This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wuhan Institute of Virology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Wuhan Institute of Virology. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Wuhan Institute of Virology at the Reference desk.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Asia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article was created or improved during WikiProject Asia's " Asian 10,000 Challenge", which started in October 2016 and is still continuing. You can help! China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Viruses Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Molecular Biology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. COVID-19 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Add this: In February 2023, the FBI concluded that "origins of the COVID-19 pandemic likely originated from a lab incident in Wuhan, China" ^[1]. Later in February 2023, the US Department of Energy concluded with "low confidence" that "substantial circumstantial evidence favors COVID-19 emerging from a research-related incident," adding, "These revelations also further strengthen the need to uncover why high-ranking government officials, with help from Big Tech and the media, sought early on to silence any debate into a plausible theory of a lab incident while the Chinese Communist Party stonewalled investigations by the global scientific community.". ^[2] The White House responded to the DoE, saying there is no consensus on the origin of Covid-19. ^[3]. Philgoetz ( talk) 15:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Change the last sentence to "The scientific opinion has now shifted in that an accidental leak is probable." All references are from 2020 or 21, hello it is now 2022. (Source - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEh5JyZC218). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.0 ( talk) 23:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC) reply

That is not a reliable source of information about the pandemic. - Darouet ( talk) 13:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC) reply

This article is a joke. All references are from 2020 or 2021 and thus totally outdated. 87.207.154.21 ( talk) 15:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Thats the point. Gain a consensus, have the article locked down and gatekeep any new information with the argument "the consensus on the article has been established". DarrellWinkler ( talk) 15:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Not an invalid point about our sources being older. And there is recent coverage. What about adding this to source #61 for "The scientific opinion that an accidental leak is possible, but unlikely, has remained steady."? Live Science is obviously not academic coverage, but it appears to be reliable, and that would provide updated sourcing for that statement. Valereee ( talk) 17:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes i think also this Science article would bolster: [3] —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 17:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I didn't watch the video, but while YouTube isn't a reliable source, Matt Ridley certainly is. He's one of the best science journalists alive today. Philgoetz ( talk) 15:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This article seems very sure there is consensus against lab leak but this consensus seems to be falling apart in the real world? https://x.com/MetroUK/status/1768623947023536264?s=20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.127.52 ( talk) 15:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The WIV has a documented issue with poor safety practices.

Vanity Fair and ProPublica downloaded more than 500 documents from the WIV website, including party branch dispatches from 2017 to the present. To assess Reid’s interpretation, we sent key documents to experts on CCP communications. They told us that the WIV dispatches did indeed signal that the institute faced an acute safety emergency in November 2019; that officials at the highest levels of the Chinese government weighed in; and that urgent action was taken in an effort to address ongoing safety issues. The documents do not make clear who was responsible for the crisis, which laboratory it affected specifically or what the exact nature of the biosafety emergency was. https://www.propublica.org/article/senate-report-covid-19-origin-wuhan-lab

Why is this not in the article? DarrellWinkler ( talk) 19:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Because multiple reputable sources have disagreed with the content and interpretations of this report. We don't report things that are reported as true from one place, and then probably not true from dozens of other places. That is the long and short of WP:RSUW. Basically, we have a good consensus on-wiki that this report is not a reliable source. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 16:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Which sources disagreed with the content and interpretations of this report? Are there really "dozens" of other sources that disagree with this? DarrellWinkler ( talk) 17:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC) reply

"The laboratory has been the focus of conspiracy theories[42][43] and unsubstantiated speculation about the origin of the virus." No, the laboratory has been the focus of formal theories and substantiated speculation. This article is now an excellent example of the dangers of prejudging theories in reference sources due to partisan bias. By all means, leave it this way. EGarrett01 ( talk) 22:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Since reliable sources trump the opinion of random people on the internet, such as you, it is good the way it is. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, no. If a "random" editor points our inconsistencies and areas to improve, a personal attack is not an appropriate response/

@ EGarrett01: you are correct, even our notice on the top of this page warns that there's no consensus to describe this as a "conspiracy theory", given the wide acceptance of such an explanation by mainstream science.

However, your accusations of partisanship are improper. It's not partisanship on Wikipedia – it's some editors always trying to be holier than the Pope, and more "scientific" than science itself. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 15:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

There is no consensus to define /some versions/ as a conspiracy theory. There is consensus that the bioweapons theory is indeed a conspiracy theory (see consensus #6). The passage pointed out by OP is correct. The WIV is the subject of conspiracy theories (bioweapons) and unsubstantiated speculation (the other lab leak theories not based on conspiracies). —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The problem is that the passage I quoted doesn't draw a distinction there and makes it sound as though the major theory, the Lab Leak, is an "unsubstantiated" "conspiracy theory." It misleads readers, just as if a Donald Trump fan phrased a passage about Trump as "Trump has been the target of many false accusations of corruption" without pointing out that he has been the target of proven accusations as well. Note that this particular article has been edited, and I'm sure has been changed since I commented on it, so I'm only discussing the passage I brought up at the time it was there as a general example of misleading phrasing. (EDIT: Having reviewed the article, the highly misleading and inappropriately phrased section is still there) EGarrett01 ( talk) 17:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Rejecting one personal attack and replacing it by another personal attack? Peculiar. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I pointed out a phrase that is misleading. You yourself haven't added anything. The sources that treat the Lab Leak as a serious and potentially or even likely true theory are VERY authoritative, by any standard you could possibly claim. EGarrett01 ( talk) 17:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

You pointed out a phrase you believe to be misleading, but you gave no valid reason why.

The sources that treat the Lab Leak as a serious and potentially or even likely true theory are VERY authoritative I won't accept your word for it, and nobody else should either until you actually name those sources. It's probably some random government agency in some random country again. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

U.S.-Funded Scientist Among Three Chinese Researchers Who Fell Ill Amid Early Covid-19 Outbreak

A prominent scientist who worked on coronavirus projects funded by the U.S. government is one of three Chinese researchers who became sick with an unspecified illness during the initial outbreak of Covid-19, according to current and former U.S. officials. 73.36.184.146 ( talk) 03:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Useless. This is an encyclopaedia, not a doctor's diary. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 08:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply