Jump to content

Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. (RfC, February 2021): There is no consensus as to whether the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a "conspiracy theory" or if it is a "minority, but scientific viewpoint". There is no rough consensus to create a separate section/subsection from the other theories related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021): How a disease spreads, what changes its likelihood to spread and mutation information are, I believe, biomedical (or chemical) information. But who created something or where it was created is historical information. [...] Sources for information of any kind should be reliable, and due weight should be given in all cases. A minority viewpoint or theory should not be presented as an absolute truth, swamp scientific consensus or drown out leading scientific theories.
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021)
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. (RfC, December 2021): Should the article include the sentence They have dismissed the theory based in part on Shi's emailed answers. See this revision for an example.[1] [...] Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow... - it is obvious that there is clear consensus against including this.
  8. (RFC, October 2023): There is a consensus against mentioning that the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy announced in 2023 that they favor the lab leak theory in the lead of this article.
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)
  10. In the article COVID-19 lab leak theory there is no consensus to retain "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism" in the lead. Neither, however, is there a consensus to remove it from the lead. (RFC, December 2024).

Last updated (diff) on 19 March 2025 by Just10A (t · c)

"Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 24 § Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK until a consensus is reached. TarnishedPathtalk 12:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: German foreign intelligence agency estimates lab origin theory at 80 to 95 percent

[edit]
Answered. TarnishedPathtalk 12:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Under the section titled "Virus speculations criticism", add the following:

In March 2025, Der Tagesspiegel published an article indicating that the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), the German foreign intelligence agency, had assessed, as early as 2020, the probability of a laboratory origin from the Wuhan Institute of Virology for SARS-CoV-2 at 80 to 95 percent[1]. This assessment was reportedly derived from analysis of publicly available information and an intelligence operation, designated "Saaremaa." The Saaremaa operation purportedly revealed evidence of high-risk gain-of-function research, involving the modification of naturally occurring viruses, conducted in conjunction with frequent violations of laboratory safety regulations.

  • Why it should be changed: The fact that the BND considers the likelihood of the institute being the origin of the virus at 80 to 95 percent seems incredibly relevant.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [1]

~~~~ [1]

References

  1. ^ a b c "Merkel und Scholz hielten Bericht geheim: BND hält Laborunfall als Auslöser für Corona-Pandemie für sehr wahrscheinlich". Der Tagesspiegel. 12 March 2025. Retrieved 12 March 2025.

Mad.siberian (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I disagree with this addition. There are for practical purposes a nearly infinite number of unreliable commentaries on the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Adding this BND report and others of similar merit would create a soup of confusion rather than an encyclopedia article, and have the effect of misinforming readers. The BND's report has already been added elsewhere on Wiki, where it makes more sense, e.g. COVID-19 lab leak theory. -Darouet (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done I also don't agree with this addition, and therefore I now change the request to answered=yes. Lova Falk (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lab Safety

[edit]

I dont see mention of the many sources which question the rigorousness of the lab's safety protocols.

  • Instead, there is Chinese evidence that the lab had safety problems. VOA has located state media reports showing that there were security incidents flagged by national inspections as well as reported accidents that occurred when workers were trying to catch bats for study. [2]
  • Another longtime CCP analyst said it was not possible to conclude from the document that Xi and Li had actually issued a pishi related to a specific incident, or even that they had been informed of one. Ji, in her view, might well have been invoking their names without their knowledge to underscore the importance of his message. However, she said that, given the party’s preference for positive communications, the acknowledgment of a “‘complex and grave situation’ means ‘We are facing something really bad.’” She also said that the language of the summary implied that the situation in question was happening at that time.[3]
  • Two years before the novel coronavirus pandemic upended the world, U.S. Embassy officials visited a Chinese research facility in the city of Wuhan several times and sent two official warnings back to Washington about inadequate safety at the lab, which was conducting risky studies on coronaviruses from bats [4]

Perhaps a section or a few sentences should be added addressing this? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MasterBlasterofBarterTown, when looking into this, I see that you write as if we all know what you talk about. We don't. Please try to write in a way that most readers can understand, avoiding terms and names like VOA, CCP, Xi, Li, Ji, and pishi without explanation and/or wikilinks. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The links for the respective sources are all provided, I was just posting what I felt were the more relevant portions from each one of them. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically contaminated with a lot of US press misinformation/stupidity. Reliable secondary sources would be required. Bon courage (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is your argument these sources are not reliable? What is your basis for this position? The Wikipedia list of perennial sources categorizes all of these as "generally reliable". MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MasterBlasterofBarterTown I was not talking about the sources, I was talking about the text you wrote. Lova Falk (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The text is copied from the source. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case it would be a copy violation. Lova Falk (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this were uncited or without attribution, then yes, it might be a Copyright violations. As presented, it is not. With that said, do you have any ideas on including this into the main article? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you do decide on, I recommend avoiding abbreviations, initialisms, and nicknames such as VOA, CCP, Xi, Li, Ji, and pishi without either providing wikilinks (a wikilink is a link to a wikipedia article) or the full name of the initialism. Like "VOA," what is that? Voice of America? I'm just taking a guess here, as I wasn't aware they did investigative journalism. "Xi, Li, Ji," who are you referring to? I might guess you're referring to the Chinese state leaders, but those names could also refer to half the country. This is what other editors mean when they say you speak as if we all know what you're talking about. Please, we want to understand, so help us help you. I hope this clarifies the issue. ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 16:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ralph Baric has long cited the "operating procedures at the facility" [5] as a cause for concern as to a possible lab related origin of the virus, which has been covered in more detail by various journalistic outlets, untainted by US politics. Baric was also vocal about this in his testimony to Congress, and as a longtime collaborator of the lab, he is a highly relevant party. Another scientist who noted the lab's lack of safety protocols is Ian Lipkin, who like Baric, favours the natural origin hypothesis. Definitely worth including. 222.165.205.162 (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Err no, he wrote that "speculation will persist" (and he was correct). His own view favours the wet market origin. Trying to make this look like Baric's own concern in a no-no. Bon courage (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Nevertheless, speculation about accidental laboratory escape will likely persist, given the large collections of bat virome samples stored in labs in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the facility’s proximity to the early outbreak, and the operating procedures at the facility." If the operating procedures had been flawless, there would not have been cause for speculation. Lova Falk (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bon courage Before I continue, please check my edit to the page. Lova Falk (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tightened it up. Bon courage (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He determines this "speculation" as "reasonable", while evidence natural escape remains lacking, and he does not support the Worobey papers as demonstrating that evidence (from his US congress testimony). RS clearly show him expressing concern about the lab's safety protocols [6] [7] [8]. Baric was actually the first, in the above referenced link, to point to the WIV's 2017 paper, showing high risk work carried at BSL 2 standards. His views on the matter are very clear. 180.254.225.142 (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably best to stick to the quality scientific journal sources and avoid popular sciences sources and fashion magazines, which in any case pretty much say the opposite to what is claimed. Bon courage (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things: I dont agree with your characterization of the contents of the sources cited above. There were significant enough concerns with the safety protocols at the WIV to prompt US embassy officials to send an official cable back to Washington DC about it. Secondly, this article contains many pieces of information not cited to quality scientific journal sources ... should these be removed as well? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is alternative relevant material in such quality journals, then certainly. Leaning on the WP:BESTSOURCES is the golden route to NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&oldid=1282740376"