH21talk 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. — MarkH21talk 21:24, 10 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)

"conspiracy theory" suggests that some malicious actor is causing something on purpose. While there have been some such theories about this lab (genetic engineering, bioweapons) those are not the main or most plausible ones. The main and most plausible one is that the virus came from one of the well documented natural bat samples collected from caves and storied in the lab, which escaped by accident rather than malicious intent. This theory at least as plausible as a bat flying 1000 miles to Wuhan from the caves during bat hibernation season to a couple of km from one of the world's only centers on bat coronavirus research, and has not been discredited by anyone. There is a scientific community effort using only peer reviewed science papers and high quality journalistic sources to collate evidence both for and against this theory here: https://project-evidence.github.io/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.69.12 (talk) 23:27, 28 May 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)
 * I briefly revised the lead statements to specify the January hypotheses. — MarkH21talk 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)

I don’t understand, 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. — MarkH21talk 00:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theories vs theories section above. Colonycat (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. — MarkH21talk 02:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. — MarkH21talk 03:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "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. — MarkH21talk 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  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. — MarkH21talk 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 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. — MarkH21talk 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)
 * ✅, thanks! — MarkH21talk 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)
 * 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. — MarkH21talk 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: . 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

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)

--

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)


 * Not that it matters, but since you asked, yes I am an expert in DNA sequencing, in that I've done quite a bit of it, and my job requires me to evaluate genetic similarities all the time. I'm just trying to explain to you that you don't understand what you're reading. -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also you share 96% of your genome with the gibbon, even though your evolutionary paths diverged 30 million years ago. No biologist would deny that you're highly similar to a gibbon. But should we declare that it's unclear whether you actually are, or are not, a gibbon? -Darouet (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well good for you. It does not change the fact that the scientist in the nature paper explicitely chose to use the words highly similar. Even with all your knowledge, I still think that this person, which, by the way, also uploaded the genome sequence https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN996532, is better than anyone else to make that distinction. You seem to try and use your knowledge to push a narrative that is easily disproved by highly similar. Which you never actually adressed in any of your comments. Explain to me why you desagree with the original author of #27? Are you the author of #27? Also, very nice touch with the gibbon... maybe you need a little introduction to self-righteousness.


 * I apologize for coming across as condescending and for making you feel insulted: I did not intend to mock you. I am merely trying to explain how the genetic similarity you describe does not mean what you have said it means here. -Darouet (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , the 5% threshold that you reference from electrical engineering and physics refers to p-values. The 96.2% similarity being discussed here is not a p-value, so the 5% threshold you're discussing is not relevant. 96.2% refers to the percentage of nucleotides that are identical between the two viral RNA sequences. This means that RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 share 96.2% of their RNA in common. It's the same as saying that humans and chimpanzees share 98.8% of their DNA. We wouldn't conclude, based on a 5% threshold, that that means that humans and chimps are the same species! For coronaviruses, a similarity of 96.2% means that the two viral strains could easily have diverged 50-100 years ago.
 * "The expert in the peer-reviewed nature paper": This is not a peer-reviewed paper. It's a preprint. The barrier to uploading a document to a preprint server like bioRxiv is very low, so the fact that a draft is posted there does not mean that it is in any way reliable. There's even a banner at the top of bioRxiv that states, "bioRxiv is receiving many new papers on coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. A reminder: these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information." -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

-- "The expert in the peer-reviewed nature paper" Notice I said Nature here, I was talking about the RaTG13 paper (reference #27), which is Peer-Reviewed. I have to repeat what I already stated, and that people seemed to have missed twice. 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%."

Meaning that even the scientist in that paper expresses the fact that their DNA are highly similar ..read carefully here.. highly similar

I think that for that reason it is unrigorous to take as a fact that they tested all viruses and none matched Covid's sequence. It is more rigourous to say none matched perfectly, that's it! By the way your comparison between the Human-Chimp DNA similarity is sophistry. You are using exageration to try and advance your point and discredit mine. I'm not an expert in the field but if I base myself on reason I can think that the DNA of a complex organism must contain a whole lot more nucleotides and must also be orders of magnitude more complex. As for the case of simpler objects like viruses, the sample of nucleotides should reasonably be smaller. That's why a 96.2% relative match in a smaller sample can be similarly significant to a 98% match in a larger sample. It's exactly like when you try to compute a relative error in very low values. As an example... an error of 0.05mm in a 1mm object gives 95% "match". But when we work with that error we know that 0.05mm in our scope is much less significant than, let's say, 25mm in a 500mm sample, even if the relative "match" is the same. Do you see where I'm trying to go with that?

As for the preprint I think you are willfully downscaling it. As I stated earlier, I am well aware of what a preprint is, having already proposed one on ArXiv myself before sending it to a journal. What you seem to overlook is the fact that the warning can easily be added in the text of the wikipedia page before writing the citation and the lab theory conclusion. I also noted that there is a quote from Donald Trump in there! As far as I'm concerned, the US government did not show any proof of the lab theory yet. But still, he is quoted right here!!!. Then again, as I already said and you didn't read: A preprint article from scientists of UBC and MIT with their contact information written at the top of the preprint, meaning that they can be contacted easily by the reader of this wikipedia page in order to verify how they came to that conclusion, is at least tens of thousands of orders of magnitude more credible than some Donald Trump statement right now.

Is this really wikipedia now? A bunch of people that don't read what others write? If I were into conspiracy theories, which I am not, I would come to the conclusion that you are willingly trying to discredit this theory by not including the points that are going with it. Or if you include points that go with it they are Donal Trump quotes, come on wtf? Without it being willingfull, this is at least a very HUGE lack of neutrality and I think it should be reported somewhere, considering that my change in the 96% issue is only to add 1 word before "matched" and the one for the paper can easily add the biorxiv warning VERBATIM in the text leading to the citation.

I am telling you, I will work on getting my approval to write on this article and I will be making those changes. I will neutrally insert the preprint with the proper warning before citing the scientists. I also think that because you guys are reluctant to add the word perfectly before matched I will be adding a sentence after reference #38 citing reference #27 and the 96.2% match. If you want to add a sentence after that stating with proof that you disagree with the scientist in reference #27 that said highly similar you will be very welcome. Feynstein (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There is already a template to use citations from biorxiv in wikipedia. Hence providing proof that citing preliminary research can be relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_bioRxiv Feynstein (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , please read Assume Good Faith and No Personal Attacks. They're Wikipedia policies.
 * "I will neutrally insert the preprint with the proper warning before citing the scientists." I've reverted your addition of this preprint. The preprint has not gone through peer review. Even with an inline warning, including it is not appropriate.
 * "I think that for that reason it is unrigorous to take as a fact that they tested all viruses and none matched Covid's sequence. It is more rigourous to say none matched perfectly, that's it!" A difference of 3.6% means that it's not the same virus. Period. That represents possibly 50-100 years of divergent evolution. You keep talking about "sample size" and 5% p-value thresholds, which have nothing to do with genome similarity. There is no sample size or p-value here. The comparison is between one genome and another genome. 3.6% of the nucleotides are different.
 * "their DNA are highly similar ..read carefully here.. highly similar": In the exact same way that humans and chimpanzees are highly similar. They're not the same species, but they're closely related.
 * Please don't insert this material back into the article without consensus. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It added information to the page and you removed it. This is regression and against the idea of wikipedia. I will put it back until it's decided. Sorry man you just can't remove a thouroughly referenced and neutral information on this page. It should be considered as vandalism. A template exists for referencing bioXriv on wikipedia. That means that wikipedia agrees that referencing preprints, with the right notice, can be relevant. Undoing your change mate. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You're edit warring. This page is under discretionary sanctions, which has informed you about on your talk page. Please revert your own edit, or I will report your edit warring. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh please do sir. If I have done anything wrong I will gladly accept responsibility. I also decided on my own self to distance myself from this subject, but I still hold my ground as per this paragraph's right to be there. What you just did was regression, I do assume you know about programming and non-regression tests. This is basically what you have done, you've broken the build. And by the way, please accept my apologies if anything I said was too personnal, it is not my intention. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that it is not peer-reviewed doesn't make it unrelevant information by the way. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Especially since it is not on a medical-related page. I suggest you actually read the paper. I read it and found their methodology and data results rigourous. The authors can also be contacted. If it is a problem I will contact them to get their explanation as to why they added the last citation in my paragraph. I believe they are experts in the field and their input would gladly be appreciated here. Plus, I added this paragraph before sanctions where imposed, which is something to be noted. Thanks! PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to conclude that If administrators think that my input should not have been added, I will remove it. But they should say so here, please. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I figured I misunderstood a lot of stuff and the fact that I felt insulted did not help me stop what I was doing. I'm also sorry if I was harsh, but it felt like I was being compared to a monkey :/ I know I am not an expert in the matter though and I said it multiple times, but I still felt that the highly similar thing was relevant. I understand the comparison now. I did not know that 96% was not close. But why would they include it in their paper in the first place if it's of no interest to the experts? It really sounds like they wanted to emphasize on this similarity and did not take the time to explain why? PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi again I apologize for offending you. 96% similarity between the genomes of SARS-CoV-2 and Bat CoV RaTG13 means that the two coronavirus species are separated by many years of evolution. Nevertheless, because coronaviruses are so numerous and very ancient (see figure 1 here, and because we know so little about them, that amount of similarity is nonetheless exciting. This is the closest cousin of SARS-CoV-2 that we've located so far. It means that if we keep searching, we'll probably find even more closely related cousins, and that will help us understand the origin of the virus that's now infecting and killing people. Rester en sécurité, -Darouet (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the further explanation. I guess the first "No" I received angered me more than anything XD. I specifically came to the talk page in order to discuss that and it felt like people where not open to discussion about it. I accept your apologies and I hope you can accept mine. My intention with the adding of this preprint was to add a part about the fact that no stone should be left unturned. Like even if it seems unlikely to you, in my field I still find very unexpected results regularly... And I don't want people to overlook the probability of such incident happening just because it is unlikely. We simply don't know. I guess the future will make things right someday. I don't know if I can talk like that here, but I feel frustrated about stuff that happened during this pandemic and about the pandemic itself, being self isolated, you know. What angered me the most is probably that quote from the paper: "In contrast to the thorough and swift animal sampling executed in response to the 2002-2004 SARS-CoV outbreaks to identify intermediate hosts (37,53), no animal sampling prior to the shut down and sanitization of the market was reported. Details about the sampling are sparse: 515 out of 585 samples are environmental samples, and the other 70 were collected from wild animal vendors; it is unclear whether the latter samples are from animals, humans, and/or the environment. Only 4 of the samples, which were all environmental samples from the market, have passable coverage of SARS-CoV-2 genomes for analysis." It's frustrating that scientists don't have access to the same quality of sample that they had in 2003. And it really makes me think that something is fishy with this whole situation... Plus the current media war going on now about it is pretty stupid... I won't be making further comments here or edits, but I wanted it to be known somewhere that someone objected to the overlooking of the possibility that it was an accidental release. No one is perfect and mistakes always happen. What you do with these mistakes is what people can criticize you about. Nice talk guys and sorry again. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, I apologize for the drama! My hope is that intense and wide-ranging investigations reveal the source of virus in the coming year. The current political atmosphere does reduce the chances of that happening, sadly. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Behaviour on talk pages is covered by the discretionary sanctions
In other words, follow WP:AgF and WP:Civil. Our role is mainly about behavior, not content, although we deal with copyright and WP:BLP issues as well. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Genome sequencing in 3 days?
I've just read an article about their work regarding the sequencing and it made me realize... Can you do a full genome sequencing in 3 days? "The lab has said it received samples of the then-unknown virus on December 30, determined the viral genome sequence on January 2" That seems very short notice for this kind of work. Maybe we could include some sort of comment from an expert about how likely they could have done it like that? There is no mention of this timeline in the page, maybe it could be added? Just bringing out ideas here. I'm going to try to dig up stuff about it tomorrow, thanks! PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I've found this article which seems to indicate it's pretty tedious work. I will read it carefully tomorrow while I wait for answers. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Are you proposing any concrete changes to the article? Wikipedia talk pages are not the right forum for a general discussion of scientific questions. They're for discussing changes to article content. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you did not see it, I'll rewrite it here for you. "Maybe we could include some sort of comment from an expert about how likely they could have done it like that? There is no mention of this timeline in the page, maybe it could be added?". Thank you for reading what I write. I think that adding this supposed timeline is excellent! If they really did it in three days, it's positive, and if they didn't it shows how they have been manipulated into lying. Thank you for the usual thorough reading of what I say. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Just that small detail would uncover a whole lot of thick smokescreen don't you think? PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks like you're proposing that we do our own research on how long it takes to sequence viral genomes, and that you're implying the Wuhan Institute of Virology already had the genome on hand. Is that what you're trying to propose? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Please, I'm not implying anything here myself, look at WP:IUC so that you do not paraphrase me again. I was trying to say that, in the event of a coverup, this might be a very good hint. And I already found an expert interview on the subject. But you're not going to like it, and it's on youtube. Is the Epoch Times considered WP:FRINGE yet or not? Its from a spin-off channel of them. Please be carefull that by citing them, I do not necessarily endorse everything they do, it's really not the case in fact. It's an interview with Dr. Sean Lin which I think might enter in the WP:BIASED category, but the way he describes it in the interview is very technical and would probably require discussion here before inclusion. Can someone relink me to the COVID conditions for inclusion of sources? I will try to find it, but it would be faster to get a direct link, thanks. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not support the inclusion of conspiracy theories in this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:READBEFORE (or in that case, watch before) Dr Sean Lin is an expert in the field. Take a look at WP:FRIND. If you have independent sources that say otherwise, or that discredited him for this interview use them when accusing him of conspiracy theories. Otherwise this is an unfounded allegation per WP:BLPTALK, and I would be in my right to redact what you just wrote. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The Epoch Times is most certainly not a WP:MEDRS. It's not necessary to find independent sources that say otherwise, because there's no reliable source supporting the conspiracy theory that The Epoch Times is propagating here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm talking about the expert's opinion behind it. I know the Epoch Times by itself is very not WP:MEDRS, but the expert being interviewed, in my opinion, is. I will post a notice on WP:RSN to verify if this particular interview could be included and how it could be done. I will also be looking for another source where he might have discussed this issue. But then again, I suggest you WP:READBEFORE and focus on the information/expert opinion, and not the carrier until a decision has been made on WP:RSN. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Epoch Times is a deprecated source (Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). CowHouse (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sampling timeline
I believe that as per WP:BRD: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary." The least you can do is come here and explain your revert further. I don't believe you are in your right to revert this edit because it still cast doubt on the institute's timeline. If you WP:READBEFORE you will notice that it mentions another Caixin article, did you read it? Did you find that the sampling and the sequencing seems to be all over the place with multiple companies involved and a letter to not publish anything? This is proof enough to at least shed doubt on their timeline, as is how I wrote it. I suggest you revert it until you can prove it does not cast doubt on any official timeline. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This is what you added:
 * However, on 7 March, 2020, Hong Kong Free Press revealed that the genome sequence might have been hidden for 14 days, casting doubt on the official timeline of the institute. (You reference to an article in the Hong Kong Free Press which originally appeared on Global Voices).
 * The sentence you added was not substantiated in the article. The article does not say anything about the WIV's timeline. In fact, the WIV is not specifically mentioned at all (please read WP:SYNTH). The relevant part of the article says an investigation by Caixin found samples from patients were sent to "multiple labs" for testing. A lab in Guangzhou found the genome sequence of the new virus was 87% similar to "Bat SARS-like coronavirus" and shared the results on December 27. It then says "China only allowed the release of the genome sequence of COVID-19 to the World Health Authority [sic] (WHO) on 11 January, two weeks after they got hold of the result."
 * It is inaccurate to say results from a lab in Guangzhou are "casting doubt on the official timeline" of a different institute in another province. Since the WIV was not mentioned in the article, I maintain that reverting your edit was justified. CowHouse (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point, I agree that the WIV is not referenced directly and with a reread, it does point to the 14 days being after Dec.30, but it also points to the existence of samples before that date. And to this I will add that in their letter they stated: "after receiving the unexplained pneumonia samples sent by Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital". But in the article they say that in December the hospitals in Wuhan had already sent the samples to the CDC and the other lab. Both of those facts point to reasonable doubt. But indeed, after reading WP:SYNTH it cannot be established properly. What I hate about that is the interview in the Epoch Times fills the gap in this reasoning. I will try to find more sources that state this doubt explicitly. In the meantime, Another way to integrate this reference might be to rephrase the statement I added by saying that they were not allowed to publish the results after having sequenced the whole genome. And I don't have time to read the HKFP article right now but there maybe a quote in it that says it wasted time in the research about the pandemic. I think this would be a good addition to the page. Waiting for your reply. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * " the interview in the Epoch Times fills the gap in this reasoning": I would not trust any of the technical claims made in the Epoch Times video. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * And I said that's why I hated it. Thanks for reminding me, again, that its unreliable, I think I'm aware of that now. Considering the overwhelming shut down at WP:RSN. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It's called systemic bias. I prefer to keep an open mind and check the facts by myself. Unless you're willfully shutting your eyes, three days to sequence a full genome seems fishy. I don't particularly know about this field, maybe could help us just figure this out. Maybe he knows some references about sequencing timing that I don't. Don't worry now, I won't be editing any of this page with ET. But I still want to know. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not willfully shutting my eyes. I don't have any direct experience in this scientific field, and I personally have no idea if three days to sequence a genome of 30,000 base pairs is unrealistic or "fishy." I haven't seen any reliable sources that would suggest it's "fishy." I looked around a bit, however, and I found an article that discusses how the Institut Pasteur in France sequenced SARS-CoV-2 in January: . From the article,
 * The Institut Pasteur was just as fast as the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In general, I don't think that you're taking the right approach to finding material to add into the article. You saw a claim by the Epoch Times that something at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is fishy, and now that you know that the Epoch Times is considered unreliable on Wikipedia, your reaction is to search for other sources that make the same claim as the Epoch Times. Instead of beginning with conspiracy theory websites (like the Epoch Times) and then trying to find other sources that support those sites' claims, you should begin with reliable sources. As much as possible, I've been trying to base my editing about CoVID-19 on scientific journals. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Institut Pasteur was just as fast as the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In general, I don't think that you're taking the right approach to finding material to add into the article. You saw a claim by the Epoch Times that something at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is fishy, and now that you know that the Epoch Times is considered unreliable on Wikipedia, your reaction is to search for other sources that make the same claim as the Epoch Times. Instead of beginning with conspiracy theory websites (like the Epoch Times) and then trying to find other sources that support those sites' claims, you should begin with reliable sources. As much as possible, I've been trying to base my editing about CoVID-19 on scientific journals. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

the problem with that is we have no verifiable knowledge about that. But now since you found a timeline elsewhere it's ok. I agree with you, what I want to do is push you to come out with refs as much as I try to do. I've seen here and in other pages that the criteria for criticism is very high. Like you have to directly quote every reference directly instead of making it simpler to understand. The positive quotes have a free pass, and this is why I left them as is in the paragraph. No one really cared. Well that's what I want to point out, hold your stuff at the same standard as anyone and start quoting. I know that you think I am making those paragraphs with a negative agenda. I don't mind, really and I don't accuse you of anything, it's normal. What I'm trying to say here is now, compared to before, I understand how it works and the whole purpose of it. But you've got to keep your stuff at the same level. For me, quoting CGTN or Xinhua especially is biased p-word. And it should be viewed as such. On CGTN YouTube NOT ONCE did I see a report about the faulty masks they sold. And all around China they say it's a few bad apples that they are the saviours, this is BS and everyone knows it. Almost as much as Epoch Times, both are exactly on opposed sides of the spectrum, yet they get a free pass here because they are verifiable... What is not is everything they don't report on. Anyway, same standards man... PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Now China says Wuhan wet market was NOT the origin
The Wuhan wet market was a ‘victim’ of coronavirus rather than the cause, according to the Chinese Centre of Disease Control and Prevention. "super-spreader event". Remember https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8369085/Wuhan-wet-market-NOT-origin-coronavirus-pandemic.html is not PS. Indeed "Other studies compared the genome of COVID-19 with genetic information on other bat coronaviruses held at the lab - there was no match.", that is just hillarious. 94.29.3.116 (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Mobile position data
Hi, I found the quote of the traffic shut down inside the report. I did not think it was relevant to reference it also because it is entirely contained in the news article and it's not an outside reference. The user simply has to click on the link to see it. Can you take a look at how we could re-integrate this information? I don't want to revert your changes because they are mostly appreciated from my part. Thanks PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The information would need to be covered in reliable sources at the very least. You said the information was not in an outside reference but you then described an outside reference – clicking on a link to a different website. The document in itself would not be an appropriate reference since, in my view, it would not qualify as a reliable source. A summary of what reliable sources said about the report is sufficient. See also: WP:WEIGHT. CowHouse (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The document presents a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory. I don't think it should even be mentioned in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It links to a document cloud with this label "Contributed by: NBC News Investigations, NBC News". This is clearly supplementary documentation to the news article, and not a simple external source. Quoting this document, which was reviewed by NBC, is not putting words in their mouth. Also don't WP:WEIGHT me, I included everything that goes against this theory in the news article. And everything written in the concern as source section has some answer by some party line following virologist somewhere to say it isn't true. Same virologists that pushed the CCP's narrative about the market origin without any ounce of doubt. (joke) I never believed biology to be a real science anyway. And for both of you, be very careful when citing WP:FRINGE if you don't know about a field. Mobility data analysis is a very serious field with very serious results. etc... etc... I think it is a good addition to this page because it could push some of our readers to try and analyse this data by themselves, which at one point I think I will do. I already found the tencent API for this data. I want to conclude with the end of the news article in question:

"Because the Wuhan lab is a high-security facility in an adversary nation studying dangerous pathogens, it is a collection target for several U.S. intelligence agencies, multiple officials told NBC News. Data gathered would include mobile phone signals, communications intercepts and overhead satellite imagery, the officials said. Analysts are now examining what was collected in October and November for clues suggesting any anomalies at the lab, officials said. Congressional intelligence committees have also been given the document, and Sen. Marco Rubio, R.-Fla., appeared to be alluding to it or a similar report in a tweet on Wednesday. "Would be interesting if someone analyzed commercial telemetry data at & near Wuhan lab from Oct-Dec 2019," Rubio tweeted. "If it shows dramatic drop off in activity compared to previous 18 months it would be a strong indication of an incident at lab & of when it happened."

I don't think this theory to be closed yet. And enough people (even real scientists, you know, like me) believe it. Relaying it outside of WP:FRINGE, sorry. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:FRINGE it says Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular subject are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, because Wikipedia policy prohibits original research. The document is an external link and is not part of the article. The fact that NBC News redacted the document does not make it part of the article or a reliable source.
 * I included everything that goes against this theory in the news article. Anyone who compares the diffs can see this is untrue. You did not include all of this: The document did not cite direct evidence for either of these assertions and there has been no confirmation of a shutdown. [...] A second version of the document was annotated and amended after an earlier version incorrectly said an international conference in November appeared to have been "cancelled and never took place". It is not known who wrote the document.
 * And enough people (even real scientists, you know, like me) believe it. Please read WP:WEIGHT: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. CowHouse (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the precision on the document inside the article, I looked in the multiple WP rules and couldn't find it. I should have said: "included everything that goes against this theory that is scientifically relevant". Maybe have a look at Scientific method to understand that what is really relevant is if an expert says it's inconclusive or if their experiment cannot be repeated. And I believe it plays directly in your WP:RS playbook of not adding circumstancial evidence, like the meeting part, into WP. You can add it, but it doesn't add any information on the data itself. Analysis and expertise are WP:RS. Do not use my words against me, I was using myself as an example of knowledgeable people that believe in this theory. To directly quote WP:FRINGE, as you seem to enjoy doing: "the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". I think I've already shown earlier that mobility data analysis is mainstream. And if you think that this particular analysis is fringy then you better remove the whole concern as source section. Finally, Please stop quoting me it's irritating and only makes you appear condescending to me. Thanks. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The Science paper that you linked says nothing about using mobility data to pinpoint the origin of the outbreak in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The fact that mobility data can be useful in one instance does not make its use in another instance legitimate or reliable. Marco Rubio promoting the theory does not make it non-fringe. Rubio is a politician, not a virologist or epidemiologist, and his statements aren't part of a peer-reviewed scientific article. Just more generally, can we cool off with the constant additions of fringe conspiracy theories to the article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2022
In the second sentence of the third paragraph in the 'History' section, where it mentions Xiangguo Qiu, embed the link to the existing Wikipedia article about her - i.e. replace 'Xiangguo Qiu' with 'Xiangguo Qiu' by adding two enclosing square brackets on either side of her name as follows: Xiangguo Qiu 2A02:A440:2A38:1:5C50:AAB8:505:D26D (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅  Madeline  ( part of me ) 15:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2022
Remove "along with germ causing anthrax," as they didn't supply the Anthrax noted in the study that the reference points to. Instead, they only provided B. mycoides, B. pumilus, Proteus vulgaris, E. coli BL21, and E. coli M15. Isacc Barker (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Fair point, thanks for checking on that. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)