Talk:Shi Zhengli

Conflict of interest

The last two paragraphs quote Daszak without referring to the fact he is Zhengli's colleague and client. He subcontacts work to her. He is not an independent source: https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/

I'm sure there are loads of virologists that can be quoted, but you cannot quote the one that funds her research and jointly publishes papers with her.

From the above article: "The grants were assigned to the prime contractor, Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, who subcontracted them to Shi". --Zeth

I don't think that article's description of the collaboration between Daszak and Shi Zhengli is accurate. The author of the article is a non-expert, and the term "subcontracted" certainly sticks out as incorrect terminology (NIH calls it a "subaward", and it functions quite differently from a subcontract in the commercial sector). I'm not even sure that Shi Zhengli got any subaward, and I'd like that to be backed by a better source than what's given above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Lots of other "non-expert" media articles are used. The whole paragraph shouldn't be there in the first place, it is a total conflict of interest and you Thucydides411 are misleading the reader in portraying Daszak as an independent source when he's not. Anyway I have added an article from Nature where in Peter Daszak's own words he says he has worked there for 15 years and an article from Taiwan news showing the two drinking together. That article quotes another academic saying "Daszak has been a contractor, a collaborator, and a co-author on work at the WIV (wuhan institute of virology) on construction and analysis of novel chimeric coronaviruses". He got his own organisation to give WIV money and then got paid from that too. --Zeth

they have papers co-authored together. E.g. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5748/676/tab-figures-data — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeth (talk • contribs) 18:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Remember that this is a WP:BLP, and before adding this or similar content back into the article, please propose what you want to add here on the talk page first. I'm open to noting Daszak's collaboration with Shi Zhengli, but citing junk sources like taiwannews.com is not acceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I am so glad you are open to basic standards of transperency. How about you productively suggest something rather than constantly reverting back to a misleading state. --Zeth

Who says Taiwan News is a junk source? It doesn't say that here Taiwan_News - deciding Taiwan News is junk seems like original research. --Zeth

@Zeth: You've resorted to edit-warring. Again, this is a WP:BLP, and edit-warring to insert contentious material is not acceptable. I'll give you a chance to self-revert. After you've done so, propose the wording you'd like to add, and we can come to a consensus.

For mainland-China-related reporting, yes, taiwannews.com is junk. It has repeatedly published conspiracy theories about CoVID-19. There was recently a discussion about this at WP:RSN. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You started edit war by reverting every attempt to add transparency. You are the one adding "contentious material" having one collegue praise another, I think the whole paragraph should go, I am trying to at least add transparency to it. Why don't we come to consensus before leaving the article in a state that misleads the reader. I am not interested in your politics or theories on Taiwan news, I am interested in not misleading the reader of this article by showing one academic as an independent source when he's her academic colleague, that's all. Zeth (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zeth: You've been an editor for 16 years, so I am assuming that you know what the rules on edit-warring are. If you're not willing to try to reach consensus here, but insist on reverting to force in contentious material about a living person, you really leave me with no other option but to go to seek administrative action. I'm trying to be reasonable with you, and am just asking you to self-revert and propose the wording and sourcing you'd like to use here first. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to reach consensus, you are trying to lord it over the article like it's your personal property - as you have a history of doing in the log. The only person who is trying to force in contentious material is you. My first edit was to delete the ridiculous misleading paragraph. You reverted it. I added some transparency to make it less misleading, you reverted it, I did it a different way, you reverted it. The problem is you, trying to push your political views, your campaign against "conspiracy theories" has gone too far, you are trying to mislead the reader by presenting a colleague as an independent source. Wikipedia is not the place to fight such battles. The only non-consensus here is you because you are obsessed with not agreeing any wording or suggesting anything yourself. Currently it is the wording of Peter Daszak himself from the Nature article and apparently you know better than him. Zeth (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that some note of the COI is appropriate, though the extent of the note that is currently present in the article (noting that the two are colleagues) seems sufficient to me. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

All's well that ends well, sounds like a consensus to me Zeth (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Face picture

Shi Zhengli's picture is widely available online. There are two or three excellent headshots that feature the scientist wearing non-work related apparel. I suggest this addition that doesn't violate any copyright.

I recommend against the use of the notorious photos of the Doctor in her positive-pressure suit since these have unfortunately become adopted by trash tabloids who are tasked with engaging in self-hate propaganda directed at all things China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.188.139 (talk • contribs)

Know of any photos of her on official US government websites, or photos released under a Creative Commons license (such as certain Flickr photos)? For living people, we have to use uncopyrighted photos. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The "self-hate" cliché is used by nationalists for labeling people from the same nation who are not as nationalist as them, first applying a sleight of hand to replace lack of love of the nation by hate of the nation, then the fallacy of division to turn hate of the nation into hate of self. So, unless those anti-China tabloids are Chinese, you are using the wrong fallacious and convoluted cliché.

I also do not see how a type of picture is tainted by tabloids using it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the IP's point about not using a picture with a stigma is reasonable. But alas, an uncopyrighted one is likely not available yet. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Link to pro-fringe conspiracy-theory article in BLP

@ProcrastinatingReader: In this edit, you reinstated a link to a pro-fringe magazine article that engages in conspiracy theorizing about the subject of this BLP. You justify reinstating this link by pointing to an RSN discussion in which you asked whether a WP:MEDRS source is required to verify that Shi Zhengli received grant funding. There are two problems here:

1. You misrepresented the nature of the dispute. The dispute was not primarily about whether MEDRS is required to note that someone received a grant. The dispute was about whether we should be linking to a magazine article - written by a layperson - that advances fringe scientific views and which engages in conspiracy theorizing about a living person.
2. You did not inform anyone here about your RSN post. If you had, I would have posted there to clarify what the nature of the dispute actually is.

Because you misrepresented the actual dispute, the RSN thread is really irrelevant to our actual dispute here. I'll remind you that this is a BLP, and that linking to articles that push fringe theories, especially when they're defamatory to the subject of the BLP, is very concerning. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Properly pinging ProcrastinatingReader this time. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Your ping is broken. Your diffs were linked, as was the source, and exactly what the source said, and people discussed whether it's reliable. I think calling Vanity Fair "pro-fringe" or not-RS is a bogus claim, but either way, WP:RSN's doors are open to all, and you can start a section there if it pleases you. (BTW I did write about it here initially, then removed saying I was taking it to RSN; that would show up on watchlists.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing defamatory about receiving funding from a US grant making body, btw. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing defamatory about saying someone received US scientific funding, but there is something defamatory about linking to a magazine article by a layperson that essentially alleges that someone created or released SARS-CoV-2. The Vanity Fair article cannot be linked here. Find a source that does not promote a fringe view that's rejected by most of the scientific community, and use that as a source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Vanity Fair is considered generally reliable, are you challenging that consensus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

You know that reliability is considered in context, and that general reliability does not indicate reliability or suitability in all contexts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

If what you say is true and they are knowingly publishing conspiracy theories about living people that would make them deprecatable, thats pretty much the most serious charge that one can levy against a media organization on wikipedia. Were you being hyperbolic or perhaps you misread the source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I've read the source, and I think my characterization of it as fringe is accurate. I think our strict sourcing policies for BLPs and scientific (particularly medically relevant) articles already deal with such situations, and editors understand that magazines that focus on entertainment and fashion are not a good source of scientific information. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Your logic is unevenly applied. There are many negative sources (even since resolutely disproven since you wrote this) that are nonscientific like NatGeo that are being used to smear her here. Those should also be removed along with the since defunct data they wrote. 2603:8000:CE01:B380:38EE:CFC1:347C:1B8A (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've replaced the Vanity Fair article with an article in Science Magazine that is specifically about the NIH grants in question. Based on that article, I've included a short description of what the subject of the grants was. I don't think the precise amount of funding is particularly relevant, so I've removed it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the amount of funding is relevant, lets keep it in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is it relevant? It's a detail. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

To me dollar figures are relevant details, maybe thats because I’m numbers oriented but if we have a WP:RS which gives us that number why not use it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Every grant that Shi Zhengli receives has some monetary value attached to it. Why should we mention the precise amount of this grant, but not of any other grant? Describing the subject of the grant and that it comes from the NIH is already more than enough. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think I said I was opposed to including the amounts for the other grants. I would prefer we use both the Science and Vanity Fair pieces, both are WP:RS and together they are stronger than individually. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

So you have no sources to support your allegation that the piece is a conspiracy theory pro-fringe article, scholars disagree with you, and apparently you haven't actually read the article because it says no such thing anyway. Please bring a RS calling the Vanity Fair piece a fringe piece before continuing, than kyou. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

In addition to fringe you said "conspiracy-theory” are you now walking that back? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

We already have a better source (Science Magazine) that is entirely focused on the grant in question, so this question is moot. If you want to know why the Vanity Fair piece is fringe, take a look at the extensive discussions on sourcing on the talk pages of Wikipedia articles about SARS-CoV-2 and its origins. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Also see WP:IDHT and WP:STICK, as I agree with Horse that this seems like a behavioural issue at this point. For the nth time, please make your case at WP:RSN if you have a case to make, but do not edit against consensus with this "pro-fringe" rubbish. Your dislike of a source does not make it a conspiracy theory piece, pro-fringe, or unreliable, especially in the face of a consensus saying otherwise. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The only behavioral problem I see here is that you're edit-warring at a BLP. Please self-revert. There's no reason to link to Vanity Fair here. The Science Magazine article that I replaced it with describes the grants in question in much more detail, is entirely about those grants, and does not raise any of the BLP concerns that the Vanity Fair article does. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a serious WP:ASPERSION to cast on ProcrastinatingReader, what evidence do you have to support it? Note that they are supported by a noticeboard level consensus which they sought on this very issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I would also like to see the evidence of my editing being "defamatory to the subject of the BLP", which at this point seems like another unfounded charge. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's self-evident which edit-warring I'm taking about. I'm talking about the revert that ProcrastinatingReader just did to reinstate the Vanity Fair source. I can't even see the rationale for this revert, since the Science Magazine article is a suitable replacement, discusses the grants in question in depth, and raises none of the same BLP concerns. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean this edit warring? [1], adding a source is fine... Its the taking away when theres clearly consenus to use that source there for that information that clearly shouldn't be happening. You have not substantiated these BLP concerns, please do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion about this issue at WP:BLPN. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that arguing that Vanity Fair is not RS is a bad way to tackle this, since it obviously is RS. I also object to that sentence, but more for reasons of WP:DUE. The article cherry picked something off her resume to paint a picture that she is engaging in nefarious gain-of-function research. And then it was placed in a section that wasn't even about COVID. I simply question whether or not this is DUE. I also happen to agree with the WP:PROFRINGE argument... it is basically a pro-lab leak talking point. But seems like PROFRINGE has been an unpopular thing to bring up lately, since lab leak is more mainstream now, so we can focus more on the DUE part if you guys want. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether Vanity Fair is generally reliable. It's a magazine focusing on entertainment and fashion, with some political commentary, and it's fine for commentary and reporting on those subjects. But it is not a scientific journal, and it's not even a popular science magazine. The article in question is written by a layperson with no expertise at all in virology, and it pushes a hypothesis that is extremely fringe within the scientific community: that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus. I think the editors involved in this discussion are sufficiently experienced that they understand the different between general reliability of a publication and reliability and suitability of a specific article in a particular context. Saying that the Vanity Fair article must be used in this context because Vanity Fair is generally reliable is just an abuse of WP:RSP.

I swapped out the Vanity Fair article for an article in a higher-quality (for scientific reporting) magazine, Science Magazine: [2]. Unlike the Vanity Fair article, which only mentions the grants in question in passing, the Science Magazine article is entirely about those grants. And unlike the Vanity Fair article, the Science Magazine article does not push an extremely dubious hypothesis that is potentially defamatory towards the subject of this article.

The Science Magazine article is a superior source in every sense, and there's no justification for reinstating the Vanity Fair article as a source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts about deleting this sentence

A user keeps deleting the second paragraph of the block I am about to quote. Is this a correct deletion, or should it be reverted? Either way, the user has left bad grammar ("that that") that will need to be repaired. Maybe Shibbolethink can provide an expert opinion. Thanks.

In 2014, Shi Zhengli collaborated on additional gain-of-function experiments led by Ralph S Baric of the University of North Carolina, which showed that

DELETED: two critical mutations that the MERS coronavirus possesses allow it to bind to the human ACE2 receptor, and

that SARS had the potential to re-emerge from coronaviruses circulating in bat populations in the wild.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Just now Reverted to the earlier version but changed “gain of function” to “genetic engineering” because of an editor’s objection (he didn’t provide any reason). JustinReilly (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2021

"Zhengli's discoveri.......". It should be "Shi's discovery.." Shi is her surname. 146.115.69.72 (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)