Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 41#Suggested resolution of %5Bdubious – discuss%5D

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/25/us/politics/cia-covid-lab-leak.html Cyanotrop (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:see the discussion above. TarnishedPath^talk 03:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

{{U|TarnishedPath}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1262021361 you are insisting here] on the word "misplaced" before "suspicion", which is not in the source relied on in the lead and is treating the whole question as settled and certain – although taken as a whole the page does not do that. I can't find a reliable source in the article for "misplaced suspicion" could you please give it here? Even if the claim is cited somewhere else, given the lack of any certainty any such source must be POV. Moonraker (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:@Moonraker, the word misplaced was placed in at Special:Diff/1262010139 by @Bon courage. My edit prior to yours was in relation to updating a link target and nothing else. TarnishedPath^talk 05:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

::You are right, {{U|TarnishedPath}}, I have pinged the wrong user. {{U|Bon courage}}, the question is for you. And you say in your edit summary "The lede summarized the body, which explains this is a fallacy" – what is a fallacy? I do not see one. Moonraker (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:::You can search for the word "fallacy" with a browser's search functionality. This is the "too much of a coincidence" line of argument and we need to call it out as faulty for reasons of neutrality. Bon courage (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Thank you for the reply, {{U|Bon courage}}. What I find is this:

::::{{Quote|Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues write that the location of the Institute near the outbreak site is "literally a coincidence" and using that coincidence as a priori evidence for a lab leak typifies a kind of conjunction fallacy.}}

::::The link to the source given for this is dead. We can agree on what is said about evidence, but if it did state any certainty, that would be highly unscientific, so I doubt that it does. Can you give us the exact quotation, please? In any event, it is surely the word "misplaced" which offends against neutrality, taking the article as a whole, and I see nothing about "misplaced suspicion". Moonraker (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::No, for WP:FRINGESUBJECTS we are obliged to call fringe notions what they are (such as the "too much of a coincidence" middle-brow reckon). I'm not sure why you call this correction from well-published actual experts in their field "highly unscientific" - surely the opposite is true. I have no issue replacing "misplaced suspicion" with "fallacious reasoning"; both seem a fair summary of our good sources. T&F seem to be having technical issues; I'm sure they'll be back soon. Bon courage (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::@Moonraker, I've updated the DOI for the reference. You can find an open access version of the book at https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-edit/10.4324/9781003330769/covid-conspiracy-theories-global-perspective-michael-butter-peter-knight, although the links to the chapter PDFs seem not be working. The book is listed on Google at https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Covid_Conspiracy_Theories_in_Global_Pers/NASqEAAAQBAJ?hl=en and you can probably see a lot of it from there. TarnishedPath^talk 06:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::This seems to come up a lot so I wonder if we should expand on it. One source (can't remember which) posited a scenario where COVID started in Beijing, and how the argument would then be "Beijing has more virology labs than any city in China, so it stands to reason a lab origin in likely". Bon courage (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::If that quote is from the book, I think that would clarify why reasoning that there's a connection, between a lab being in Wuhan and the outbreak seemingly staring from there, is faulty/misplaced/fallacious/whatever other synonyms there are. TarnishedPath^talk 07:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::I don't think it's in this source, though it does explain why you'd expect outbreaks to coincide with where virology labs are, for perfectly innocent reasons. Bon courage (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Agreed, it's perfectly understandable reasoning, however as is clear to anyone who's done the tiniest amount of study in formal logic it's completely misplaced/fallacious/etc. Unfortunately we need sources to cover that sort of stuff or we're engaging in WP:OR TarnishedPath^talk 07:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::Yup. Fortunately the Lewandowsky et al source has it covered in sufficient detail (though not enough for there to be constant questions about this, it seems). Bon courage (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::Anyway I've added both a correct DOI and a link to the book from Google Books, to the reference. Moonraker should read the chapter if he wants to dispute this further. TarnishedPath^talk 08:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::@Moonraker, I've just had a look at google books at it seems the whole book (a the very least the first two chapters are, which is when I stopped scrolling) is available from https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Covid_Conspiracy_Theories_in_Global_Pers/NASqEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1, which is no surprise I guess given that Francis & Taylor have released it under a free license. TarnishedPath^talk 07:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you, {{U|TarnishedPath}}, but I still can't get through to it. And even if I could, reading the whole chapter is unlikely to take us anywhere. What is claimed (rightly or wrongly) on our page to be in the source makes sense, and it says nothing about a "misplaced suspicion" – nor can what it is claimed to say infer one. So that term is not cited. You say "reasoning that there's a connection, between a lab being in Wuhan and the outbreak seemingly starting from there, is faulty/misplaced/fallacious" - agreed. And what the source is claimed to say ("the location of the Institute near the outbreak site... using that coincidence as a priori evidence for a lab leak typifies a kind of conjunction fallacy") is fine too. But no one here or anywhere else is trying to use it as hard evidence for anything. It's circumstantial and feeble, all that comes from it is a suspicion. To go on from that to say that the suspicion is "misplaced" is to judge the whole question in a way that the page does not, based on no citation and no evidence. That is also fallacious, which is why the word "misplaced" needs to come out. Do you not agree? Moonraker (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• :@Moonraker, if you click on the link for the DOI from the reference that takes you to Taylor & Frances page for the book. After discussions here last night I was successfully able to download chapters. I read the 2nd chapter last night and I believe more than adequately supports the material in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 02:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• The "misplaced suspicion" phrasing is problematic as it suggest a definitive judgment, biasing readers against considering the proximity of the lab to the initial COVID-19 outbreak site as significant factor. I am agreeing with @ Moonraker argument that such language undermines the neutral tone that NPOV requires. I also don't think it's appropriate to go into such detail in the lead with so many citations on the issue. IntrepidContributor (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• :@Newimpartial, you reverted my edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1266731796]. Please can you show how the "misplaced" is supported by sources? Frutos et al offer innocent reasons for why a virus may break out in proximity of labs, but doesn't call the suspicion misplaced, literally or figuratively. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::To answer your question: like TarnishedPath, I find that the second chapter linked above (by Lewandowsky, Jacobs and Neil) provides more than sufficient support for "misplaced suspicion". Newimpartial (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::Lewandowsky et al is a completely unsuitable source due to their lack of relevant expertise, with only one minor exception among the authors, while Frutos et al are recognized experts and their work is a review article. The term 'misplaced suspicion' is thus unsupported by appropriate sources, which must be review articles at the very least. Since Frutos et al. do not describe the suspicion as 'misplaced,' using this term violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Please undo your revert. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I am not understanding your concern about the source: perhaps you believe "misplaced suspicion" is biomedical information to which WP:MEDRS applies, but I do not believe the community agrees with that interpretation. Newimpartial (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::The concern is primarily NPOV, not RS (or MEDRS). We cannot rise Lewandowsky et al to the level of review articles like Frutos to dismiss the relevance of lab's proximity to the outbreak as 'misplaced', particularly when expressed in Wikipedia's voice. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I see no NPOV issues. WP:WEIGHT is clear that we go with the majority viewpoints as expressed in reliable sources and that we don't pander to WP:FRINGE. TarnishedPath^talk 09:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::But can you provide a specific text excerpt that directly states that the argument about the proximity of the labs to the outbreak is based on misplaced suspicion? If not, this would be original research, that is, taking what the sources say and applying an editor's unique synthesis. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::To answer your question, I do not need to WP:SATISFY you about this. It is simply not the case that a paraphrase with which you do not personally agree is therefore WP:SYNTH. At least two editors who have read the chapter in question are convinced that it supports the current article text. Newimpartial (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• :@TarnishedPath, you reverted my attempt to combine two sentences in one, making the counterargument to the proximity suspicion clearer [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1266735816]. As per WP:LEAD, the lead should be concise and summarize the article, yet this proximity issue is hardly even covered in article. It hardly even belongs in the lead at all. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::I see no weighting issues with the lead given the size of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 09:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::If you don't see the issue other editors do, then we might benefit from putting this to the community through an RfC. IntrepidContributor (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The only other editor besides you pushing your position has been Lardlegwarmers, who notably has been recently topic banned from COVID-19. I don't see that a RFC is needed. If you want to go ahead though knock yourself out. Might be best to wait until the current one is finished if you do wish to go ahead as this talk page is quite crowded. TarnishedPath^talk 22:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Calling for adherence to WP:NPOV is not "pushing," and Lardlegwarmers not only editor advocating this position here. Mentioning his topic ban, which you had hand in, looks very much like flexing muscles, which doesn't belong on this talk page. We are WP:HERE to improve this article. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@IntrepidContributor, you might want to go re-read the AN/I discussion because you will find I've had zero involvement in it. I'll await your retraction. TarnishedPath^talk 09:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I am mistaken and will duly retract my statement when you retract your statement that I and Lardlegwarmers are only ones advocating a position when it is very clearly three editors including Moonraker. IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::@IntrepidContributor my read of Moonraker's comments was that they were asking questions. I couldn't see a position from that. If I'm wrong my apologies, but I didn't read that they had a position. TarnishedPath^talk 10:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::In most topic areas, where cooperative editing is the norm, editors raise concerns calmly and gently, exactly like Moonraker does. But I think you knew that already. IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Noting that ExtraJesus.. blocked as sock of Raxythecat, Intrepid Contribuor topic banned from this area, Lardlegwarmers blocked for a week - for violation of their TBan from this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The page often treats the (serious) lab leak theory and the “manufactured virus” theory as one and the same. It should be consistently covering (only) the former, as the lab leak theory is about the natural virus, and hence they cannot be conflated. 2001:FB1:7D:CF9F:CDE0:C562:A669:A692 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:except they were at the time conflated. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{hat|WP:NOTFORUM}}

One of the principal arguments against a potential lab leak is the absence of direct evidence that COVID-19 previously existed in a lab. This would be a useful point had the Chinese government permitted any third party investigators even a modicum of access to the WIV laboratory.

Of course, they've done the opposite. The WHO investigative team was refused access to the lab or virtually any useful relevant data on the lab's activities.

On these facts, it is outrageously misleading to note the absence of direct evidence that covid came from WIV without also saying that no third party has ever had a chance to find any. 2600:4040:9ADA:C00:EDD3:8D63:3337:A122 (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:No, as thEre is none. Do you have a source that says "no third party has ever had a chance to find any"? Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::I mean there's a

::Do you want me to disprove the possibility that China secretly permitted a rigorous third party review of the lab that found no evidence of a lab leak? And somehow chose not to publicize such a favorable result?

::If this is standard of review, I'm happy to have made you say this publicly so third parties can decide whether or not they agree with me 2600:1017:B81A:8A35:FD2F:8A9A:D552:B338 (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:Neither Wikipedia articles nor talk pages are a place for expressing outrage at governments or the scientific establishment, or whatever else you think might be deserving of outrage. If you have a reliable source stating something instead, it may be assessed and its statement included in proportion to its relative prominence. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

{{Clear}}

{{hat|No need for another thread on the same issue when there are other open discussions.}}

This Wikipedia article is inaccurate and factually outdated. The CIA has recently confirmed that covid likely leaked from a lab in China. This article claims it’s a controversial conspiratorial claim that isn’t backed by evidence, which is untrue. Please update the article to reflect these new findings so that Wikipedia stays accurate and politically unbiased.

source:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/cia-now-says-covid-19-more-likely-have-come-lab-2025-01-25/ 2601:447:C601:930:DDA7:D8F8:AF60:ADD6 (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

The current version of article contains a phrase: "There is no evidence that any genetic manipulation or reverse genetics (a technique required to make chimeric viruses) of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was ever carried out at the WIV."

It is FALSE. There is (at least one) publicly available paper which proves the contrary.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698 is an article from 2017 with (among others) authored by Daszak and Zheng-Li Shi (the head of the WIV).

"Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus".

It contains this passage:

"Construction of recombinant viruses

Recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat SARSr-CoVs and the backbone of the infectious clone of SARSr-CoV WIV1 were constructed using the reverse genetic system described previously [23] (S9 Fig). The fragments E and F were re-amplified with primer pairs (FE, 5’-AGGGCCCACCTGGCACTGGTAAGAGTCATTTTGC-3’, R-EsBsaI, 5’-ACTGGTCTCTTCGTTTAGTTATTAACTAAAATATCACTAGACACC-3’) and (F-FsBsaI, 5’-TGAGGTCTCCGAACTTATGGATTTGTTTATGAG-3’, RF, 5’-AGGTAGGCCTCTAGGGCAGCTAAC-3’), respectively. The products were named as fragment Es and Fs, which leave the spike gene coding region as an independent fragment. BsaI sites (5’-GGTCTCN|NNNN-3’) were introduced into the 3’ terminal of the Es fragment and the 5’ terminal of the Fs fragment, respectively. The spike sequence of Rs4231 was amplified with the primer pair (F-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-AGTCGTCTCAACGAACATGTTTATTTTCTTATTCTTTCTCACTCTCAC-3’ and R-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-TCACGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTGACACCCTTG-3’). The S gene sequence of Rs7327 was amplified with primer pair (F-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’-AGTGGTCTCAACGAACATGAAATTGTTAGTTTTAGTTTTTGCTAC-3’ and R-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’- TCAGGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTAACACCCTTG-3’). The fragment Es and Fs were both digested with BglI (NEB) and BsaI (NEB). The Rs4231 S gene was digested with BsmBI. The Rs7327 S gene was digested with BsaI. The other fragments and bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) were prepared as described previously. Then the two prepared spike DNA fragments were separately inserted into BAC with Es, Fs and other fragments. The correct infectious BAC clones were screened. The chimeric viruses were rescued as described previously [23]."

^^^^ This is exactly "genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.165.236.120 (talk • contribs)

{{edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}

:Seems like an unambiguous error. It's still there.

:Please add {{dubious|WIV did perform genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses}} after the sentence.

:Visual editor doesn't work on this page. Why? RememberOrwell (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::What part of "Please add ^{[dubious – [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACOVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=1266572018&oldid=1261386099#WIV_did_perform_genetic_manipulation_of_SARS-related_bat_coronaviruses discuss]]} after the sentence" do you not understand? RememberOrwell (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} The visual editor doesn't work because you don't have access to edit this page. Ultraodan (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

::(Today I can edit this page. E.g. at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACOVID-19_lab_leak_theory§ion=1&veaction=edit Switching to "Visual Editor" was disabled and greyed out but today I realized I was able to get around that by removing "source" from the end of the URL. I'm not sure what is or what was preventing it the other day. And I was and am still talking about this - the talk page. I'm not talking about using "Visual Editor" for the article page at all. I suppose using the visual editor can backfire, so perhaps that's why it's greyed out.) RememberOrwell (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::Again, Thanks. RememberOrwell (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@MrOllie, the request was DONE, contrary to your stated belief otherwise. Stop being disruptive. "Please add ^{[dubious – [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACOVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=1266572018&oldid=1261386099#WIV_did_perform_genetic_manipulation_of_SARS-related_bat_coronaviruses discuss]]} after the sentence" was done, and points to this section when clicked on. So obviously (to me anyway) it should stay here. If you disagree, present an argument that isn't nonsense. {{ping|TarnishedPath}}, you see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1269486117 was a premature archive now? RememberOrwell (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Thankyou for drawing my attention to a template that should not be there. TarnishedPath^talk 07:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::::The only disruptive thing would seem to be the improper use of a donotarchiveuntil template. We don't need to keep a discussion section on this page for 10 years because you're unhappy with a particular sentence. MrOllie (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not seeing anything in the quoted passage above that states that occurred at WIV. TarnishedPath^talk 07:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::Why should the template not be there? What? "that states that occurred at WIV"? Not English. RememberOrwell (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:::In case it wasn't noticed, TarnishedPath is edit warring over my edit request, below. Marked it as answered but didn't answer it. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::@Novem Linguae, please see above comment which has been made by the editor since you provided them a CTOP. TarnishedPath^talk 11:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hey @TarnishedPath. Because of my WP:NOLABLEAK essay, I am probably too WP:INVOLVED in this topic area to take administrative actions. You may want to look into WP:AE. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Shi says her WIV lab did the work:

"Are bat coronaviruses grown at the institute? A: We have only isolated three strains of live SARS-related coronaviruses (SARSr-CoV) from bats, which shared 95-96% genome sequence similarity with SARS-CoV and less than 80% similarity with SARS-CoV-2. These results were published in Nature [2013, 593(7477):535-538], the Journal of Virology [2016, 90(6), 3253-3256] and PLoS Pathogens [2017, 13(11):e1006698], respectively." [https://www.science.org/pb-assets/PDF/News%20PDFs/Shi%20Zhengli%20Q&A-1630433861.pdf]

{{edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}

Seems like an unambiguous error. It's still there.

Please restore {{dubious|WIV did perform genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses}} after the sentence. IP provided unchallenged evidence that while the current version of article contains a phrase: "There is no evidence that any genetic manipulation or reverse genetics (a technique required to make chimeric viruses) of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was ever carried out at the WIV."

It is false.

$\backslash frac--$

Add "There is evidence in Shi's published work that genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was carried out at Shi's WIV lab." after the dubious sentence. Add the citations above; include the quote.

Worth keeping in mind: Kristian G Andersen lied to Congress, per https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-leak/. #cite_note-DEFUSE_NewYorker-117 doesn't support the dubious statement, as it talks only about the DEFUSE proposal. #cite_note-CriticalQuote_Experiments-142 is a paper authored by Andersen, and the dubious statement is a leap from its questionable claims.

RememberOrwell (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:Please provide the exact quote that would be used to support that text. I've looked briefly at the article and it is exceedingly clear that WIV1 to WIV16 are used to refer to different strains of SARS-CoV which have been found naturally in horseshoe bats in caves in Yunnan. Not once did I catch the any wording that supports the statement "genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was carried out at Shi's WIV lab". TarnishedPath^talk 10:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|Scientists at the WIV have created chimeras, or combinations, of SARS-like coronaviruses through genetic engineering, attempted to clone other unrelated infectious viruses, and used reverse genetic cloning techniques on SARS-like coronaviruses.}} from the [https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Report-on-Potential-Links-Between-the-Wuhan-Institute-of-Virology-and-the-Origins-of-COVID-19-20230623.pdf June 2023 DNI report]. Of course that needs a real source in support which would need to be tracked down and the discrepancy between SARS-like coronaviruses and SARS-related bat coronaviruses resolved.

::Probably the simplest solution here is to look at the surrounding text which concerns furin cleavage site and what that sentence should be saying is along the lines of: "Further, there is no evidence of prior research at the WIV involving the artificial insertion of complete furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses" from the Origins paper which is used as a ref. fiveby(zero) 21:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:::You'll have to excuse me if I take statements from a document published by a rival government of China with a grain of salt. TarnishedPath^talk 23:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I suspect that with COVID denialists now firmly in charge in the US, we will see more and more of this, but this is Wikipedia, not Conservapedia, so we will stick with what science says. Which is, as it stands, that a lab leak is vastly less likely than zoonotic origin. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I know it's a primary source, but IMO it's difficult to interpret "{{tqi|In contrast, when Vero E6 cells were respectively infected with the two successfully rescued chimeric SARSr-CoVs, WIV1-Rs4231S and WIV1-Rs7327S, and the newly isolated Rs4874, efficient virus replication was detected in all infections (Fig 7).}}" as well as the earlier mentioned {{tqi|Recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat SARSr-CoVs and the backbone of the infectious clone of SARSr-CoV WIV1 were constructed using the reverse genetic system described previously [23] (S9 Fig). .......... Then the two prepared spike DNA fragments were separately inserted into BAC with Es, Fs and other fragments. The correct infectious BAC clones were screened. The chimeric viruses were rescued as described previously [23].}} to refer to anything other than construction of a recombinant virus. To be clear, while WIV1 is a natural bat coronavirus, the chimeric WIV1-Rs4231S and WIV1-Rs7327S seem to be to be clearly recombinant viruses and the techniques to produce them seem to be to be what can reasonably be called genetic modification. And the paper suggests at least the authors considered the original WIV1 as a "bat SARS-related coronavirus". The only possible objection I can see is that that the paper doesn't specifically say this recombinant work occurred at the WIV AFAICT. Being a primary source, I definitely don't think we should be saying it did happen, but I think it's fair to say we should consider rewording it along the lines suggested by fiveby(zero). I don't particularly understand the relevance of Guy's point. Sticking with the science means we shouldn't mislead readers by telling them stuff so blatantly misleading that many people capable of reading can see we're wrong. There is no way saying something which seems to so clearly misleading helps convince readers of the clearly correct claim that a lab leak is vastly less likely than zoonotic origin. Instead it just makes them less likely to believe the rest of the article when it correctly points this out. Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::BTW, is there any evidence that even the government of China denies this happened? I'm guessing they don't given that it was published. I mean perhaps they allow some of their crazy papers to publish bullshit just like when they say it came from a US biolab, but I'm guessing their official stance if you're able to weed it out of them is something along the lines of "{{!tq|yes this happened, but it's very different from the SARS-CoV-2 and our labs never did anything remotely like the work that would be involved to make something like that from RATG13 (or whatever nonsense Americans say SARS-CoV-2 came from)}}". Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Nil Einne, the biggest thing I noticed from the source is as you state. Nowhere in it does it state that anything occurred at WIV. That said I see no major issue with the wording suggest by fiveby {{tq|Further, there is no evidence of prior research at the WIV involving the artificial insertion of complete furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses}}, however I don't think that will suffice to satisfy those pushing fringe stuff. TarnishedPath^talk 12:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ec}} An alternative might be to concentrate on gain-of-function research although IMO that's a lot more wishy-washy as we've seen how there's a lot of dispute over what constitutes gain-of-function research. I'd note that while the paper doesn't specifically say the recombinant/chimeric research happened at WIV, it doesn't seem to mention any other institution where it could have happened and all the authors with affiliations listed seem to be at WIV. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::That cleaves a bit close to WP:OR for my comfort on a page at the intersection of medicine and international politics. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{u|Nil Einne}}, the paper everyone points to seems to be: {{cite journal|author1=Menachery, V.|author2=Yount, B.|author3=Debbink, K|title=A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence|work=Nature Medicine|volume=21|pages=1508–1513|year=2015|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985}} with: {{tq|Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.}} They are a virology lab working with coronaviruses, it doesn't seem very extraordinary or surprising that they did such work. Why not just avoid the issue, the paragraph is about the furin cleavage site and there is a good source which says there is no evidence of prior work on insertion of those which i quoted above. fiveby(zero) 13:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::We could also easily do something along the lines of your second suggestion and state that there is no evidence of work on any progenitor or backbone virus for SARS-CoV-2, but i'm pretty sure the article already has that elsewhere, if not it should. fiveby(zero) 13:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::After looking thru the article it seem it does not explicitly state such, so should probably say both: no evidence for any prior work on furin site and no evidence for any prior work on possible progenitor of SARS-CoV-2. fiveby(zero) 16:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Let's focus, people. Again, IP provided still-unchallenged evidence that while the current version of article contains a phrase: "There is no evidence that any genetic manipulation or reverse genetics (a technique required to make chimeric viruses) of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was ever carried out at the WIV."

::::::::It is false.

::::::::Logically, once WP:verifiable evidence from a reliable source exists which it does, and has been presented, which it has, no sources that claim otherwise that don't debunk that source can justify leaving "There is no evidence" in wikivoice in the article, especially without a ^{[dubious – discuss]} tag.

::::::::I already provided 2 sources for the text I proposed, prior to TP's demand for one and edit warring to block the request. Also https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/s/journal-information indicates PLOS Pathogens is published out of London, not a government of China. Or "a rival government of China"? RememberOrwell (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::P.S. WIV lab head Shi did perform genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses. Wordsmithing minor changes to the falsehood that's currently in the article claiming otherwise, so it's just short of a blatant lie but still misleading isn't editing in good faith. Do better, let's. Among other things, WIV lab head Shi "built a chimeric virus encoding a novel, zoonotic CoV spike protein—from the RsSHC014-CoV sequence that was isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats^{[https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985#ref-CR1 1]}—in the context of the SARS-CoV mouse-adapted backbone." - per 3rd source fiveby noted. How 'bout the article not contradict that Nature Medicine article by falsely saying "There is no evidence" of that, TP? Even if we're only 95% sure that work that can only properly be done in a BSL3 lab, and Shi did such work, and the only BSL3 lab she runs is at the WIV, that's NOT "NO EVIDENCE". I urge you to stop preventing me from requesting flagging of the false information in the article. You did so while providing no reason for doing so. Twice. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Novem Linguae and again. TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)