Talk:Nicholas Wade/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Consensus claim

Generalrelative reverted my careful revision of the sentence "This claim is at odds with the current scientific consensus that the virus most likely has a zoonotic origin." There were several problems with the original. First, saying "this claim is at odds with" is original research not supported by the cited sources. Also, only the first citation directly says there is a "scientific consensus" - see WP:RS/AC for this requirement; I spelled out the relevant claims in the other citations and added another significant viewpoint. Note that this POPSCI article isn't a solid source for a claim of scientific consensus, so I have removed the sentence for now in lieu of a solid reliable source that directly states there is a scientific consensus, preferably a strong WP:MEDRS review article. Terjen (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I was actually about to revert your edit as well, but Generalrelative beat me to it. The sources are pretty clear on the scientific consensus of Covid having a zoonotic origin. This has been true for months at this point and is supported by every major scientific organization. There is literally zero evidence for any other claim at this point, hence why the consensus supports said zoonotic origin. Even the small group of (often pseudoscience pushing) people/scientists who claim otherwise have to use weasel wording to try and push their claims, hence why you get wording like "There is a near-consensus view that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19, has a natural zoonotic origin" because they have to acknowledge the consensus despite making themselves be the "not consensus" group. SilverserenC 22:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
We don't have sufficient sources directly stating there is a scientific consensus as required by WP:RS/AC (see discussion below) but we have reliable sources substantiating that most virologists lean towards zoonotic origin, such as the May 27 New York Times article by Carl Zimmer stating: "Virologists still largely lean toward the theory that infected animals ... spread the virus to humans outside of a lab." Terjen (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
For comparison's sake, the lead paragaraph of Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 says: "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of zoonotic origin in a natural setting, from bats or another closely-related mammal." I don't think we need to re-litigate the consensus debate here; if the main article moves away from that wording, then it would be appropriate for this article to follow suit. That said, I agree that "this claim is at odds with" seems somewhat problematic—we're dealing with a question of probabilities (which hypothesis is more likely), not a black/white right vs. wrong. If, for example, the scientific "consensus" gives the lab escape hypothesis a 40% chance of being true, vs. Wade believing it's a 60% chance, it's not really fair to say Wade is "at odds with" the scientific consensus. Of course, we don't any such precise estimates, and in the absence of sources directly claiming that Wade's claims are "at odds with" the scientific consensus, I agree that statement would violate WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Stonkaments (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I have been actively participating in the discussion on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and been disappointed about the lack of solid substantiation of the claim of scientific consensus. If there was a clear consensus, it should be trivial to satisfy WP:RS/AC with high quality WP:RS, including solid WP:MEDRS review articles that directly says there is a scientific consensus. Upon a challenge for the strongest WP:RS directly substantiating the claim of scientific consensus, this June 2020 review of "COVID-19 breakthroughs" was submitted. I review it on the Investigations talk page, finding it unsatisfactory. We need a better source to cite to state a claim of scientific consensus. Terjen (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Note that Wade himself describes the zoonotic theory as scientific consensus; see the excerpt from his article supplied in the previous thread by Stonkaments (the 4th bullet-point), where Wade calls it "the community's declared view" (he's talking about the community of virologists). His explanation for why he believes the scientific consensus is wrong is that they're engaged in a massive cover-up because of political agendas, conflicts of interest, and intimidation. That's a conspiracy theory of the sort that's common among deniers of scientific consensus. But my point is: Wade does say that the zoonotic theory is the virology community's "declared view". NightHeron (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good, we can just use his own statement, respecting WP:RS/AC. Terjen (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Such as "In May of 2021, recognizing that the zoonotic theory is the virology community's declared view, Wade published an article which advanced the claim that..." Terjen (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree that any discussion about consensus need not be split amongst multiple articles. I'm not going to repeat what has been said at the Investigations page, and instead I'm going to suggest keeping the discussion there. Although the fact that even Wade argued that scientists have a prevailing view (before going off on the "vested interests" conspiracy tangent) is helpful - although of course I'm not sure if he's a reliable source for this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I've yet to see a single source arguing that this is not the consensus view, and I've seen sources both supporting and arguing against this view which admit it's the consensus. To claim we lack sufficient sourcing to say that is simply false. Even one source is enough to establish the existence of a scientific consensus, provided there are no sources asserting a different consensus or denying that one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    I will follow the lead of @RandomCanadian and encourage that we keep further discussion on Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Why declare a "consensus" on the origin, given that all options are still open. Suffice to say, if you have a high-quality WP:RS like a strong WP:MEDRS review article that directly says there is a consensus as required by WP:RS/AC, please submit it. Terjen (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
    On the claim of no source saying there isn't a consensus, you just have to go to the discussion above to find an article saying there is only a "near-consensus". Terjen (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The term is very clearly being used synonymously with "near unanimity", and as such, rather obviously falls within the range of what we consider consensus, unless you plan to argue that there's no consensus about the general safety and effectiveness of vaccines, owing to the tiny handful of virologists disputing it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Bottom line: Wikipedia shouldn't be among the first to explicitly call scientific consensus. Terjen (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
That is very close to a non-sequitur. The link you provided calls it that in so many words. There's no policy or guideline anywhere that says we must use the exact words used by our sources. In fact, doing so can get you banned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
It's not an argument but a reminder about WP:NOTLEAD. Moreover, before discussing whether there no longer is a scientific consensus, we should first establish whether there ever was a clear scientific consensus per the criteria of WP:RS/AC, requiring reliable sourcing such as comprehensive WP:MEDRS review articles that directly says there is a scientific consensus. We should set the bar high: If there is an established scientific consensus, it should be trivial to substantiate with solid sources. Further discussion at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Why declare a "consensus" on the origin, given that all options are still open. Terjen (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Terjen, I find it rather ironic that you'd link to RGW in a comment in which you advance the proposition that we take the initiative in advancing a minority view among the experts that's linked to a political conspiracy theory. And by "rather" I mean "incredibly, almost humorously".
I would also reiterate my earlier point: the link you provided directly states that most scientists hold this view. That very clearly meets the criteria at RS/AC, which you have not accurately quoted here.
Also I would note that the consensus at that linked discussion seems to be against your position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The link is to WP:NOTLEAD which, perhaps confusingly, redirects to WP:RGW. No offense intended. Terjen (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
My comment above urges reviewing whether our claim of scientific consensus satisfies the requirements of WP:RS/AC. You twist it into "advancing a minority view among the experts that's linked to a political conspiracy theory", which makes no sense. The lengthy linked discussion [1] goes through multiple phases before getting here. In short: We haven't been able to substantiate there is a scientific consensus per WP:RS/AC. For such an extraordinary claim as scientific consensus, we should expect plenty of solid WP:MEDRS papers including comprehensive reviews directly stating there is a consensus, but alas, the few articles we have surfaced are wanting. Terjen (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
There is no scientific consensus that the lab leak theory is impossible; rather, the consensus among epidemiologists is that it's unlikely (and several sources have been given for this in other discussions). Wade contends not only that it's likely, but also that the reason for the epidemiologists' consensus (the community's declared view, in his words) is a vast conspiracy in that community based on conflict of interest, political agendas, and intimidation. Wade's view is far outside the mainstream, and needs to be treated in accordance with WP:FRINGE and other policies relating to conspiracy theories. NightHeron (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
As is becoming a pattern, I once again wholeheartedly concur with NightHeron's statement here. I also find the notion that claiming the existence of a scientific consensus is "extraordinary" to be spurious. Experts in a wide variety of fields regularly come to a consensus on a large number of major, minor and even esoteric questions. There exist many consensuses that are so unremarkable as to be not worth mentioning. Go ahead and try to find reliable sourcing for the scientific consensus that getting shot in the face is bad for your health, I dare you. Then try to argue from that lack of sourcing that there is no such consensus, and be prepared to be laughed at.
The consensus in this case is very near an example of that; it's just shockingly obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with the subject that a zoonotic origin is vastly more likely than any other. And as should be expected for such a mundane consensus, the only people pointing it out are those arguing against it and those trying to communicate it to the public. The claim that we need extraordinary sourcing for it is not borne out by policy, or even rote logic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@NightHeron brings up points having no bearing on my argument: I am neither arguing in favor of Wade nor the lab-leak theory, but challenging the claim that the scientific consensus is zoonotic origin, or specifically, that we can substantiate scientific consensus as required by WP:RS/AC. Even if it was the case that the consensus is shockingly obvious, as @MjolnirPants believes, Wikipedia shouldn't be among the first few to declare a scientific consensus. If you think you can build a solid case for a declared scientific consensus, please submit it. I have tried but found the sources wanting. Terjen (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Terjen, As I have explained multiple times now: we would not be the first. Your very own source has already done so. And I would, once again, point out that your position is contradicted by the majority of editors in your linked discussion, who continue to raise arguments you have not refuted (myself among them). Which means, curiously, that we have evidence of a consensus of Wikipedia editors, in addition to the well-documented scientific one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: It's a straw-man to suggest I am saying we would be the very first to claim consensus, despite obviously having provided sources myself that say so. I am disappointed by the fallacious arguments - this is not how we build an encyclopedia. I got my hopes up with the journal article supposedly providing evidence for a well-documented scientific consensus - unfortunately, it didn't even mention a consensus. Did you submit the wrong link? Terjen (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Terjen, is it as obvious a straw man as this response is a red herring?
The source I gave you requires reading; you cannot simply Ctrl+F and type "consensus" and expect to understand what it's saying. I will give you a preview, however: It directly states that most authorities reject the lab leak hypothesis, and it's been presented to you before, so you should know this.
In any event, I believe I've made a convincing case, here, whether you accept it or not. So I'm going to refer you, once again, to the preponderance of editors disagreeing with you and leave this discussion. I would not advise you to attempt to edit the article to suit your assertions here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
You again fail to refute the central point. What you need is to build a solid case based on reliable sourcing directly saying there is a scientific consensus for zoonotic origin, per the stricter requirements of WP:RS/AC. It is insufficient to submit a source saying that most authorities reject the lab leak hypothesis. It obviously fails WP:RS/AC but is also, argumentatively, a false dichotomy fallacy. Terjen (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@MPants at work: Advise for better arguments as you leave the discussion: Focus on refuting the central point; Avoid constructing fallacious arguments including shifting the burden of proof (like demanding articles saying there is not a scientific consensus without having established there is one). You may find pg's hierarchy of disagreements helpful. The goal shouldn't be to win discussions by any means, but to build a better encyclopedia. Terjen (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The link to NOTHERE is not particularly civil nor warranted. As for sources, since RS/AC requires "reliable sources", and since you appear to be asking for sources which explicitly use the word "consensus" (there are many more which simply say "Most scientists think X" without using "consensus"), see the second source I cite here (for yet another slightly dated scientific journal which says the same thing), and also the recent sources listed previously (bottom of this diff, which if they don't use "consensus" use very similar wording), which you're surely aware of by now, including this (which says it explicitly). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: Apart from POPSCI, considering your links there are only a couple of WP:MEDRS papers directly saying there is a scientific consensus on the origin:
This is underwhelming substantiation of a scientific consensus. We also have the Frutos paper from March 2021, but it only cites the March 2020 statement in Lancet for a consensus claim without further substantiation. Is this all? Terjen (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The problem is I can't find any MEDRS which contradicts this, from either before or after the WHO report. So, as correctly written and sourced in one of the other articles, the popular press has gone from basically one end of the spectrum to the other while the scientists have so far held out the basically consistent "possible but unsubstantiated and unlikely". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Terjen,You've gotten your answer multiple times, from numerous editors. Whether you like that answer or not is, frankly, of no concern to me or anyone else on this project. As for your little temper tantrum here, I'm afraid I'd actually have to respect you for your opinion of me to matter, so by all means, fire away. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Why'd you remove the comment about your name? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
It didn't contribute to the discussion. Terjen (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. A little bit of banter when two people are disagreeing helps keep things civil. I was about to respond to it by noting that we almost named one of my sons Dustin when we found out it was an Anglicized version of Thorsten; literally "Thor Stone". The only reason we didn't was because there was a family name among the options, and we wanted to honor our ancestors, as all good Norsemen should. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I posted something similar on your talk page. Terjen (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • To be clear, i actually wrote that "at odds with the current scientific consensus" line and am ok changing it. That language was just a first pass to see if we could reach some kind of consensus here. Bonewah (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem of the latest edit is that it is redundant with the next sentence and that it puts up undue prominence of placement by making it look as though Wade's paper principal claim was the recognition of the scientific prevailing view, which it isn't. If there's a way to phrase this less clumsily and avoid the redundance, that would be best. Otherwise, we're better sticking to summarising the main elements, which are A) Wade published a piece claiming the virus comes from a lab and B) This is at odds with the prevailing scientific view. That Wade acknowledged B is not particularly an important detail of A. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    Wade didn't claim that the virus came from a lab. That is a misrepresentation of Wade's claim, as is the current wording in the article (Wade...advanced the claim that COVID-19 originated from a leak....). Wade was very clear that he was not making any definitive claim about the origins of the virus, saying: "It’s important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory. Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer." He reiterates this point in his conclusion, which reads as follows: "There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached. That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence." Stonkaments (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Your objection to the wording makes no sense. The term advance the claim means to promote or advocate for the claim, which Wade clearly does in the passage you quote, when he asserts that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence. NightHeron (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
"Advance the claim" is ambiguous and leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation—it could imply anything ranging from definitive and unqualified support for a claim, to a carefully qualified argument supporting the plausibility of a claim. This is especially important to get right on a WP:BLP, as the false claim that "Wade published a piece claiming the virus comes from a lab" could arguably be libel. I've added the qualifier "likely", which helps clarify somewhat, but I still think that alternate wording should be pursued. Stonkaments (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Sure, adding the word "likely" makes sense. NightHeron (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
This argument makes no logical sense whatsoever. Wade alleges a conspiracy to obfuscate what he clearly believes to be the actual origins of the virus. He falsely claims there is no evidence to support either theory, when there is actually biochemical evidence that the virus had not been the subject of study prior to the pandemic. He states in conspiratorial tones that the zoonotic origin "had gained not a shred of supporting evidence in over a year", despite the fact that that's exactly what we'd expect, under the circumstances. He even goes so far as to state clearly (contradicting his earlier statement about the absence of evidence) that "The evidence above adds up to a serious case that the SARS2 virus could have been created in a lab."
It would be a direct violation of WP:V to allege that he did anything other than to advance this view. Adding the word "likely" is fair enough, but altering the wording to suggest that Wade was merely speculating about the possibilities, and not explicitly supporting the lab leak theory would be inexcusably deceptive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Let's look at how secondary sources describe Wade's article:
  • "Nicholas Wade published an argument for taking the laboratory-origin hypothesis seriously."[2]
  • "And this month, the former New York Times science reporters Nicholas Wade and Donald G. McNeil Jr. have written long essays on Medium outlining why they take the lab leak hypothesis seriously."[3]
  • "...it might be the most-likely explanation of the origin of the pandemic. That's the conclusion that acclaimed science journalist Nicholas Wade came to recently in a detailed post on Medium, where he meticulously examines the Wuhan lab-leak hypothesis, and finds the case for it plausible but unproven, while the case against it, and for a natural origin, is shockingly thin."[4]
These sources are in agreement that Wade was arguing that the lab leak theory is highly plausible, and should be taken seriously. But none of them characterize it as anything akin to "advancing the claim" that the lab leak occurred. So aren't we obligated to find a better wording that better matches the description in reliable secondary sources? Any interpretation of Wade's article that isn't supported by secondary sources would be WP:OR. Stonkaments (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
it might be the most-likely explanation of the origin of the pandemic is advancing the claim. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. There's no interpretation necessary to understand what is meant by this, and I'll note that the link from The Week quite obviously comes to the same conclusion with it's remark about the case for the existing consensus being "shockingly thin". Misunderstanding the difference between summary and OR is not a compelling argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

12 May 2021 edits. Wade's response to criticism

In regard to this edit series, i support the inclusion of Wade's response to his critics. This seems obvious to me that if criticism of his work is notable enough for inclusion, his response is presumptively worth including as well. The edit summary provides no real indication as to what the problem is, only that we should take it to talk. Ok, here we are. What exactly is the problem with this material? Bonewah (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of the history (which may be incomplete) is: On 2 December 2014 31.48.190.58 added the critical letter. On 16 January 2015, 84.121.56.93 added Mr Wade's reply. On 22 April 2021, Generalrelative removed Mr Wade's reply. Then Dcrellin and 98.116.80.134 and John2510 tried to re-insert but Generalrelative reverted them all. I believe that Generalrelative is correct to say that a consensus is required to re-insert Mr Wade's reply, and I believe that the editors who oppose Generalrelative are correct to point out that the response to the critique is allowable and would provide some balance. However, I propose: get rid of the critique too. It is a letter to the editor so removal could be justified with WP:BLPSPS and a consensus would be required to re-insert it. Would each side accept that? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
For my part, that seems acceptable. The letter and reply dont say much that we dont already say elsewhere and the citation (currently ref 14) could be moved to the next sentence "Other scientists argued that Wade had misrepresented their research". I imagine we could find a place for the citation used in the removed text as well. Bonewah (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bonewah: Thanks for opening up this discussion. My case for not including the response was stated in my edit summary: Wade's reply is WP:UNDUE when weighed against the stated view of over 100 geneticists and biologists. That policy states, in part: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. If you're skeptical that Wade's view really represents such a tiny minority, just look at the wide variety of critical sources cited at the main article A Troublesome Inheritance. Perhaps I should also have pointed to WP:FRINGE, since one of the things these geneticists are criticizing Wade for is the view that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence. An RfC over at Race and intelligence has recently affirmed that this view is fringe and therefore needs to be treated consistently with that guideline. How the language here would reflect that can certainly be debated, and I'd be happy to do so. For the record I'd be happy to include a paraphrase of Wade's denial that his book supports this fringe view, but not his accusation that all of these scientists have simply not read it.
@Peter Gulutzan: Thanks to you for compiling that timeline. I will just add that 1) Dcrellin and 98.116.80.134 appear to qualify as WP:SPAs, so their edits alone would typically not be considered as building a consensus. And 2) WP:SELFPUB makes it clear that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. That applies to all of the nearly 140 geneticists who signed the letter. Further, this letter was discussed at length in a secondary source, in this case Science: [5] That's not just some letter to the editor. That is a major and thorough repudiation which is newsworthy in and of itself. If anythings, we should cut the views of David Dobbs and Charles Murray, neither of whom are experts in the filed of genetics. Generalrelative (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I find Wade's response to be somewhat disingenuous: While it's true that the book does not posit a genetic link between intelligence and race, and indeed acknowledges the consensus view that such a link is unlikely, the book nonetheless works very hard to posit a mechanism by which such a link could work as well as claiming that such a mechanism is likely to exist (indeed, that's the central thesis of the book). On top of that, his book assigns a genetic importance to race which is not found in the views of actual geneticists (hence much of the criticism).
With that in mind, I agree with Generalrelative that adding Wade's response would be an exercise in false balance. The suggestion that Wade's response carries any appreciable weight in comparison to the critiques from dozens (if not hundreds) of scientists is spurious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with the assertion that Wade's response is either false balance or should be weighed against other scientists views with an eye towards Undue. We are not presenting Wade's views as correct or incorrect, we are simply presenting them as Wades views. If this were an article about Race and intelligence for instance, then i would agree with you that Wade's responses would have no place in that article. However, this is not an article about race, its an article about Wade. Indeed WP:WEIGHT states in part: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as flat Earth). (emphasis mine). This is an article about Wade, and by extension, his views, and so this is the appropriate place to represent them. WP:FALSEBALANCE agrees, saying in part "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity" (emphasis mine again). Again, we are not doing that here. Moreover, if either false balance or undue was an issue, then the problem would be with including Wade's books about the subject of race and genetics, not with his response to criticism of the book. Look at the preceding paragraph in the article. It contains the line "...in which he argued that human evolution has been "recent, copious, and regional" and that genes may have influenced a variety of behaviours that underpin differing forms of human society." Thats the fringe claim, not some note that his critics are wrong. But even there we are not running afoul of any Wikipedia rule. There is no problem with articles that describe fringe beliefs and their adherents. The issue is in presenting those fringe views in articles about the mainstream view. Bonewah (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with the assertion that Wade's response is either false balance or should be weighed against other scientists views with an eye towards Undue. Considering that over a hundred scientists have concluded "this book supports a racist view of intelligence," it's fair to call that "commonly accepted mainstream scholarship." Wade dismisses this without addressing their arguments in a way that would be WP:UNDUE even were he an expert in the subject, arguing against a single other expert. When one considers that he's a non-expert arguing with over a hundred experts... Yeah, that's a false balance.
Indeed WP:WEIGHT states in part: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as flat Earth). (emphasis mine). I don't see how that is a positive argument for the inclusion of Wade's claim that most scientists haven't read his book. In fact, WP:WEIGHT also says "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view," and the claim that "none of these scientists have actually read my book" is, without a doubt, a minority view so tiny as to be insignificant.
Now, my opposition is not to the inclusion of Wade's response at all, but to the inclusion of the ridiculous (and rather petulant) notion that none of the signatories had read his book. If you were to write something that better characterized Wade's response without lending weight to his numerous fallacies, I'd be okay with that. For example:

Wade responded, claiming they had misrepresented the claims in the book, and saying that it presented a "principled" objection to racism.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
+1 to this suggested text. Very much in line with my suggestion above that we include a paraphrase of Wade's denial that his book supports this fringe view, but not his accusation that all of these scientists have simply not read it. Generalrelative (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I also support this proposed language. I would slightly prefer just the first half, ending it at "...book." It's important to maintain the WEIGHT on the objections of a large group of scientists by keeping our note on Wade's response brief. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that any editor's personal view of the substance or validity of an entry is relevant. When there is disagreement like this, the best solution is to provide the reader with both sides and let him decide. It's unfair to provide only one side of an argument, especially when elimination of the other side is based upon editors' personal views on the validity of the arguments. John2510 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that any editor's personal view of the substance or validity of an entry is relevant. Once again, we have someone attributing something they don't like to a "personal view". What I wrote was not a personal view. One of the central theses of Wade's book is that race is much more genetically meaningful than geneticists have claimed it is, a thesis which, when combined with his other cherry-picked assertions about racial genetics and the heritability of IQ form a mechanism by which the relationship between IQ and race could be explained (assuming that Wade were actually correct in his numerous assertions). This is not opinion, but rather a logically inescapable consequence of any informed reading of the book. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
That boils down to: You're certain that your conclusion is "inescapably" right to any "informed" person, therefore readers should be prevented from reading the opposing view. John2510 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, prove me wrong, then. You've read the book, right? And you have a functioning grasp of genetics as it pertains to race, right? Until then, your objections are nothing but hollow rhetoric. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I also support inclusion of Wade's defense. As a fallback, I would support removal of both the attack and the defense. I think it's absurd to suggest that an individual's defense of his personal position is UNDUE, simply because he is making it himself, rather than as a group. Generally, when an individual's actions are attacked in a public way, the significant and relevant defense is the one that person gives.John2510 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Including Wade's defense is appropriate. Stonkaments (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I also note that Wade's defense of his actions was quoted in the Science article that is cited as a source for the attack. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/geneticists-decry-book-race-and-evolution Apparently, Science thought his position was significant and appropriate to include. I submit that WP should as well. It disturbs me to see materials actively omitted from articles for the reasons stated here - because editors disagree with their substance. Readers should be provided with the opportunity to consider both sides of any argument worth including.John2510 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Readers should be provided with the opportunity to consider both sides of any argument worth including. That's what we're discussing here: whether his response is worth including.
It disturbs me to see materials actively omitted from articles for the reasons stated here - because editors disagree with their substance. I have good news for you then. No one is basing their position here on such reasons. You've simply misread the discussion above. Generalrelative (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Seriously? If both sides of the argument are to be included, then we need to include his response, and not just the attack. It's apparent the editors of Science realized the need for that. John2510 (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Seems there is some support to simply excluding the block quotes entirely, which is fine by me. That a controversial book solicited criticism and resposes to same is unremarkable, and, as such, should be just removed. Ive made a compromise edit, feel free to modify, revert, etc so long as you discuss why here. Bonewah (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
That edit was not even close to a compromise, and in fact, resembles more the sort of edit I might expect from some random edgelord IP who decided to troll this discussion. Please don't make such an edit again. Both me and Generalrelative have proposed compromises, including specific wording in my case, which Generalrelative has endorsed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
That a controversial book solicited criticism and resposes to same is unremarkable. What kind of reasoning is this? It seems you're arguing that WP should not discuss responses by experts to controversial claims because of course experts will challenge such claims. But I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not making such an absurd argument. Would you mind clarifying? Generalrelative (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to pile on, but I also object to the "remove it all" edit being considered a compromise. Peter Gulutzan suggested it above, Generalrelative gave a good-faith counter, and there hasn't been any discussion of it's merits since. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok then, is the core of the objection the fact that Wade's response includes the claim that the critics must not have read Wade's work? The reason i ask is the same as my response to Generalrelative: The quotes we had tells the reader almost nothing. The critics say "you misrepresented my work" Wade says "you misrepresented my work". Ok, how? In what way? The only thing we really say is that there was criticism of an ill defined nature. The quotes do nothing to clarify anything, so if the jist of it all is that there is criticism then we might as well just say that. In so far as MPants would accept a response from Wade that doesnt include claims about who read what, then.... fine i guess, but we still arent saying much. Maybe we could say something to the effect of Wade replys "As no reader of the letter could possibly guess, “A Troublesome Inheritance” argues that opposition to racism should be based on principle, not on the anti-evolutionary myth that there is no biological basis to race." Or if you prefer "Perhaps I could point out an error in one of the few specific statements in their letter. They charge me with saying that “recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results.” I say no such thing. What I do say (p. 193) is that “It may be hazardous to compare the IQ scores of different races if allowance is not made for differences in wealth, nutrition and other factors that influence IQ.”. Im not in love with block quotes in general, but if we are going to quote Wade's reply then we should at least quote something that provided the reader with useful information. Bonewah (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
In so far as MPants would accept a response from Wade that doesnt include claims about who read what, then.... fine i guess, but we still arent saying much. The whole point of this discussion is to determine how much to say about Wade's response. Given the vast difference in expertise and numbers here "not much" is pretty much the target. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Again, i want to emphasize, this is not an article about race and genetics, its an article about Nicholas Wade. And i see no reason to paraphrase Wade's response to his critics while quoting those critics directly. If the problem really is the part where Wade says his critics must not have read his works, then perhaps we simply say "Wade responded in a letter "“A Troublesome Inheritance” argues that opposition to racism should be based on principle, not on the anti-evolutionary myth that there is no biological basis to race.". At least that quote tells the reader something sort of informative. Bonewah (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Why on earth would we want to use this BLP as a platform to uncritically present Wade's fringe view that the scientific consensus on race is an anti-evolutionary myth? As to the rest of your argument, i.e. (I see no reason..., the reason is presented very clearly in WP:NPOV, one of our core policies. Neutrality does not mean presenting both sides; it means presenting all sides according to WP:DUE weight; and in this case Wade's own view counts for almost nothing when weighed against essentially the entire scientific community. There is no ambiguity here. Generalrelative (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Again, i want to emphasize, this is not an article about race and genetics, its an article about Nicholas Wade. Again, I want to emphasize that this argument is a non-sequitur. Our policies on WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE apply to the whole project, just like WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:MPOV do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
For me, that claim about critics not reading is not the core of my objection, although I agree it's problematic. I'm mostly focused on WEIGHT. Many scientists promoting a consensus view are criticizing one scientist who promotes a fringe view; we should reflect the asymmetry in this article. There are many single-sentence summations (not direct quotes) of Wade's letter that I would support including. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll just add to this that Wade is not a scientist. He's a journalist. And he now writes for blacklisted publications like the NY Post. Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

At this point, there doesn't appear to be a consensus to include the attack in the absence of his defense, which calls for both to be removed. John2510 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Given that A Troublesome Inheritance promotes a fringe view claiming evolutionary genetic effects on differences in IQ and in social/political activities between races and nations -- a view that's rejected by the consensus of geneticists -- it is sufficient that we have the one sentence that's already there quoting a well-known person (Charles Murray) in support of those fringe views. Any more attention to that POV would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. The current version of that section looks fine to me. The operative policy in such a case is WP:FRINGE. NightHeron (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
John2510's statement is correct, and NightHeron's statement is false, WP:FRINGE is not a policy. However, WP:BLPSPS is a policy and Mr Wade is alive. And Generalrelative did not give a "counter" to what I said -- WP:SELFPUB does not trump WP:BLPSPS and anyway read the last sentence of WP:SELFPUB before quoting it again. At least 3 editors have said they would accept removal, and re-insertion after removal would require consensus (WP:ONUS, WP:BLPUNDEL), nobody tried to "counter" that observation. However, I don't dare do the removal because I think there is an edit war in progress. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the worst wikilawyerly argument I've ever read. Ever.
It carries absolutely no weight with me, and has made a serious dent in the weight I will ascribe any argument you make in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've removed quotes from criticism pending any consensus to include them in the absence of his defense. I've left mention of the criticism, together with the footnotes, so that any reader may explore the issue further if he chooses to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

^I have no idea who's comment this is^ mine starts below. Bonewah (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

<-Ok lets start from the top. @Mpants and @generalrelative, the reason i keep emphasizing the fact that this is an article about Nicholas Wade and not one on Race and Genetics is because the subject of an article is what determines what constitutes fringe views and, more importantly, what 'claims' are even being made in the first place. Lets look at WP:Fringe theories. The 'in a nutshell' sums up what im talking about nicely "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear." (bolding mine). The bolded statement is the relevant one here. So an article about Race and Genetics would be the 'mainstream idea' noted above and the *contents* of Wade's book would be the 'idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field'. However, since this is an article about Wade himself the claims that Wikipedia are making are threefold:

  1. That Nicholas Wade wrote a book titled 'A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History'
  2. The the book in question solicited (notable, in my opinion) objections from geneticists et al.
  3. That Nicholas Wade responded to those critics.

The contents of Wade's book is mostly irrelevant in this regard because we are not presenting the contents of the book as either true or false, we are merely noting that Wade wrote them, as is appropriate in a biography. So, @Firefangledfeathers as well, while its important to note that the contents of Wades book runs counter to the mainstream view, this article is not the forum to weigh those claims. Additionally, because we are not making any claims about the contents of the book, WP:FRINGE is not relevant here.

Ok, moving on. @NightHeron, if a one sentence quote from Charles Murray is sufficient, then i propose we remove the quote from Murray (which also adds nothing to the article) and replace it with one from Wade which is, at least, responsive to the criticism we also feel is notable. And, i want to re-iterate, i do feel that his critics claims are notable enough to be included here, i just dont think this is the place to litigate those claims.

@Firefangledfeathers, why should we use a direct quote from his critics but not one from Wade himself? Honestly, if you want to write a summary of the whole thing that quotes neither, im fine with that, depending on the wording, of course. But if we are going to quote his critics directly, then we should do the same for Wade. I see no reason for the dissimilarity.

Hopefully this clears up my position on this. Bonewah (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The unattributed entry above, and the edit, were mine. Sorry. John2510 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
the subject of an article is what determines what constitutes fringe views That literally flies in the face of WP:FRINGE and is not, and has not ever been a policy or guideline on this project. There is a proposal above with three editors behind it. Either get behind it yourself, or offer your own. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
No it is literally what fringe says. As for your demands that i "get behind it yourself, or offer your own" i did offer my own, here based on what the editors in question claimed was their issue. And what was your oh so helpful response? To call me a troll diff, even taking the time to go back and make your comment even more caustic that it was already. Bonewah (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Fringe views are fringe regardless of the subject of the article. Since you contend that FRINGE says "literally" the opposite, can you point to that part of the policy. If you are suggesting that your quotation of the policy above justifies your view, I think you need to explain further. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
You say this article is not the place to weigh fringe claims against mainstream views, but I am certain that the correct such place is everywhere on Wikipedia. There should be no dark corners or walled garden of Wikipedia where fringe views are presented uncritically.
I am very far from understanding how you are interpreting FRINGE. In your quote from the nutshell, I find the two sentences you didn't bold to be pertinent. This article is either "about the minority viewpoint" or it isn't. If it is, then we need to contextualize. If it is not, then we should minimize. Part of FRINGE, WP:ONEWAY, is specifically about fringe mentions in "other articles":

Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories. Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources.

 You see no reason for dissimilarity in this article's treatment of Wade and his critics, I see the discrepancy as mandated by our policies and good sense besides. Do you believe, in general, that BLP articles about purveyors of fringe theories should give equal weight to them and their mainstream critics? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I literally have nothing more to say to editors who insist upon lying about policy and making WP:POINTy edits. I don't care what you think about any of this. The only proposal that's gotten any traction here was mine, so I'm implementing it, and ready to call in an admin when the inevitable edit war starts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    At least three editors have expressed support for removing the critique quote in the absence of Wade's defense, so I don't think it's accurate to say that your proposal is the only one that's gotten any traction. Stonkaments (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    Stonkaments, the denial is classic WP:MANDY stuff and should be excluded because WP:PROFRINGE. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
You think that makes a consensus? This is right now 3 against three, and your side has:
Misrepresentations about policy.
Pointy edits.
POV pushing.
That's not a consensus. At best, there's no consensus for anything, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say there was a consensus. I said your claim that your proposal was the only one with any traction was false. At best, there's no consensus for anything, here. I agree, so let's work towards that before making any more changes. Generalrelative made a bold change and was reverted; the next step in the WP:CYCLE is discussion. Stonkaments (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Let me try a simpler formulation. This is not the place to discuss the rightness or wrongness of Wade's book. This is a biography, not an article about race. @ Firefangledfeathers to answer your question directly, I believe BLPs are for biographical information. There is ample reason to include a brief note of criticisms, where relevant (and, again, I think these criticisms are relevant here) and ample reason to note his reply. Keep in mind that all this yammering about Fringe, about Undue, about a dozen other rules people think apply is over a *single sentence*. Hell, its even less than that, its about if we should quote the man or paraphrase him. But here we all are, so ill put it back to you; you said you were ok paraphrasing his reply, but not quoting him directly. Why? And if you were to write the paraphrase, what would you say? Bonewah (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I really think you need to look up the definitions of "compromise" and "whitewash", because you really seem to be confusing the two. The reaction to this book is a big part of what makes Wade notable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
My preference is to exclude his response entirely. As a compromise, I am okay with a short paraphrase. Why a paraphrase but not a quote? Because full quoting gives Wade's view more weight than short paraphrasing. My compromise paraphrase would be a truncated MjolnirPants suggestion: "Wade responded, claiming they had misrepresented the claims in the book."
I get that this discussion is intense and none of us can maintain our perfectly polite posture forever, but I have to object to "yammering" as a description of good-faith application of Wikipedia policy. The fact that there are "a dozen" guidelines cautioning against inclusion of Wade's response is revealing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

If Wade defends Wade against more than 100, he is in the position of a tiny minority. So: Whether we like or not, according to WP:DUE there is only one option: The cristicism has to be included, his response not. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as Due requires us to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." and the source we are quoting thought it necessary to repproduce Wade's response in full, I would say that the prominence of Wade's viewpoint is actually greater than those of his critics. But if we are going to endeavor to fairly represent this debate, and fairness is the important part of Due that so many seen to want to overlook, then the fair way to do it is to either carefully quote both, or carefully paraphrase both. Bonewah (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bonewah: Rsk6400's argument is based on what the policy WP:DUE says. As to your statement that the prominence of Wade's viewpoint is actually greater than those of his critics –– when Wade is a science journalist reporting on genetics and "his critics" in this one instance are 139 genetics professors –– I find it utterly baffling how someone (even in their very subjective view of fairness) could think this. It is certainly diametrically opposed to the principle of due weight. Generalrelative (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
If this were an article about genetics, then you would be right. It is not. Its an article about Wade. And the viewpoints being expressed here are 1) Wade wrote a book. 2)the geneticists in question feel wade misrepresented their work and 3) Wade thinks his critics misrepresented his work. To give voice to Wade's critics while silencing him is manifestly unfair, which is exactly what Due tells us to avoid. The science article we use as a citation published Wade's response in full and is, therefore, the view (that Wade feels the critics misrepresent his work) that is most prominently represented in the published, reliable source. And what does Due tell us to do in that circumstance? Represent them in proportion to how the sources represent them. Bonewah (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
It's an article about Wade, who wrote about genetics, so the views of geneticists are indeed deserving of a good deal of weight. Wikipedia is not "silencing" a widely-published author if we refrain from giving them the last word about their book (particularly when Mandy Rice-Davies applies to that last word). XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Note that MANDY says, in part: If a reliable source has checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so, which is the case here.[6][7] Stonkaments (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:Mandy is an essay, not policy. And pretty much everyone has said that the geneticists views are deserving of inclusion here. And if removing what someone said isn't silencing them, then you and I have different definitions of what might constitute silencing. This is even more absurd when you consider that the source for this reprinted Wade's reply in full and as the last word. But I guess reiterating that WP:DUE and WP:NPOV in general both say that we must represent views "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" won't do much good at this point. Even though the published, reliable source we use does exactly what you say we must not do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonewah (talk • contribs) 17:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
It's an essay, but an essay that makes a good point. Running a reply after the piece it replies to is typical practice for many publications, particularly scientific journals; it does not indicate that the publication in question regards the reply as the definitive take. And to say that omitting a statement about the thoroughly unremarkable event of an author standing by his own book is "silencing" strikes me as quite hyperbolic. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
you and I have different definitions of what might constitute silencing That is true. You have a wrong definition. Galileo Galiei was silenced. Giordano Bruno was silenced. Nikolai Vavilov was silenced. Wade is still free to write whatever he wants, and there is even a large newspaper ready to print it. All that happened is that one website, Wikipedia, does not cite that one quote of his. That is not silencing by any meaningful definition. Otherwise you would have to repeat everything I say, since if you do not, you are silencing me by your own definition. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Section break

It is apparent that we can't agree on a version to keep while this dicussion is taking place. I would like to propose either (a) the version with the critics' quote and Wade's quote (this was status quo before Generalrelativity's first removal) or (b) a version with no mention of the book at all. I am unsatisfied with both options, which is probably a good sign. If someone has another proposal, feel free to make it. In general, I would love to focus on building consensus and not edit warring in the meantime. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD would call for option A I believe. Stonkaments (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
How about we leave mention of the book, but take out all the details about criticisms and praise and responses and so forth until we hash out what to say? Bonewah (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The problem with including Nicholas Wades response is that it requires either a summary or a quote from it, either of which potentially misrepresents Wade's position or the position of the scientists letter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I take it then you would support an edit that either paraphrases Wade, or quotes him directly but doesn't misrepresent anyone's position? Im fairly confident that I could construct that. Bonewah (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how including Wade's quote misrepresents the position of the scientists. You could argue that Wade misrepresents the scientists (though I don't agree), and/or that the scientists misrepresent Wade, but by including both quotes (clearly attributed to their authors) and not making any claims in wikivoice, Wikipedia is simply documenting the debate and not misrepresenting either side. Stonkaments (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I could see something like, "Wade issued a statement in response to the letter disputing the allegations" Based on the Science article where it is reproduced in full as an addendum to the piece, but as there isn't any analysis of the statement in secondary sources to my knowledge, to include Wade's own reasoning is arguably undue. My own point is that one could take one of several sentences made by Wade in the statement as a quote, which could variously make Wade's response appear differently. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: see here where I did something very similar, which Stonkaments reverted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
So is the dispute over whether the letter should be included or over whether Wade's response should? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Wade's response. The Scientists' letter quote was removed in the middle of the discussion about Wade's response, in an extremely WP:POINTY way, with Bonewah calling that a "compromise". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The dispute was originally about Wade's response. Fairly early on in the discussion, some editors began disputing inclusion of the letter as well, especially in saying that both should be included, or neither. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Or, at least as far as I'm concerned, both can be paraphrased. The notion that somehow Undue or Fringe requires us to paraphrase or exclude Wade's response while quoting his critics in full is nonsense. @Hemiauchenia:, if you were to paraphrase the scientists criticisms, what would you say? Bonewah (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The notion that somehow Undue or Fringe requires us to paraphrase or exclude Wade's response while quoting his critics in full is nonsense. [citation needed] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
A quote from a document produced by 139 experts in the fields of population genetics and genetic biology balanced against a letter of refutation by one journalist—if Wikipedia and its editors are to be fact and scientific research based, policy requires that the first document be quoted and the second be paraphrased. Otherwise split the article; a short bio of the subject in one hand ad reviews of his books in the other. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 02:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicholas_Wade/Archive_3&oldid=1087970361"