Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology#rfc 270FBA8

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK&redirect=no 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 {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 24#Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK}} until a consensus is reached. TarnishedPath^talk 12:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

{{atopy

| result = Answered. TarnishedPath^talk 12:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

• What I think should be changed (format using {{tl|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{{cite news |date=12 March 2025 |title=Merkel und Scholz hielten Bericht geheim: BND hält Laborunfall als Auslöser für Corona-Pandemie für sehr wahrscheinlich |url=https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/brisante-bewertung-bisher-geheim-gehalten-bnd-halt-laborunfall-als-ausloser-fur-corona-pandemie-fur-wahrscheinlich-13353190.html |access-date=12 March 2025 |publisher=Der Tagesspiegel}}. 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):

~~~~

{{reftalk}}

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

• 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)
• {{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)

{{abot}}

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. [https://www.voanews.com/a/covid-19-pandemic_chinese-lab-checkered-safety-record-draws-scrutiny-over-covid-19/6187947.html]

• 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.[https://www.propublica.org/article/senate-report-covid-19-origin-wuhan-lab]

• 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 [https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/kleelerner/files/20200414_wapo_-_state_department_cables_warned_of_safety_issues_at_wuhan_lab_studying_bat_coronaviruses_-_the_washington_post.pdf]

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

: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)

::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)

::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)

::: 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)

::: 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)

:::: The text is copied from the source. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well, in that case it would be a copy violation. Lova Falk (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::: 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)

:::::::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)

• Ralph Baric has long cited the "operating procedures at the facility" [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7207110/] 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)
• :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)
• :: "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)
• :::Bon courage Before I continue, please check my edit to the page. Lova Falk (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I've tightened it up. Bon courage (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::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 [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/ralph-baric-wuhan-lab-leak] [https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-function-risky-bat-virus-engineering-links-america-to-wuhan/] [https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/26/1030043/gain-of-function-research-coronavirus-ralph-baric-vaccines/]. 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)
• :::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)
• ::::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)
• :::::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)

• ::::::One of the sources mentioned above is this one: https://www.propublica.org/article/senate-report-covid-19-origin-wuhan-lab that is marked as "generally reliable". I planned to do something with the text in it, but I lost steam. Lova Falk (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Is that the one with the guy who claims they have the secret key to understanding Mandarin, but made a bunch of rookie translation errors? If so, this source was widely treated as a joke. Bon courage (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::There is really no need for MEDRS for this claim. 180.249.187.157 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::: Agreed. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Why raise MEDRS? It hasn't been mentioned and no MEDRS sources are on the table. Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::You mentioned "journals" as the required standard, which given the nature of this topic, is MEDRS. 180.249.187.157 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Err, no. Bon courage (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::I don't see any need to elevate the standard of sourcing to any form of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, MEDRS or otherwise. VanityFair is a WP:RS and quotes Baric's testimony to congress accurately enough. There is also a ton of general reporting on the claim. 180.249.187.157 (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::WP:BESTSOURCES always give best NPOV. Using poorer would savour of POV-pushing. Vanity Fair is a terrible source for anything science-related when we have something in Cell ! Bon courage (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::Vanity Fair is a perfectly acceptable source for a claim from a WIV-related virologist giving testimony to US congress about the alleged safety issues. Even Science (an actual journal) quotes it [https://www.science.org/content/article/house-lawmakers-both-sides-grill-head-nonprofit-worked-with-chinese-virologists]. 180.249.187.157 (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::We already have something on the safety issues (which seem to be actual, not 'alleged' in thi lab). If another great source adds more that may be worth citing, but we're not going to be turning this article into a WP:COATRACK for lab leak conspiracism. Bon courage (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::: VF and Propublica (along with the other sources provided) are perfectly acceptable for these claims. If you want to argue otherwise, there's a thread open at RS but you cant unilaterally disqualify them. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::These particular sources are crap; notoriously so.[https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-11-01/column-propublica-vanity-fair-covid-lab-leak-expose-train-wreck] Bon courage (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::::These sources quoting Baric are high quality while you reference an oped by a non-expert. 180.249.187.157 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::::We have high-quality respected sources on the one hand, and on the other hand, journalistic sources that have attracted derision from fellow journalists for their gaffs. Use the former, not the latter. This really isn't hard. We are done now I think. Bon courage (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::::::Thankfully your opinion is in the minority here and the article may be edited to reflect consensus. 180.249.187.157 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::::: Can you proved a reliable source that directly contradicts VF and PP claims that safety at the lab was poor? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::::::I don't need to. Even crap sources might have some things which reflect accepted knowledge. But Wikipedia prefers WP:BESTSOURCES particularly on POV-critical topics like this. Luckily we have them and use them. So we're good. Bon courage (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::::::: You make a claim that PP and VF (well respected publications) are "crap sources", and then refuse to substantiate that claim with anything other than your opinion? This really isn't what a collaborative effort is all about. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::::::::Wrong. Bon courage (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::::::::: You certainly are entitled to your position, however the consensus on the topic seems to lean towards its conclusion. I do appreciate your input though. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::::::::::No, the consensus is to not use these crap sources. Bad arguments are discounted (including yours and the IP's) in assessing the situation. If you want to change Wikipedia's policies to enable crap sourcing to trump stellar souring, here is not the place. Bon courage (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::::::::::: Based on the feedback from the participants of this thread have written, that simply isnt true. I would also ask you to please maintain some WP:Civility here. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::::::::::::Not exactly drowning in detail. Stay mad, Chang. 2600:1010:A00B:B0EC:94C7:3AE:2DBF:1FB0 (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)