Talk:Li-Meng Yan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Please don't simply undo work

@Jackhammer111: Please don't simply undo work, please work to find a consensus. As above, there are many editors involved on this page, also including @老坛陈醋:@Amigao:@ArticleTheFirst:@CowHouse:@Telsho:@Whoisjohngalt: and others who want to see her, and her claims, clearly set out. If her credentials are in question then raise and perhaps someone who knows the area will provide a source for those credentials. It doesn't help us understand the issue if you simply remove statements. If you have "three different sources" that "have debunked her" then please bring into the page. Then we all learn something. Or at least put up a flag on the claim so we can all look at this together. The Little Platoon (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any kind of central database that registers credentials for academics? I can see that Dr Yan has credentials mentioned in news articles like CNN [[1]] and in a research publishing site [[2]], but is there a place where this stuff usually is decided?The Little Platoon (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Add information about Zenodo to article?

The article currently says that Zenodo is "an open-access repository where anyone can post their research". I think it would be helpful to mention in this article that Zenodo is funded by the CERN Laboratory as well as the European Union's Horizon 2020 Programme. The Horizon 2020 programme was created to help make "more breakthroughs, discoveries and world-firsts". The way the article is written treats Zenodo as a platform that no reputable scientist would use, yet Zenodo is funded by one of the most reputable labs in the world, CERN, as well as promoted by the EU. Wouldn't it be worth mentioning something about this? https://about.zenodo.org/ https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/what-horizon-2020 https://home.cern/about/who-we-are/our-mission

Am4000 (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Not relevant to the article. Telsho (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2020

Please put the last two paragraph under a separate Subtitle "Controversy" FALSE INFORMATION is a very serious matter that has to be underlined.

Controversy

---

After describing her newly published research paper in a Fox News interview ... etc. Nugroho2~idwiki (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like the OP wants to separate the stuff starting with the Fox News interview into a controversy section heading, but I'd say no given this is a BLP and Wikipedia:Criticism Nil Einne (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

2 News articles backing up Li-Meng Yan's disbelief in RaTG13

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200910/Scientists-claim-serious-data-discrepancies-in-RaTG13-sequence.aspx

https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/is-analysis-of-covid-19-origins-based-on-chinese-communist-partys-lie-323472 84.208.222.11 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The article supposedly written by a gynecologist prompted enough interest on my part to take a look back at Yan's pre-print article whereupon I noticed a section claiming that because of universal censorship the results they've arrived at ...can only exist as preprints or other non-peer-reviewed articles published on various online platforms.

The sentences in that part of the paper are cited to—you guessed it—a whole mess of other unpublished, non-peer-reviewed preprints. And a LinkedIn post, and a general citation to an entire web site called "Nerd Has Power".

I'm increasingly inclined to think that we probably shouldn't even have the link to this paper in the Wikipedia article on Yan, or any Wikipedia article for that matter. It seems to be a simulacrum of a scientific paper that explicitly states its claims can't be evaluated or questioned using science, anywhere in the entire world. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 13:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Alina Chan, who works for MIT/Harvard is apparently also in preprint when she writes against the consensus.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.07.184374v1.abstract

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.073262v1.abstract

I am really worried about this information not reaching the public because it is preprint. 84.208.222.11 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

None of these links that you've provided actually prove anything so I'm not sure where you're getting at? Telsho (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

What do either of those have to do with the subject of this article? I only looked at the first one, but it didn't seem to mention Yan anywhere. This is an article on Li-Meng Yan, it's not an article on alternative claims about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I just think that practically all of the articles that write critically of the natural origin hypothesis of SARS-CoV-2 seem to be in preprint for some reason, even if they are written by people working for MIT/Harvard. 84.208.222.11 (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this is the article for you instead. Telsho (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, and here is a news article for you https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2020/09/09/alina-chan-broad-institute-coronavirus/ 84.208.222.11 (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yet again, nothing to do with Li-Meng Yan. Telsho (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Living Person

Is it possible to violate Wikipedia rules regarding the biography of a living person on a Talk page? Anyone can read this Talk page just as easily as the Article. Charles Juvon (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is possible per WP:BLPTALK. It is worth raising this issue at the WP:BLP noticeboard. CowHouse (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. You know, there is a large published body of NIH and NIAID funded research that: 1) changes the host range of viruses, and 2) mutagenizes the antigen sites of human viral pathogens. Much of this research was BL2, and we are lucky it did not come out of a US lab. Charles Juvon (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This Week in Virology

In response to listener requests, the panel at This Week in Virology reviewed Li-Meng Yan's preprint. To the extent that I can follow it, this is the best criticism I've seen. They're talking to scientists and trying to make it understandable to laymen too.

YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQplOe8-LE
SARS-CoV-2 was not made in a lab (TWiV 664 excerpt)

Vincent Racaniello
Sep 21, 2020

In this excerpt from TWiV 664, Vincent, Rich, Kathy and Brianne discuss why a recent document claiming that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a lab is wrong.

Original site:
https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-664/
TWiV 664: TWiV is for the dogs
Vincent Racaniello, Rich Condit, Kathy Spindler and Brianne Barker
September 17, 2020

On this mid-week edition, does it matter that SARS-CoV-2 is mutating, seasonal coronavirus immunity is short-lived, another bogus claim that the virus was produced in a laboratory (it came from Nature), and answers to listener questions.

--Nbauman (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The argument that because RaTG13 is highly similar to SARS-COV2, it proves it comes from bats in nature is mindnumbingly dumb. You could just take the genome of SARS-COV2 and add noise to it, and you could make a sequence that is 99% similar, 98% similar, or whatever depending on how much noise you want to add. Of course, RaTG13 (isolated in 2018 as 4991) could also be a real virus. Just a real virus from the lab....85.19.205.254 (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This is misinformation

"Immunologist Kristian G. Andersen, a specialist in communicable diseases and genomics who was one author of a March 2020 journal article in Nature Medicine entitled "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" which definitively stated the virus was not created in a lab,[23] and Yujia Alina Chan, a postdoctoral researcher, both said the paper left out recent data related to coronavirus in pangolins and bats."

Alina Chan uploaded a paper for publication in July, where she indicates herself that the Chinese pangolin papers are fraudulent:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.07.184374v1.abstract85.19.205.254 (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

But how does linking to Chan's pre-print paper prove that Chan does not think Yan's analysis was faulty, whatever Chan's own unpublished theories are? When I added the sentence quoted above to the article I actually left out Chan's harsher criticism since I was already putting in Andersen's...

Der Immunologe Kristian Andersen, spezialisiert auf übertragbare Krankheiten und Genomik, schreibt etwa, dass es einfach nicht wahr sein könne, weil SARS-CoV-2 und ZC45 zu unterschiedlich seien.

- The report ignores ALL recent coronavirus data from pangolins and bats.
Had this been included, the data would have invalidated all the 'mysterious' homology findings in the report as they relate to matrix protein, Orf8, receptor binding domain, etc.
— Kristian G. Andersen (@K_G_Andersen) September 16, 2020

Google Translate: (so you can confirm on your own; tweets already in English)
The immunologist Kristian Andersen, who specializes in communicable diseases and genomics, writes, for example, that it simply cannot be true because SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45 are too different.

- The report ignores ALL recent coronavirus data from pangolins and bats.
Had this been included, the data would have invalidated all the 'mysterious' homology findings in the report as they relate to matrix protein, Orf8, receptor binding domain, etc.
— Kristian G. Andersen (@K_G_Andersen) September 16, 2020

Then further down:

Alina Chan, Postdoc am MIT und Harvard, stimmt den beiden Hauptkritikpunkten von Andersen zu. Li-Mengs Paper ignoriert jüngste Publikationen zum Thema. Und die Behauptung, dass SARS-CoV-2 auf den «Fledermaus-Viren» basieren, habe die Glaubwürdigkeit von Li-Mengs Bericht «zerstört».

What I do know: claiming SARS2 was derived from the Zhoushan viruses that are >3000 mutations different -- this has destroyed the report's credibility, and, more importantly, diverted attention away from RaTG13, miners, and the missing WIV virus database (the 2nd Zenodo article).
— Alina Chan (@Ayjchan) September 17, 2020

Google Translate:
Alina Chan, a postdoc at MIT and Harvard, agrees with Andersen's two main criticisms. Li-Meng's paper ignores recent publications on the subject. And the claim that SARS-CoV-2 is based on the "bat viruses" has "destroyed" the credibility of Li-Meng's report.

What I do know: claiming SARS2 was derived from the Zhoushan viruses that are >3000 mutations different -- this has destroyed the report's credibility, and, more importantly, diverted attention away from RaTG13, miners, and the missing WIV virus database (the 2nd Zenodo article).
— Alina Chan (@Ayjchan) September 17, 2020

Cheers, ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 11:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but that is a different statement by her which has nothing to do with pangolins. It needs to be rewritten. Putting Alina Chan's arguments in the same sentence as Kristian G. Andersen's argument is a very bad idea. They have completely different theories about this. By the way, Alina Chan recently had her own content flagged on Facebook for being associated with a "non natural origin" of the virus. And yeah, their own preprints are probably much more representative of their beliefs than whatever is written in a German newspaper, probably translated from another English newspaper (Vox in this case).84.208.222.11 (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That's the point, though: they're experts with diametrically opposing views on SARS-CoV-2 who, despite that, still agree with each other that the reasoning and conjectures Yan is trying to use to scientifically back up the assertions she has been making all year via non-scientific fora, like the Daily Mail and a Youtube channel, are severely lacking in credibility.

If you have another source which, contrary to the above, says that Chan considers the pangolin-related content in the file Yan posted (which I'm just noticing, as I've finally gotten around to saving a PDF copy directly to my hard drive because I pull it up to check things so repeatedly, is named "The_Yan_Report.pdf"; I guess those co-authors who the South China Morning Post could find no previous publication trace of are super humble) to be complete, well-reasoned, and up-to-date, I would welcome a look at it. Searching myself I'm only finding stuff like Chan criticizing Yan's pangolin-related claims on Twitter before the file was posted, but of course there's lots of noise in the search results at this point so maybe you've seen something. Yan's file uses at least two of Chan's unpublished pre-prints as citations, so you'd think she'd be vocal about it if Yan got that part right.

Oops, edit conflict... re: your last sentence—the thing is, if there isn't anything in Chan's pre-print specifically endorsing Yan, you or I can't just read both pre-prints and decide on our own that they would evaluate each other's pangolin-related work as scientifically valid. Doing so would be original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 15:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Yujia Alina Chan, a postdoctoral researcher, both said the paper left out recent data related to coronavirus in pangolins and bats.["

This is simply not what she wrote in the German translation you gave me. Why not just write what she actually said according to the German newspaper, instead of adding stuff about pangolins? RaTG13 is a proposed bat virus. It has nothing to do with pangolins. And also, to defend Li-Men Yan, even though she didn't include data from RaTG13 in her paper, she wrote extensively about why she didn't include it, and had around 10 references about that.84.208.222.11 (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The German-language source (which is a Swiss news site, by the way; .ch in internet domains stands for Confoederatio Helvetica, the Latin name for Switzerland) quotes Andersen as saying The report ignores ALL recent coronavirus data from pangolins and bats and then says Alina Chan, Postdoc am MIT und Harvard, stimmt den beiden Hauptkritikpunkten von Andersen zu, "Alina Chan, a postdoc at MIT and Harvard, agrees with Andersen's two main criticisms."

Yeah, Yan claimed in The_Yan_Report.pdf that her beliefs about RaTG13 are such hot stuff that the forces of universal censorship ensure even what she wrote in it can't be published or evaluated scientifically anywhere in the world by peer review, whereas Chan and her co-author in their July 7th pre-print talk about how to "empower peer review." But that doesn't have anything to do with whether it's misinformation to say that Andersen and Chan agree that The_Yan_Report.pdf left out recent data related to coronavirus in pangolins and bats.

In fact, now that you've gotten me to take yet another look at The_Yan_Report.pdf, I'm noticing it says A follow-up report, which summarizes the up-to-date evidence proving the spurious nature of RaTG13, will be submitted soon—which would actually corroborate that particular shared position of Andersen and Chan given that it implies the up-to-date evidence was not summarized therein. Odd that Yan wrote "will be submitted" when elsewhere in the same writing she's claiming that papers about "the spurious nature of RaTG13" can't actually be published or peer-reviewed, but maybe by now her autocorrect replaces "uploaded" with "submitted." --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 18:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

How difficult is this to understand? Kristian G. Andersen said something about pangolins being left out. Not Alina Chan. You have written the sentence as if they both said this. Kristian G. Andersen actually seems to be unaware of the preprinted article written by Alina Chan about the fraudalent nature of the pangolin articles. He is also extremely naive, who bases all his belief on single sources of data from the Chinese researchers, which aren't available for independent testing anymore.

Look, Li-Meng Yan even uses Alina Chan as a reference when she is dismissing the pangolin studies.

"They then went on to suggest that pangolinsare the likely intermediate host for SARS-CoV-2 27-29,31 . However, recent independent reports have found significant flaws in this data 40-42 ."

Reference 42 -> Chan, Y.A. & Zhan, S.H. Single source of pangolin CoVs with a near identical Spike RBD to SARS- CoV-2. bioRxiv, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.07.184374 (2020).

Do you know the story about the researchers that thought they had found out that cold fusion was possible, but then other scientists tested it and found out they were wrong? This happens in science all the time, and this is exactly the situation we are in now. Chinese researchers claim something, but it isn't possible to test the validity for other non-Chiense researchers, because the samples aren't available anymore.84.208.222.11 (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

84.208.222.11 (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

So does your objection at this point basically amount to, rather than misinforming anyone, the sentence you quote at the top of this talk page section is correctly informing readers but by accident? Because the fact that Yan's .pdf cites Chan is not remotely the same thing as Chan thinking anything non-negative about Yan's .pdf and I can't think you'd be presenting it that way if you had any real reason to think otherwise. No matter what adjectives you come up with to denigrate Andersen, either, which is even more orthogonal to what Chan thinks about Yan's pre-print.

Either way, there's a really simple solution: just find a verifiable, reliable, secondary source that contradicts the sentence you don't like. If you do so I swear, an oath by the Holy Keyboard of Jimbo Wales himself, that I'll change the sentence by my own hand. May pangolins chop me up and make medicine from my smuggled bones if I do not.

As someone who has watched this kind of thing play out before, though, I'll tell you that although I don't have a crystal ball, I'd kinda expect the opposite to happen: I'd expect that more and ever-higher-quality sources will appear out there which will demonstrate that Andersen and Chan both take a highly negative view of the scientific adequacy of Yan's pre-print, including the pangolin stuff. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 19:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the criticism against the Yan report seems to be incredibly immature and childish. I mean, any researcher who bothered to read it wouldn't necessarily find it any worse than the Chinese publications. But people don't bother to read scientific articles because they are scientifically illiterate.84.208.222.11 (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Whistleblower? Let's decide here

@CowHouse: has pointed to a dispute emerging between multiple editors as to whether she should be described as a "whistleblower" or "alleged whistleblower". What is your view? To my mind, until we have consensus, the subject should be described as "Said to be a whistleblower" or "described by some as a whistleblower." Thoughts?The Little Platoon (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@CowHouse: please avert edit war. I have put in the phrase, "said to be" to solve the problem for now. Would you please set out your argument here.The Little Platoon (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Please follow policy and stop edit warring. Until we gain consensus on the talk page, the content should not be included since multiple editors have been changing the description between "whistleblower" and "alleged whistleblower" (see the edit history). According to your edit summary, I undid "a large amount of content". I removed two words ("and whistleblower") which were supported by four out-of-date references, as stated in my edit summary. The references used were out-of-date since they were all written before her recent claims that the virus was made in a lab. Unless most reliable sources are currently using that description, it is misleading to readers. Your recent edit ("said to be a whistleblower") does not solve the problem as it does not address that the sources are out-of-date (see WP:AGE MATTERS). CowHouse (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

In the course of trying to figure out what's going on with this I came across a Russia Today story quite critical of her which put "whistleblower" in scare quotes. If RT of all places is skeptical enough to put the term in scare quotes I don't think Wikipedia should be characterizing her as a whistleblower in any way. I don't think the word should appear in the article at all. (p.s. in case it's not clear Russia Today as a Foreign Agents Registration Act registered lobbyist in the United States should not be used as a source in the article either.) --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 07:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

How do you know that those are euphemistic "scare quotes" from Russia Today, and not literal quotes, quoting some other source?68.206.249.124 (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The RT article says she is a "self-described whistleblower". However, we should take into consideration how she is described in reliable sources, not a WP:DEPRECATED source such as RT. CowHouse (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

In the Vox story that we cited in this entry, https://www.vox.com/2020/9/18/21439865/coronavirus-china-study-bannon , Alina Chan, a post-doc at the Broad Institute, refers to Li-Meng Yan as a "whistleblower", even though Chan disagrees with Yan's paper. --Nbauman (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources cited on the page which were written since her claims about the virus coming from a lab. Unless most sources call her a whistleblower then cherry-picking one example, attributable only to the person who said it, doesn't really demonstrate WP:WEIGHT. Besides, how can Chan say Yan's report was inaccurate and still describe her as a whistleblower? My understanding was that calling someone a whistleblower implied their information was accurate. CowHouse (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nbauman: I could maybe see a very qualified single sentence—not in the lede but down below in the article body, clearly specifying that Chan is a researcher who, although critical of many if not most aspects of Yan's scientific work and conclusions on the matter, says in her own unpublished non-peer-reviewed pre-prints things like It would be curious if no precursors or branches of SARS-CoV-2 evolution are discovered in humans or animals and outside of scientific writing intended for publication, seems to be willing to say... something about possible errors in previous research or lab work (?) I haven't dug deeply enough yet to figure out exactly what the bounds are on what Chan says outside of scientific writing... and also clearly specifying that when Chan's using the term "whistleblower" for Yan she isn't endorsing the truthfulness of Yan's claims at all, which is what Chan appears to say—I could entertain such a mention because in the online conversations linked to by Vox Chan is very thorough in describing what she thinks whistleblowers are and appears to be employing rigorous criteria that to my knowledge line up with widely-used definitions of whistleblowing. But I could only go along with that if editing consensus supported it, and tbh just looking at what I've had to write here to explain myself the amount of qualifying description which would need to be added as context for mentioning it within the article would probably amount to undue weight in the article in its current form. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 13:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Mentioning the paper she co-authored on viral transmission in the lead

In response to this edit,[3] I do think we should mention the paper in the lead, because this is a BLP, and it puts a lie to the July claim by HKU that Yan did no such research. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: Do you mean the intro should mention 1) "Viral dynamics in mild and severe cases of COVID-19" or 2) "Pathogenesis and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in golden hamsters" The Little Platoon (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The first one. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The paper was published in March. The HKU press release said Dr Yan never conducted any research on human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at HKU during December 2019 and January 2020. It does not prove HKU's statement false if she did research after January. CowHouse (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I take it @Kendrick7: your argument is that the paper itself - "Viral dynamics in mild and severe cases of COVID-19" — indicates that Yan did do research on human to human transmission. Is that what you feel we may assert? Just so I understand you. The Little Platoon (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, note that this is three paragraphs shared among nine co-authors. Click on the PMID link in the citation in this Wikipedia article—the little open-lock icon indicates that it's open-access full-text. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 05:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems clear enough to me that she did such research, LP. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Try reading the paper, Cowhouse. It's quite clear the timeline of the research began in January. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I did read it. That's why I corrected your edit which said only one of her colleagues at HKU was a co-author. It says patients admitted to a hospital in Nanchang University between January 21 and February 4 were included in the study. It doesn't say when research began, and in particular it doesn't say when Yan's contributions to the research began (given she was one of nine co-authors, and she was not one of the five who were from the hospital in question). CowHouse (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct about the author affiliations; I misread the footnotes. But you are engaging in WP:OR to try to claim January isn't January. Did HKU address the existence of this paper in their July statement? -- Kendrick7^talk 11:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned what the paper does and does not say. That is not original research. You said that she conducted research in January, which is not verified by the source. The source does not tell us when her research started, it only tells us when patients were admitted to hospital. It is possible she conducted research in January, but that is not the only possibility, and the source does not confirm this. CowHouse (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

In response to this: I do think we should mention the paper in the lead, because this is a BLP, and it puts a lie to the July claim by HKU that Yan did no such research. The lead doesn't even mention HKU's statement, and HKU's statement received significantly more coverage compared to the March paper. CowHouse (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Did HKU address the existence of this paper in their July statement? No they did not. Although, according to The University of Hong Kong Bulletin, the report on "the viral dynamics in mild and severe cases" was listed in the "Diagnosis" category, not "Transmission". CowHouse (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Synonyms for said

Do we all agree that we should follow the Wikipedia guideline WP:SAID, and edit the article to conform to it?

Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate.... to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said.... To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question...

Therefore we should change words like "claimed" to "said" throughout the article, right? --Nbauman (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:SAID says Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. It doesn't say loaded terms cannot be used. It is my understanding that when reliable sources refer to someone saying something without evidence (or widely disputed/unverified), it is appropriate to use "claim" in that context (especially when reliable sources also use the word "claim"). If reliable sources suggest a statement is not disputed, and they don't use "claim" or any similarly loaded term, then using it would be inappropriate. CowHouse (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

In writing this article we are trying to decide whether Li-Meng Yan is saying something without evidence. If you assume from the beginning that she is saying something without evidence, by using "claim" in the introduction, you are coming to a conclusion before you consider the evidence, that is, you are begging the question. --Nbauman (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead section is a summary of the body, which says her statements are unverified and/or widely disputed. Per MOS:LEAD: the lead section gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. [...] The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic [...] [I]ts purpose is to summarize the article, not just introduce it.

It is a challenge to find any reliable source about her September pre-print that doesn't use the word "claim". In order to represent the sources accurately we could say "unverified statements" but there is really no difference between that and "claim". CowHouse (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Per CowHouse, we are not deciding anything. We are not creating a narrative verdict with a final conclusion. We instead read all the sources, identify the conclusions from the reliable sources statement of facts and secondary interpretation of those facts. If all the sources say she's talking rubbish, or question her methodology, then presenting her claims as claims is pretty much par for the course on controversial statements related to science. Koncorde (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@User:Nbauman: You are using a weird model of non-fiction writing here. A Wikipedia article is not a whodunit story, where you find out more and more until you have enough information to see what happened. It is allowed to put the conclusion at the beginning. --Hob Gadling (talk)

I'll restate my argument. This entry is covered by WP:BLP. As such, it "must adhere strictly [their emphasis] ... to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV)..."

According to WP:NPOV:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing ... without editorial bias... [My emphasis]

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. [My emphasis]

So it does say loaded terms can't be used.

Using the term "claims" in this article violates WP:NPOV, since it introduces editorial bias, according to the plain language of WP:SAID. This guideline must be interpreted strictly, since it's WP:BLP. So you can't apply an exception, even with editor consensus.

I realize how annoying it is to have Tucker Carlson, Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump negligently spreading this nonsense for their racist ulterior purposes. (They're not lying because they don't understand it well enough to know the difference between truth and falsity.)

I also realize how annoying it is to have Li-Meng Yan, who does have significant scientific credentials, to be spouting this nonsense long after she should have understood and accepted the corrections of her colleagues.

Since we speak German, I can say, "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens".

However, the best, and maybe the only, way we can explain this in Wikipedia's voice is with WP:NPOV, neutral language, and let the facts and opposing viewpoints speak for themselves. You can easily find WP:RS viewpoints saying anything you legitimately want, for example in TWiV.

Those are the rules. And I think they make sense. --Nbauman (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:SAID does not say it is editorial bias. It says it is a loaded term, but that's not unusual or anything to do with NPOV. To quote the first line of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch article There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint. The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly.

This directly contradicts your interpretation and you can bold, underline and emphasise anything you want from it.

Meanwhile writing from an NPOV does not mean glossing over the way a subjects opinions are framed. She is making a claim, we might even say asserted, but the weight of RS do not treat her claims as anything other than as claims. Fox is irrelevant, as they are deprecated for exactly the reasons she is appearing on their shows probably. Koncorde (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nbauman: This interpretation of the various rules seems to arrive at a conclusion that we can't cast a shadow of a doubt about what someone says in the course of writing a BLP. But what if they contradict themselves? Or for example our article on Muammar Gaddafi uses "claims" at one point when it mentions him stating that his system of government in Libya was a utopia. Back before October 2011 when he was still alive would we really have had to avoid using any language that would even hint at questioning that?

I could kinda-maybe see an as-yet-unarticulated, very limited standard that just within someone's own BLP, in the case of a person like a scientist whose entire gig is having authoritative professional opinions, "claim" must never be used except when there's self-contradiction or other such circumstances. But the broader constraints you're articulating would appear to require a Wikipedia article to be something like a court opinion or a Socratic dialogue, which does not seem correct to me; I would say that doesn't match even the spirit of these rules much less their literal meaning. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 22:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:SAID says that the word "claimed" calls a person's credibility into question. WP:BLP says that encyclopedic content must be written without editorial bias. This policy is non-negotiable, and not subject to consensus. The word "claimed" introduces editorial bias. I think that's simple enough. Those are the rules. Science magazine said, sometimes you have to realize you're not going to convince someone, and give up. --Nbauman (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Once again, WP:SAID says "extra care is needed with more loaded terms". If the terms were not allowed to be used then that's what it would say in the policy. Given there are feature articles (including BLPs) that use the word "claim", it would suggest that it can be used in certain contexts. CowHouse (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think her words call her credibility into question; and the reliable sources all seem to agree. You are not interpreting the rules correctly, specifically you seem to be aiming for some version of neutrality that is actually neutered language rather than neutral POV despite what the RS say on the matter. Koncorde (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nbauman: You're interpreting the Manual of Style subsection and other policies to combine into (dare I say, synthesize into) something like "every living person is credible in every statement they make, even when they contradict themselves or when all RS agree that they are not credible, so a Wikipedia article must not in its own voice convey a lack of credibility no matter what sources say." This just isn't what the concept of editorial bias is about; as I said you're imputing something like an ontological standard or a standard of jurisprudence that is not the same thing.

What you're trying to construe here is not simple application of the rules you link to. WP:NPOV uses "claim" itself several times, particularly in the "false balance" section, so it does not straight-forwardly abjure the use of the word. It also, as a Wikipedia policy, incorporates a quote from BBC editorial guidance on science writing which says ...[we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries. (The interpolation of "the BBC" in the original quote into "[we]" is the how the NPOV page is written, not my own interpolation.)

Failing to do so and writing as though all statements by all people are fully credible by default actually expresses bias rather than avoiding it, particularly when we're dealing with something like a scientific consensus so universal that even Yan states in her own writing that her assertions can't be evaluated by peer review or publication in what Wikipedia would consider reliable scientific sources. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 10:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Consensus? You mean like when people are religious, the bigger the religious consensus is, the more reason we have to believe in God, right? Or maybe you think the consensus of virologist and immunologists is somehow above religious consensuses of ordinary people? 84.208.222.11 (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm kind of afraid to ask but what are religions saying about Yan Li-Meng? I found another pre-print upload concerning the alleged biological weapon origins of SARS-CoV-2 and how the United States government must be re-structured to prepare for future outbreaks, written by a guy who is apparently both the pastor of a church and some kind of Creationist scientist—which was actually pretty thoroughly-written document, he named his whole recommended bio-defense program after himself which was cute—but of course I did not link to it here. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 08:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

New article about her theory?

Regardless of the validity of the theory, maybe there should be a Wikipedia page about it?84.208.222.11 (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

And what exactly are you going to populate that hypothetical article with which isn't already mentioned here? Telsho (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

A summary of the article that was published on September 14?84.208.222.11 (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Why would a summary require a separate article? Telsho (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@84.208.222.11: I agree with @Telsho: and strongly support you to create a new section in the article on her hypothesis. I think that would really help. The Little Platoon (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then I recommend 3-4 subsections. One subsection about how she believes the receptor-binding motif (RBM) of SARS-CoV-2 to be constructed by structure-guided design, due to the high affinity for the human ACE2 receptor (hACE2). One subsection about her claims that the bat virus RaTG13 which is supposed to have the highest match to SARS-CoV-2 is fake, or doesn't exist in wildlife bat populations. She makes a similar claim for the pangolin virus which is supposed to have a high match for the RBM. Alina Chan, who works at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard has made similar claims about the Chinese pangolin publications being highly suspicious. And one subsection about her claims that the furin cleavage site doesn't exist in other SARS viruses of that type. I think this claim has been made by several others.84.208.222.11 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just not the place to summarize or document the contents of a non-peer-reviewed, unpublished scientific paper within hours of it being posted on a pre-print file hosting service, particularly not one being harshly faulted by other scientists in reliable sources. Circumstances will change if the work is published in a peer-reviewed journal but at the moment even the mention of her theories in this article is limited by Wikipedia:Fringe theories → Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories, Wikipedia:Fringe theories → Treatment of living persons, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view → Controversial subjects → Fringe theories and pseudoscience. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 06:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Propose to include this news report from AS English: https://en.as.com/en/2020/09/18/latest_news/1600419725_620901.html

"Dr Michael Head, senior research fellow in global health at the University of Southampton, said: “This particular conspiracy around deliberate release from a laboratory has been doing the rounds throughout the pandemic. It has been rebutted several times already. Ultimately, it could be damaging to public health if reported uncritically without looking at the wider evidence. If people are exposed to and then believe conspiracy theories, this will likely have a negative impact on efforts to keep COVID-19 cases low and thus there will be more death and illness than there needs to be.”

"Dr Gkikas Magiorkinis, assistant professor of hygiene and epidemiology at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, said that “closely related coronaviruses have been retrieved from animals such as bats and pangolins which makes the scenario of naturally occurring evolution far more likely than any scenario of laboratory manipulation”.

"Dr Andrew Preston, reader in microbial pathogenesis at the University of Bath, said the report “cannot be given any credibility in its current form”, that it “is not based on an objective interpretation of the SARS-CoV2 genome”, and its interpretations “are not supported by data”.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Amazing amount of censorship

You do not have to believe what she says it's true to burry it deep in the article instead of mentioning it in the intro. The fact that she claims COVID is made in a lab is much more important then human to human transmission timing. Again no need to report it as a fact, you can disclaimer it with usual "alleges" or "claims" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.85.29 (talk)

What are you talking about? It is literally mentioned in the first sentence of the page. CowHouse (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

why is the actual article not cited? - Instead there is a Newsweek source cited, which makes no sense.Truthseeek (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Citation to her preprint paper

Since Li Men Yang Twitter account was 1. suspended (a) for unclear reason and (b) without explanation and (c) even though: "She had only four visible posts and one linked to the preprint paper that had not been peer reviewed", and 2. it happened just one day after her preprint paper was published, one may suspect that some form of censorship is happening against her paper. Not known. But suspected.

Since her paper was not yet peer reviewed, not much can be said about its content, about its scientific soundness. However censoring someone, especially without explanation, is unacceptable. Therefore I suggest to cite her preprint paper on her Wikipedia page. That is I suggest to publish the link to her paper, which is here: https://zenodo.org/record/402883084.225.164.59 (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That's already in the article as Li-Meng Yan#cite note-30 ←this link will break as soon as another citation is added to the page but just press Ctrl-F and search for "zenodo" to find it again. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 12:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

👌84.225.164.59 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The existing citation is not prominent enough, and not in the appropriate place. It's buried behind multiple citations linked to articles trying to discredit her. Her paper should be front-and-center as the first and most prominent link, since many people like me will come to this article for the express purpose of finding that link. The way the article is currently written is in the manner of propaganda trying to discredit her, not a neutral POV. 72.219.109.200 (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Second other editor's opinion this section is POV. The "peer reviewed" claim should be substantiated with citation of the scholarly publication that went thru the peer review process, such as The Lancet. Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Her article should be cited appropriately. https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X26Tnu17lhE It does not matter if it is peer reviewed or not. Instead, there is a newsweek article cited after the title of her article?Truthseeek (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It is likely Li-Meng Yan was a visa-hunter

It is likely Li-Meng Yan was a visa-hunter as many other Chinese instead of a whistler blower. She didn't give any evidence so far to support her claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.144.131 (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

And your basis for that accusation, 14.200.144.131?

I second the request for evidence for this accusation — Preceding

unsigned comment added by 128.252.174.220 (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting reference in hk01 news. You'll need google translate if you don't read Chinese.14.200.144.131 (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

In an interview with "Loose women" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lq3_rsBJ9w) Li-Meng Yan claims to have evidence that the Covid-19 virus was created in a laboratory but unfortunately also does not provide any evidence. 87.67.28.178 (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree Living Person rule applies, I would be careful Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This article should contain the facts of the day. The fact is she wrote an article and that article should be cited and summarized without opinion. You can create other articles of other scientists that publish information differs from hers. https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X26Tnu17lhE Saying that she was likely a visa hunter shows an inability to look at things objectively and report on facts and facts alone.Truthseeek (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

RaTG13

I have opened a draft for a Wikipedia page about the virus called RATG13. If anyone is interested in contributing to that article, here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:RaTG13

84.208.222.11 (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins Response to Pre-Print

It might be notable that Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security posted a scientific review of Yan's pre-print report, saying it "presents a theory about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 but offers contradictory and inaccurate information that does not support their argument. As the report has not been submitted to a scientific peer-reviewed publication, which would provide the expert scrutiny expected by the scientific community and the larger public, we aim to provide an objective analysis of details included in the report, as would be customary in a peer-review process." [4] Chiffball (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. That was an extremely good review and should ideally replace all the unscientific newspaper references in the article.84.208.222.11 (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, great source; it's basically a line-by-line review of the .pdf with, I think, more citations to published scientific sources. I've added it to the article with the first couple of facts that caught my eye. @84.208.222.11: intext citation of direct and indirect speech from scientists is a different thing from statements relying on a non-scientific source's journalism. (Though even the latter can play a role depending on the context.) --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 21:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

New video with her

I found this video from 30th of September where she among other things talk about the reactions to her paper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6H7t6qxeJs

84.208.222.11 (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

PhD

During this interview, at 14:55, Yan says her PhD was for ophthalmology. She also said it during another interview (at 4:14). I could only find mention of this in unreliable sources (e.g. The Sun, Daily Mail, The Epoch Times). Has this been covered by any reliable sources? CowHouse (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe? Hong Kong based newspaper Ta Kung Pao (大公報) is apparently the oldest Chinese-language newspaper still being published in China. On Saturday there was an article in it that stated 閆麗夢出生於山東省青島市, 分別在中南大學和南方醫科大學獲得眼科碩士, 博士學位, 後前往香港大學作為博士後研究員, 主要從事疫苗, 抗體和細胞免疫學研究。; 'Yan Li-Meng was born in Qingdao', 'Shandong Province', 'she received her master's and doctorate degrees in ophthalmology from Central South University and Southern Medical University respectively', 'and then went to the University of Hong Kong as a postdoctoral researcher', 'mainly engaged in vaccine', 'antibody and cellular immunology research.' The article is critical of Yan and cites many of the same U.S. sources this Wikipedia article does.

However: at this point in history the newspaper seems to be very pro-Beijing and, especially given the size of both the "Awards" and "Controversy" sections in the Chinese Wikipedia article on it (all listed awards and events being from the past decade), I'm not confident enough in my understanding of written Chinese to assess whether it's on the Fox News side of the cut as still being a generally reliable source for some basic factual stuff like this despite its editorial stance, or whether it falls beyond that; at least not confident enough to make that assessment in any reasonable amount of time by going through all of that and spot-checking some recent articles. Chinese Wikipedia unfortunately doesn't seem to have a list similar to WP:DEPRECATED. Maybe we could seek out an established editor more fluent in Chinese to take a look? --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 18:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, also her PhD thesis appears to be available online, with some of the text inside visible here, but I don't think we could use that as an RS that she received her degree. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 20:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Well my search for a currently-active Chinese-language expert editor petered out but I think I've spot-checked Ta Kung Pao enough to reasonably regard it as a reliable source of basic factual information despite its editorial stance, so I have added this information and citation to the article. The "Controversy" section in the Chinese Wikipedia article mostly seems to involve issues about its editorial stance and accusations of inaccuracy that do not seem exceptional for an ideologically-biased news source; one incident actually involved the paper issuing a retraction, which is one indicator of a reliable source. I don't know that I'd trust their coverage of civil unrest in Hong Kong a great deal, though.

I should note that there's a discrepancy about the earlier degree: the CNN Indonesia cite already in our article states that Yan received a Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree from Central South University as does Yan herself in her Epoch Times interview (while also stating that her PhD is in ophthalmology as you note, CowHouse), I'm finding quotes from Guo Wengui in other Chinese-language press saying she has an MD, The Sun and the Daily Mail only mention an unspecified earlier medical degree, but Ta Kung Pao is saying she received "眼科碩士" at CSU—a master's degree in ophthalmology. I have written my edit to reflect the difference between the two reliable sources. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 10:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Paper credential

The authors of her paper, besides Yan, those three names: Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang, I can't find any information related to them regarding to which institute are they graduate from and What kind of degree they hold as well What kind of research they are focusing on, so I question the credibility or even existence of the co-author as well. Maybe those resercher's name just been made up for some reason? Can we mention this as well? Can not find any academic information about them

Also other review been published on MIT press: https://rapidreviewscovid19.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/78we86rp/release/2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.146.78 (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You can't find information on them on google likely because they are chinese in china, not chinese-americans.72.53.248.45 (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It is already mentioned: Three other researchers were listed as co-authors, but the SCMP was unable to find any prior work from them. CowHouse (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Awaiting Evaluation of articles

Seems she is about to drop some more information. I will look around and see if I can find some reputable evaluations of her upcoming paper. The Chinese gift is a brutal and immoral dictatorship with no regard for human rights. Weaponizing a virus is not a moral issue for them. Their work with bat corona virus is well known F. L. (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)"

As an aside, but why though? What other purpose could this research possibly serve, other than weaponization? It may not be relevent to this particular Article, but this is a question that I never see addressed in any media, anywhere. First comes the assertion of "weaponization", and then the assertion that the Chinese have been doing this openly for years, as if that fact somehow diminishes the 1st allegation of bioweapons research, but no one ever takes the next stop and mentions what non-weapons use this research could possibly have. I mention this not only as something that should be considered in order to improve this particular Article, but any and all other Wikipedia Articles that are associated with the pandemic. The absence of an affirmative alternative explanation supports the assertion that the purpose of the research is for biological weapons. Instead of saying "this exists" (an alternative), there is silence. Given the approxiatme 900,000 deaths (as of today) worldwide, the absence of an alternative explanation moves away from mere "evidence", and towards "proof".68.206.249.124 (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a kind of biological research that you may sometimes see described as "gain-of-function" research. This kind of research involves improving the ability of a pathogen to cause disease, in an effort to better understand other mechanisms. That kind of research, in and of itself, is not only not nefarious, but may be critical to research that finds treatments, etc. However, it is a methodology considered "dual-use", as it can be applied with the intent of creating novel pathogens for military purposes.

References

both preprint and peer review are available, I hope editors agree they should be included

Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Mother arrested. Maybe her claims are true?

According to [[NTD], her mother has been arrested in Mainland China for unknown reasons... maybe her claims hold some truth to the Wuhan Coronavirus? The link cites their program “China In Focus” which is broadcast on YouTube every Monday-Friday @ 2:30AM GMT: I don’t know if citing the Epoch Times/NTD is still acceptable due to their pro-trump stance but this should be okay right? My previous edits on Wikipedia citing the ET have been removed so hopefully this link isn’t. 2A02:C7F:D46C:9900:F429:FB97:1EE1:CE7C (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC) William Clifton ©️ 2020

@2A02:C7F:D46C:9900:F429:FB97:1EE1:CE7C:So far, no editor had questioned NTD's reliability, I think you can use that news.An unimportant person (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The Epoch Times is a WP:DEPRECATED § The Epoch Times source, but NTD doesn't seem to be in the list. We can't propose that this means anything about Yan's scientific claims, though, any more than her husband choosing to stay behind means her scientific claims aren't true. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 13:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree Epoch Times and NTD TV are questionable source

Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

References

This page needs more articles from the opposite perspective

It appears that most if not all of the articles cited in this page (and its references) are biased against Li-Meng's statements concerning the CPP's and the WHO's alleged cover-up of the transmission of Covid-19. There should be more articles at least in the reference section that are biased for Li-Meng/the intentional spread of the virus. The references here are plentiful on only one side not because there's no information to the contrary. There's a lot of dissent among editors and "journalism outlets" about the validity of her allegations, but there needs to, at the very least, be more references to the other side of the issue because of uncertainty. This is merely an observation. RampagingRembrandt (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide such reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

We are not supposed to provide WP:FALSEBALANCE. By the way, her family name is Yan. CowHouse (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

agree with the opinion; there a reason POV is being disputed - obvious sign of the need for NPOV

as to request for reliable source, IMO MIT's peer review is reliable, as well as Johns Hopkins preprint review

https://www.osap.org/news/529072/Yan-reports-claims-that-SARS-CoV-2-was-created-in-a-Chinese-lab-are-misleading-unethical.htm

Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bobby fletcher: Those sources were already quoted at length in the article. As you may have noted, CowHouse changed the ref tags of your contributed paragraph to use the existing citations from elsewhere in the article. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 19:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)