Talk:Li-Meng Yan

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)

Deficiency in current version of article

The current version of the article includes a quote mentioning the ZC45 or ZXC21 bat coronaviruses, but no further information about these two coronaviruses (not even very basic information such as where in China they were collected, by whom, when, or in which laboratories they were stored) is included. This is a deficiency that should be addressed. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved with this possibly controversial page, but if someone else wants to add the information, The publication is: Emerg Microbes Infect 7 (1), 154 (2018) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30209269/ (Free PMC article)

the sequences are here together with information about the individuals submitting and the dates of submission:
Bat SARS-like coronavirus isolate bat-SL-CoVZXC21, complete genome.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MG772934

Bat SARS-like coronavirus isolate bat-SL-CoVZC45, complete genome.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MG772933.1

 TITLE     Direct Submission
 JOURNAL   Submitted (05-JAN-2018) Institute of Military Medicine Nanjing
           Command, Nanjing, Institute of Military Medicine Nanjing Command,
           Nanjing, NO. 293 East Zhongshan Road, Nanjing, JangSu 210002, China

more information abut the strains (according to Yan Limeng) is
https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.YGc-meT3aEc
https://zenodo.org/record/4073131#.YGc-d-T3aEc
https://zenodo.org/record/4650821#.YGc-7-T3aEe
https://zenodo.org/record/4283480#.YGc_ceT3aEc
https://zenodo.org/record/4448499#.YGc_nOT3aEc

Eaberry (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out, the quote being referred to mentions these two strains solely in the context of being 'debunked' by reviewers. I'm not sure we should go into detail on a debunked claim, or at least this specific one. The subtext of the original suggestion seems to be to imply that something must be up with these two strains, even though reliable sources say otherwise. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

MD (Medicine Docotor) or Master Degree?

"Dr. Yan received her MD degree from XiangYa Medical College of Central South University (China), and PhD from Southern Medical University (China). Her research interests include investigations of infectious diseases or inflammation via different animal models. Her research has recently focused on study of universal influenza vaccine, cross-reactive antibodies and cellular immunology." Source what you think ? --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Master of Science is generally abbreviated M.S. or MS in countries following United States usage and MSc or M.Sc. in countries following British usage. . . Master's degree Eaberry (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation about Li-Meng Yan- which are unsourced or poorly sourced

The statement "conspiration theory" is not supported by the linked source (Nr.26 National Geographic) - is unsourced or poorly sourced. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article." Please find a reliable source here - preferably one that meets strong criteria MEDRS and others.--Empiricus (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I've reworded the section, and moved the claim the a later section regarding Yan's claim of "censorship". I believe this better fits the source's wording, which does explicitly link her claim to academic journals "plotting with conspirators": The experts also pointed out that the report whipped up wild conspiracy theories and wrongly accused academic journals of plotting with conspirators by censoring important evidence. Two other notes: the second source for this sentence (Newsweek) categorized their article under "conspiracy theories", and we need to be cautious with the "censorship" claim as it's essentially a WP:SELFPUB claim since neither of the two citations in Yan's paper are WP:RS. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't need MEDRS to say "X is a conspiracy theory" (although there are plenty which do say this explicitly); the same way we don't need MEDRS to say "WHO published a report on the matter". There are plenty of sources, including MEDRS, calling the particular story promoted by Yan (deliberate bioweapon) as a conspiracy theory. IMHO, and for what it's worth, her SELFPUB claims of censorship are consistent with it being a conspiracy theory - see the Conspiracy Theory Handbook (p. 6-7) for more detail. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: The "I'm being censored" claim is exactly what I moved it to, using the non-MEDRS NatGeo source's specific claim: Yan stated that evidence of genetic engineering was censored in scientific journals, allegedly as part of a conspiracy to suppress information on the topic. See also, the ethics claim below, also a non-MEDRS source (per WP:PARITY): The lack of financial disclosure in Yan's papers was described as a lapse in ethical transparency by Dr. Adam Lauring, particularly when publishing "what are essentially conspiracy theories that are not founded in fact". Bakkster Man (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

She sounds like literally Hitler, and we should cover everything ever said or done regarding her with respect to COVID-19 in excruciating detail, far more than any other encyclopedia ever would, to be preserved on the internet for the rest of her life, and beyond, as a warning to anyone who would ever dare publish a preprint. It will make me sleep better. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any specific concerns about material that you believe is WP:UNDUE? And do you have an RS-based argument for how such material is improperly weighted?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: AP is trying to attack an absurd strawman of their own construction. Unless they can come up with actual concerns and not just some unhelpful heat, I don't think there's anything concrete that needs to be done, here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty - you mean like the US govt has here : confirming some of what she has said ORIGINS-OF-COVID-19-REPORT.pdf (house.gov) Dawesi (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think the category "conspiracy theorist" should only be used in cases when someone can be immediately and unequivocally described in the lead as a "conspiracy theorist" per multiple RS. According to the lead, These publications have been widely criticised by the scientific community and she offered "contradictory and inaccurate information that does not support their argument. This is far cry from an outright conspiracy theorist. My very best wishes (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are several WP:RSes which describe Yan as a "conspiracy theorist" or as promoting "conspiracy theories." And here are several experts describing Yan's views as conspiracy theories. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Some of the quotes and sources in your list are not really usable. The SCMP article is WP:RSOPINION and headlines are not a reliable source. The Washington Post article says online papers can be "hijacked" to fuel conspiracy theories. WP:RSP says "post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable." The PNAS paper says a document, which was not written by Yan, "took off, particularly within conspiracy circles". The "shitshow of disinformation" quote is not included in the CNN article. The quote in the Vox article is too vague to refer to Yan directly ("I think it's being in an atmosphere that fosters conspiracy theories while feeling pressured to justify her existence"). CowHouse (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Newsweek, it also says "should be decided on a case-by-case basis." And we have used Newsweek to help establish how to refer to something in the context of many multiple sources before, without citing it in articlespace for exactly this RSP consensus. See this discussion. Re: the WaPo article, it does describe the exact same "blistering scientific critiques and widespread news coverage of its alleged flaws" that other sources cite in describing her views as conspiracy theories. Re: PNAS, it goes on to say "A deeply flawed paper making similar arguments was posted to the file-sharing site https://zenodo.org/" referring to Yan's paper. Re: Vox, you should examine the quotes I pulled out, they make very clear that this former colleague of Yan's considers the ideas expressed in the papers to be "utter garbage." Further, you have not addressed the several other sources provided which reference Yan's views as "conspiracy theories." Do you have any reliable sources which describe Yan's views as not conspiracy theories? That is what's necessary in this situation to have us not describe them as such in wiki-voice, given that we have several RSes which do describe them as such. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, per WP:ONUS, the "onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." My comment was about whether or not the sources in your list were usable to describe her as a conspiracy theorist. You're giving examples of synthesis: "If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." When describing someone as conspiracy theorist in a WP:BLP we should have several, high-quality sources that are accurately represented. Quotes about "blistering scientific critiques", a "deeply flawed paper" and "utter garbage" are not usable for describing someone as a conspiracy theorist unless you think these quotes are synonymous with the description. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the two quotes from experts (Rasmussen and Head) cannot be used for a statement of fact but should be attributed. Even if "Jasnah Kholin" described her as a conspiracy theorist, should we refer to them as a subject-matter expert when they are pseudonymous?

Since this is a BLP, post-2013 Newsweek is not a good enough source to label someone as a conspiracy theorist. We would only use their articles for uncontroversial statements of fact. The closure to the RfC says: "This is not a no consensus close, because there is clear consensus that Newsweek is not generally reliable post–2013." Your link includes a talk page comment saying they "wouldn't propose it as a source for article content, but as context of how the report is referred to across the political spectrum." We are not talking about how Yan is referred to across the political spectrum, we are talking about potential sources to use on her BLP. CowHouse (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually do think “utter garbage” is synonymous with “conspiracy theories” in this context, yes. And what about the other sources we have? ONUS only applies to the non status quo and unsourced material. For quite a few weeks now, this article has included the word “conspiracy.” And we have the Snopes article, the Science article, and the several quotes from experts in secondary sources that you have said nothing about whatsoever. So the ONUS is on those seeking to remove to provide evidence that it isn’t a commonly accepted perception of Yan. We have at least 2 sources showing it is, and several more that I believe show it is, that you have provided only WP:CHERRY arguments against. Do you have any sources that say she is ‘’not’’ a conspiracy theorist?—Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Listing sources that mention Yan and the word "conspiracy" regardless of whether or not the two are connected (or whether the source is reliable) is cherry-picking. Pointing out when sources do not say she is a conspiracy theorist (or are not reliable) is nothing to do with WP:CHERRY.

The WP:ONUS policy is not about the status quo of a page and it doesn't say it only applies to newly added content. The point is there is not an onus to achieve consensus when seeking to exclude disputed content. The policy does not only apply to unsourced material since it specifically says "not all verifiable information needs to be included".

I didn't think I would need to justify that "garbage" and "conspiracy theories" are not synonyms. Conspiracy theories are one of many things that would fall under the umbrella of "garbage". Once again, this is a BLP so trying to conflate the two terms is especially unacceptable.

If a source doesn't consider "conspiracy theorist" an appropriate description then they will simply not use it, they will not specifically say they are "not a conspiracy theorist" (as I'm sure you're aware). I have also already mentioned the quotes from experts so I suggest you read my earlier comment again. CowHouse (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• I guess this boils down to the question if the "lab leak" is a conspiracy theory meaning a total BS, someone's wild imagination, something on par with Qanon, etc. Sure, one can find some RS claiming just that. But we do not know for a fact that it did not leak from a lab Actually, the current consensus is that the "lab leak" is just something unproven and remotely possible, although not very probable. Given that, I believe that labeling her "a conspiracy theorist" right now is excessive and a violation of our BLP rules. Besides, an accidental release of a pathogen from a lab is just an accident, not a conspiracy. A conspiracy to hide the fact? Yes, maybe. But the Chinese authorities do behave as if they had something to hide. We just do not know what is it, exactly. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

We make very cautious, guarded references to conspiracy in the article body. Once regarding the claims made in her papers, as described by a secondary source: Yan stated that evidence of genetic engineering was censored in scientific journals, allegedly as part of a conspiracy to suppress information on the topic. And again directly quoting one of the rapid reviews contributors regarding the ethics of her paper: The lack of financial disclosure in Yan's papers was described as a lapse in ethical transparency by Dr. Adam Lauring, particularly when publishing "what are essentially conspiracy theories that are not founded in fact". I generally agree, we better cover the conspiratorial claims (both made by herself, and allegations by others) in the body of the article, rather than by merely lumping her into a category. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

"Yan stated evidence of genetic engineering was censored in scientific journals, allegedly as part of a conspiracy to suppress information on the topic". Yes, this is definitely a conspiracy theorist thinking. But I assume she was placed to the category because of her claims with regard to the "lab leak". If so, see my comment above. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Am I misunderstanding? You're agreeing that she's a conspiracy theorist (due to her allegations of a global conspiracy to silence her publications), but don't think she should be in the category because you assume she was labeled such merely for supporting the lab leak hypothesis? Bakkster Man (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I only said "this is definitely a conspiracy theorist thinking", and this is just my personal opinion. The provided citation does NOT say explicitly "she is a conspiracy theorist". One needs multiple RS saying just that, so this can be described prominently on the page (including an explanation which exactly conspiracy theory she supports) and summarized in lead" as "she is a conspiracy theorist". Only then she can be included into such category. Now, if what she supports (lab leak theory I assume?) is not a conspiracy theory, then we can not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, the very specific conspiracy theory she supports is the "gain of function bioweapon created intentionally in a lab" idea. Not simply the "lab leak," which is such a broad and vague category that it becomes very difficult to pin down or attribute as a belief to anyone.

However, Yan has, more than any single person, endorsed the most FRINGE version of this story, the most conspiracy laden (that there is suppression from government bodies who are "in on it" and scientific authorities who are silencing her publication on orders from "them" etc. etc).

We cannot simply say "the lab leak is not a conspiracy, so Yan is not a conspiracy theorist." We must address her specific beliefs, and the conspiratorial nature of them.

More than anything, this is not a referendum on the lab leak. It is a discussion which hinges on one's interpretation of these three sources: Snopes, SCMP, National Geographic, There is also the Newsweek piece, which should be considered as a source on a case-by-case basis. If you believe these describe Yan as a "conspiracy theorist" or her beliefs as "conspiracy theories," then you very likely also would support inclusion of this category. If you distrust these sources or find them too weak, you would likely disagree..--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I checked these sources. That one in particular provides Abstract of their unpublished paper. The Abstract and some other things do not look in her favor, but I would rather refrain from commenting. I self-reverted, meaning this is your responsibility. There still can be "lab leak or worse. My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

ORIGINS-OF-COVID-19-REPORT.pdf (house.gov) (August 2021) seems to suggest the lab leak was 'for certain', not a conspiracy theory. Dawesi (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a document published by Republican Party staffers/politicians, is it not? They're politicians, so they barely even qualify as a reliable source for their own opinions (since we usually hold the standard that noteworthy political views are reported in independent sources before being reported here). And they're not qualified virologists or public health experts so their statement is not an acceptable WP:SPS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

References

To add to article

To add to this article: mention of Yan's husband, Ranawaka Arachchige Prasad Mahendra Perera (as well as the fact that he was granted an H1B visa valid for two years, entering the U.S. on March 23, 2021). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done No reliable source given; and also WP:COATRACK/Privacy concerns, since this person's husband is entirely irrelevant to this person's claim to fame (unlike with, say, Kate Middleton). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Updating Article in Light of Recent Unclassified intelligence report

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

---

Given the newly released report from the US Department of Energy stating that the lab leak hypothesis is the most likely explanation and that more study into the lab leak explanation is needed this article may need to be updated. Especially given that the articles cited to refute Li-Meng Yan have been shown to be propaganda with little to no scientific basis supporting their claims. Leaked emails to Fauci reveal an official cover-up and suppression of the lab leak theory did take place. 97.120.181.231 (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not the case that the articles cited to refute Li-Meng Yan have been shown to be propaganda. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

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