Talk:Nicholas Wade/Archive 4

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

Rapid-fire edits not an improvement

The rapid-fire edits by AnimalParty include changes that lack consensus (ranging from "English" instead of "British" to a WP:FALSEBALANCE edit giving psychologists and economists equal prominence to geneticists in response to Wade's book). The immediate re-insertion of material I reverted violates WP:ONUS and WP:EW. All of these edits should be reverted and brought to the talk-page. NightHeron (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted that series of edits, but restored the latest edit by Shibbolethink. The edits I reverted should be discussed on the talk-page before restoring them. NightHeron (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am seeking to expand this article to reflect events that happened earlier than 2014 or May 2021, and to include other significant views per WP:NPOV. I welcome others' help in this task. User:NightHeron, do you object to this? I'm using English because that's what is used in Gale Contemporary Authors, and I'm under the impression that people are generally referred to as English or Welsh or Scottish rather than British. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Let's see what other editors think. There's no hurry. I particularly disagree with the false balance. The opinions of people without any expertise in the subject should not be used to counterbalance the statements by the scientists whose work Wade's claims were supposedly based upon. NightHeron (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Where you see false balance, I see seeking to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The topic in this case is Nicholas Wade who is a science writer and journalist, who has been significantly covreed by scholars and commoners alike. The topic is not genetics, nor human evolution, nor the history of science, nor virology. Thus, proportionate coverage of views from all relevant reliable sources is on the table. A scientific theory of genetics can should largely be shaped by the views of geneticists, but a popular science book about genetics and human evolution can be also be critiqued by historians, historians of science, psychologists, etc. I think there is too much coverage of one book here already, which makes it dangerously close to a WP:COATRACK. And yes it was largely disliked by scientists, but that doesn't mean short mention of the existence of some praise is forbidden, especially when it doesn't at all tip the balance of opinion. Troublesome Inheritance aside, why object to the mention that one book has received an award? Isn't that part of why he has a Wikipedia article? Should we discount the Pulitzer Prize for Guns, Germs, and Steel, or neglect to mention it on Jared Diamond's because the Pulitzer committee don't have enough anthropology PhDs for our liking? If you only allow critical sources that pass a purity test, or reject plain statements of facts, then you're violating WP:NPOV. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
No, WP:FRINGE and WP:SOURCETYPES both strongly favour scholarly sources WITHIN THE RELEVANT FIELD. Wade is making claims about genetics, hence the relevant field is genetics, not economics or psychology. There was an RfC on how to describe this (it's not even archived yet) - and the outcome of that was rather clear. Please get aware of that before running around all over the place. The "bull in a chinashop" metaphor immediately comes to mind. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
The source used to support the new statements ([1]) is also blindingly clear about the topic:

So is Wade right? Are there human races? Is the variation seen between different cultures and locations best explained by genetic differences between human populations? And have anthropologists been turning a blind eye to the evidence in front of them? There is no shortage of scientific information, and it gives a clear answer: no.

Using just the few paragraphs from the source which talk about this, but not also including a more stinging, thorough critique of Wade would seem to be at best selective and at worst misleading usage of the source to me... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Specific claims in the article

Both sides of this argument should focus on what Wade actually claimed in his Medium piece. Right now there is nothing in the paragraph that mentions the specific claims. A subsequent paragraph can critique or support his claims and the two different links to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 or COVID-19 misinformation can be debated there. Thriley (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Which of Wade's claims do you feel we should mention specifically? Im not categorically opposed to the idea, but im wary of potential OR issues. Bonewah (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
All of his claims. There should be a summary of the piece and his major claims. I think there are enough reliable sources to make a summary. The summary paragraph should be as accurate, with emphasis on the points he emphasized. A subsequent paragraph can critique/support his various points. Thriley (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • There might be enough coverage of this piece to make its own article. See the sources mentioned in the section above. If so, then a run-down of his claims (and, per WP:FRINGE, the debunkings of those claims, and per WP:NPOV, the credulity of non-experts towards them) would be warranted. If we're going to cover it here, however, we should make a new subsection, as AnimalParty did for the A Troublesome Inheritence bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I have no real confidence that a separate article wont just turn into a POV fork, given the eagerness of editors to 'debunk' Wade's claims whether the rules allow for it or not. But, frankly, im just here because this is a biography and, therefore, requires special attention. As far as im concerned, make a new article, link to it here and cut down whats here to a simple, neutral sentence or two and ill happily leave you to it. Your not the only one who tires of all this. Bonewah (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Nobody's eager to debunk Wade's claims. Mostly because it's already been done for us by high quality sources. And if you're tired of of your refusal to accept a clear consensus, then there's a simple solution for that, isn't there? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate Bonewah‘s contribution. It seems that some editors are very eager to “debunk” Wade’s claims without actually describing what the claims actually are. Wikipedia is an excellent place for countering misinformation and bad science, but I don’t think the paragraph as it currently stands does a very good job at that. It feels quite lopsided and doesn’t inform the reader about the overall situation. I think it would be a great thing if the editors that have been in conflict could try to write an accurate summary of Wade’s claims and then a second paragraph that gets into the controversy/science of each particular claim. Thriley (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia might be an excellent place for countering bad science, but Wade's *biography* is not. We have a whole page on covid's origins and, if thats not enough, we are free to make one on this particular article. I see no reason why we should turn this biography into a WP:coatrack. Trust me, anyone coming to this article can click on a link just fine. Bonewah (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Thriley as I just pointed out: There's no-one here attempting to debunk Wade's claims, because reliable sources have already done that. The text in the article about this has grown over time as new sources have come in, and originally simply stated that Wade published a piece whose claims were at odds with the scientific consensus. If you believe this needs a point-by-point debunking, well, there's nothing stopping you from writing that. I personally am just fine with it the way it stands, though it appears that Shibbolethink might be gearing up to expand our coverage of it with their recent edits.
However, if you want that discussion to be exhaustive (to note each point Wade makes, and the response from experts), then that would absolutely need its own article. Which, again, seems likely to pass WP:GNG to me. However, I've got multiple other projects to work on, and I simply don't have time to compile all the sources, go through them all and do it. If you want it done, you should start working on it yourself. I'll help where I'm able, as will others, I'm sure. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Nah, I just felt it was important to have a bit about the BAS piece in the lead. I really have no interest in doing anything else, I think the article is good as is. Personally I think an entirely separate article about Wade's claims would be UNDUE, because secondary sources rarely mention each and every thing Wade wrote in there. And I think the necessity of putting it all in Wade's voice and countering it with proper context from scientists etc in WP:RSes means that the article would end up really convoluted. I think the maxim "viewers can click a link" applies. If they want to read Wade's article, they can. If they want to read something that debunks his article, I believe we have that in the refs too.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Currently the article links Wade’s claims directly to COVID-19 misinformation without stating what those claims are. I don’t think that is acceptable. I think about three sentences on Wade’s claims would be best to be encyclopedic. Thriley (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Nope, not litigating this again. I don't really care if you think it's acceptable or not; there's a firm consensus to keep that link, so unless you want to do the work of expanding this yourself (and you think you can build a consensus to keep that expansion in the article, which is unlikely), you're shit out of luck. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I did not propose removing the link. I proposed expansion. Please don’t be rude to me. I do all my editing in good faith. Thriley (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
We cannot add his fringe claims without also adding mainstream sources refuting them. See WP:FRINGE. But adding all that has not gained consensus, and you will not achieve consensus by repeating that you want it and repeating that you think it would be best. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not advocating for not refuting any fringe claims. I am advocating for an expansion of the section. Thriley (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, it seems I have to do this. I repeat what I just said in boldface: that has not gained consensus, and you will not achieve consensus by repeating that you want it and repeating that you think it would be best.. Did I make myself clear now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, one moment, I noticed that I have probably not. So, once more: saying, "I am advocating for an expansion of the section" is not advocating for anything. Repeating your position over and over again is not advocating. Of course, repeating myself is what I am doing now, but that is because you have not been listening and this seems to be the right way to communicate with you because it is the way you communicate.
We all know what your position is. We have known it from the start because you have written it down - see above, 15:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC). Your position has not gained any traction, and repeating it will not help.
Yes, I know what you want to say now. You want to say that you want an expansion of the section. Don't say it. We already know. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Problems with added external links

The first two are essentially search results (long compendia of articles in the NY Times or of TV appearances), in violation of WP:ELNO item 9; the third violated WP:ELMO item 1. These are not the types of external links that are normally included in a BLP. NightHeron (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Let's look some similar BLPs of other notable science writers: Carl Zimmer - 6 links, including official website, one of his blogs, C-Span appearances, and appearances on vlogs; David Quammen - 8 links including C-Span (video), and numerous links to NPR interviews; Darren Naish - 1 link; Matt Ridley - 13 links, including video, blogs, individual bits of writing, etc., Ed Yong- 4 links. I am not aware of Wade having an official website, therefore a small number of links is useful to help unbiased readers gain better understanding of the topic, following the spirit of MOS:FURTHER: An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject (recognizing, for the pedants, that Further reading is technically different from External links). But let's not Wiki-lawyer over content guidelines. It should be common sense that an article about a writer would have a discreet link to demonstrate the writing itself. I feel a single link to his 18 appearances on Charlie Rose gives readers an opportunity to see him speak, regardless of whether they agree with his views or not. From a journalistic and history of science perspective, another useful link would be his Oral History Collection at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, which felt it was significant to compile and categorize his reflections on science journalism, interviewing James D. Watson, etc. I honestly don't care at all about IMDB, but it is a widely used template. I believe 3 links with high educational value is not at all excessive, and would be appropriate even if this article was FA-class. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
As I stated in my edit, a good example article to follow is Wade’s New York Times colleague Nicholas Kristof. Kristoff has links to his NY Times and New York Review of Books writings, and his C-SPAN appearances. Thriley (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
There's a difference between a well-known mainstream writer and someone whose notability comes in large part from advocacy of fringe views. However, I don't think the external links are an important issue, so unless other editors come into the discussion, as far as I'm concerned you can put back the first two external links (but definitely the IMDb one doesn't belong). NightHeron (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Wade is a well known mainstream writer, as his employment by The NY Times and his many appearances on Charlie Rose demonstrate. Thriley (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to add to be clear. Wade is a well known mainstream writer who has expressed some controversial opinions. He exists within the mainstream science journalism establishment. Thriley (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
He's absolutely not a part of mainstream science journalism, as evidenced by the fact that his most noteworthy achievements in the last decade has been convincing scientists to roundly denounce his writing multiple times. I mean, the suggestion otherwise is laughably ridiculous. He certainly used to be a pillar of mainstream science journalism, however.
Nonetheless, I'm perfectly fine with these links. They're not hurting anything, and it can be of interest to the reader to find those things. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I guess by “mainstream”, I meant “establishment”. If he were not part of “mainstream” science journalism, there would have been no overwhelming response by scientists to his writing. He’s not writing pamphlets on Miracle Mineral Supplement and distributing them for free on a street corner. Thriley (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikilink for lab leak hypothesis

Which is more appropriate to link to for Wade's article discussing the lab leak hypothesis: COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab origin or Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Laboratory incident? As I said in my edit summary[2] (subsequently reverted), I believe the latter is more appropriate, as secondary sources don't discuss Wade's article in the context of misinformation, but rather with respect to the valid hypothesis described in the Investigations article. Stonkaments (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there was no consensus for "COVID-19 misinformation" and conversations above show it's contentious, so it shouldn't be re-inserted if removed on good faith BLP grounds. Stonkaments's suggestion is more appropriate today but could become inappropriate the next time somebody changes the Investigations article. So I'd favour: no link. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Wade's article is promoting a deliberately engineered virus. That is misinformation, since that has been ruled out by scientists (see Science-Based Medicine, unlike the plausible but extremely unlikely accidental release of a natural virus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Wade's article is not promoting a deliberately engineered virus as a bioweapon, which is the only theory that has been ruled out by scientists. Wade discusses accidental release of an engineered virus (via gain-of-function research), which is not misinformation, and still very much a plausible hypothesis. Stonkaments (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
In addition, Wade imputes nefarious motives to the epidemiological profession. He claims that it's dominated by people with conflicts of interest and political agendas who intimidate the others. This conspiracy theory feeds the anti-science paranoia of the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers, and so falls into the category of COVID-related misinformation. NightHeron (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
As an aside, Wade has always been like this. His and William Broad's book Betrayers of the Truth depicts fraud in science as more common than the historical facts justify, and A Troublesome Inheritance opposes the scientific consensus. He is an anti-science crusader, and always has been. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • As has been pointed out multiple times now, Wade's article advances a literal conspiracy theory in alleging without evidence that any dissent from the consensus view is punished. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    Can anyone provide any secondary sources that support the assertions that Wade's article advances a conspiracy theory or misinformation? Otherwise these claims violate WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPREMOVE. Stonkaments (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    Purple cows eat red bananas on the North beach of Arkansas. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    The article currently nowhere states that Wade is promoting a conspiracy theory or misinformation (only that his view is well outside the scientific consensus), so I don't see what would need to be removed. FWIW, this (from a reputable anti-conspiracy website) quite clearly names him and rebuts his dubious claims; and this quite clearly identifies Wade as a "lab-leak proponent". This paper in a peer-reviewed journal rebuts most of Wade's re-hashed arguments (months before he even published his piece). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    The link to COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab origin would need to be removed. Stonkaments (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    The link is going to the most relevant place, i.e. promotions of theories of a deliberately engineered virus and allegations that scientists are unethical (which it doesn't take a PhD in anything to figure out is the subject of Wade's article). Again, I've also provided sources which quite explicitly name Wade as a proponent of this theory, and which rebut him. I don't see what you're objecting to. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    I'm objecting to the implication that Wade's article is spreading misinformation, which is a contentious claim unsupported by any secondary sources, and therefore must be removed per WP:BLPREMOVE. Stonkaments (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Wade's contention that the profession of epidemiologists is corrupted by COI, political agendas, and intimidation and so is not to be believed certainly qualifies as COVID-related misinformation. NightHeron (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    That is your interpretation and analysis of the source, but you need to provide a secondary source to support it. WP:BLPREMOVE says: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: 1. is unsourced or poorly sourced; 2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research) Stonkaments (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    The whole 'lab leak = misinformation' thing is WP:OR and should be dealt with. As usual with Covid related articles, there is such a tangled web that the relevant discussion should be on the COVID-19 misinformation page, not here. At a minimum, I support its removal here and agree that this is covered under WP:BLPREMOVE. Bonewah (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    The whole 'lab leak = misinformation' thing is WP:OR That is categorically untrue, and an absolutely ridiculous assertion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    Stonkaments, go read my comment about about the purple cows. It's every bit as sensible and relevant as your argument here. Your assertion that Wade's article doesn't spread misinformation is categorically false, and utterly ridiculous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    RandomCanadian, Hob Gadling, NightHeron and MPants are of course entirely correct here. Continued sealioning and edit warring on this page by a small group of tendentious POV-pushers is disruptive and boring. Generalrelative (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    The funny thing about POV-pushers is they dont always know they are doing it. Bonewah (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    As much as I enjoy the irony of this, you should probably refrain from making personal attacks here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    Those that think this comment could be a personal attack on them, should stop their disruptive behavior rather than take offense. Terjen (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    My advice to anybody who endorses personal attacks is to WP:LOOKINTHEMIRROR. Two wrongs, disregarding entirely whether there is any substance to such claims, don't make a right. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Part 2: Electric Boogaloo

  • Colleagues: please leave every bit of background knowledge and personal opinions you have about the subject at the door, no matter how reasonable or well-informed. Look to the published record. What is absolutely needed are secondary sources that explicitly refer to Wade's essay as promoting either misinformation conspiracy, or simply a version of the lab leak hypothesis. Sources that predate Wade's essay, or subsequent works that don't directly discuss it, cannot be juxtaposed to insinuate that Wade's views are one way or the other: doing so risks WP:SYN. Indeed, none of the citations following "This claim is at odds with the prevailing view" mention Wade at all. The only secondary source currently referring to Wade's essay is This Wire article, which states the essay "was seized upon by both political commentators and conspiracy theorists; it also drew comments from some scientists that the virus's origins warrant further investigation." Certainly Wade's views are open to criticism, but the lab leak hypothesis itself is not a conspiracy theory. Wade is not mentioned by name at COVID-19 misinformation nor Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. To insinuate Wade's article is COVID misinformation via sneaky wikilink is disingenuous at best, unless the consensus of directly relevant secondary sources claims otherwise. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    This has all been addressed already and the consensus here has been to reject these arguments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)@Animalparty: If you cannot present an argument that was not already addressed, I suggest you let the dead horse repose in peace. Two questions which you should think of before replying:
    1. What is the hypothesis being advanced by Wade in his paper?
    2. How have sources from people with qualifications in the relevant field opined on this hypothesis (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NOTNEWS)?
    Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    That is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. Stonkaments (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'd like to add that this is a connection that numerous sources explicitly make, and the pretense that Wade's allegations are somehow distinct from all the other, almost identical allegations which are called conspiracy theories is just that; a pretense.
Also, theres Foreign Policy debunking Wade's claims, including calling them "just speculation", Mashable directly stating that Wade's pushing the lab leak theory A virology podcast literally laughing and joking about how crappy Wade's claims are, A respected biochemist's blog directly calling Wade's work a "conspiracy theory" (Stonk, before you start whining about blogs, remember that WP:PARITY is a thing), Medika debunking Wade's claims, and a fact check of Tucker Carlson in which Carlson cited Wade for claims about gain-of-function research, for which there's "no evidence". And those are just from the first page of a google search I did the other day. Masem was absolutely right: These claims deserve to be debunked right here where they're covered, and I intend to do just that as soon as I find time to do a write-up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The comparison to WP:FLAT fails for a few different reasons. 1) This is a BLP issue, and consensus at the BLP noticeboard said it needs to be addressed. 2) The article doesn't say anything in support of Wade's claims, so the "reversed burden of proof" argument makes no sense. The burden of proof indeed lies on editors seeking to characterize Wade's article as misinformation. Stonkaments (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    You've been provided with sources. I don't know why you keep acting like they don't exist, so yes, your argument is a reversal of the burden of proof, since you have not provided any acceptable sources which speak of Wade's claim in anything but a critical fashion. When you have new sources, feel free to come back. Otherwise stop beating the poor dead horse. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    Of course, well-sourced criticism of Wade's article would clearly be appropriate to include, as MPants has said they intend to do. But that's different than simply giving it (via piped link) the blanket label "misinformation". Stonkaments (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Wade may be entirely or partly wrong, but being wrong is not a conspiracy, and having views that are not the majority is not problematic. I think we can all agree that the lab leak hypothesis is real and is being taken seriously (more so than when it was first proposed), although its veracity remains to be determined. Certain elements are more grounded than others, and a decent article would clearly state which claims are speculation, which claims are conspiratorial and which claims Wade is directly responsible for (regardless of who has seized on his writing for political purposes). Both of you are ignoring my plea to look to how reliable sources actually characterize Wade's article, so here's a summary based on some Googling.
  • Ariel Fernandez , in ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters, concludes "Clues from molecular biology uphold the artificial origin of SARS-CoV-2, reinforcing the recent investigation by journalist Nicholas Wade."
  • Axios "Former New York Times science journalist Nicholas Wade raised more questions recently with a long article noting, among other things, the paucity of any clear evidence of a zoological spillover more than 16 months after the pandemic began."
  • David Frum in The Atlantic: "[Wade's essay] accused not only the Chinese state but also the U.S. scientific community of complicity in a cover-up."
  • FactCheck.org: "Wade wrote about “two main theories” of SARS-Co-V-2’s origin: “One is that it jumped naturally from wildlife to people. The other is that the virus was under study in a lab, from which it escaped.” Wade asserted that the “clues point in a specific direction” — a lab-leak. But he said at the outset: “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."
  • Columbia Journalism Review: Wade wrote "that, as things stand, “proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence,” and Donald G. McNeil, Jr.... wrote on Medium essentially backing Wade up. "
  • Ethan Siegel in Forbes appears to be the most damming (although the article is highly opinionated): Siegal writes Wade was promoting "that it was genetically engineered with the purpose of infecting humans, that it was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and that' where it came from", and notes broader conspiracy elements that include China /WIV genetically engineered the virus to specifically wreak havoc on human populations.
  • A feature in Foreign Policy while dismissing the lab leak hypothesis (Wade would probably argue that dismissal itself is premature), states "The theories put forward by Baker, Wade, and others are enormously complicated, and they do latch on to elements of truth." (the article also appears to conflate "lab leak hypothesis" with conspiracy theory, which is not logical).
Mpants, you bring up several blogs and podcasts, and an article by "SCIENCE DUUUDE" [sic], which are of dubious reliability and strongly opinionated. Again, being wrong is not a conspiracy. Making accusations is not a conspiracy. My reading is that most of the descriptions of Wade's essay are neutral (i.e. merely stating it as Wade's view on an aspect of lab leak hypothesis) while a minority link it to larger conspiracies and social movements, and a smaller minority explicitly accuse Wade of promoting conspiracy theories. In time, hopefully more clarity will be shed on the origins of COVID, and nuances of Wade's essay might be better described in the meantime. But going by the preponderance of coverage in secondary sources I think it is premature and unwarranted to claim or infer that Wade's writing is conspiratorial. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Your sources are also of dubious reliability. Wade may be right that biosafety standards in labs need more oversight or something like that. Doesn't give a figment of truth to his wild claims of conspiracy amongst scientists and his promotion of a position which has been ruled out by relevant experts. "ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters" is not a virology journal, and I have no clue why someone writing about molecular biology would be writing in a journal about chemistry (also, "letters" in this case is likely indicative that this is an opinion piece). Compare with the excellent, review papers listed at WP:NOLABLEAK (Frutos et al. is quite thorough - quote: "There is consensus within the scientific community to consider that SARS-CoV-2 has not been engineered and is a naturally occurring virus.") and also the widely cited analysis in Nat Med by Andersen et al. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: How do WP:NEWSORG or WP:SCHOLARSHIP preclude any of my sources? All have clearly defined editorial structure, identified authors, and journalistic credibility. This article is not the place to determine whether any theory is correct. There is no policy or guideline that mandates all sources in a biographical article must come only from peer-reviewed articles in hard science journals. Also, you are using terms like "wild conspiracy" based apparently on your own reading of the article. I am basing my reasoning on the preponderance of coverage in reliable sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian Here you go again. The Frutos paper only cites the March 2020 letter in Lancet for the scientific consensus claim, without providing other references. The claim is secondary rather than the conclusion of a comprehensive review, instead part of an argument saying there was "no voluntary release" because it's "impossible to voluntarily release an engineered virus which does not exist". It's time to drop the stick. Terjen (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you might want to consider why a paper published in March of this year would cite a year old consensus and still make it through peer-review. I'll give you a hint; it's because the consensus hasn't changed since then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, for starters, Wade literally alleges a conspiracy theory. This is not subject to debate. Quote: "Any virologist who challenges the community’s declared view risks having his next grant application turned down by the panel of fellow virologists that advises the government grant distribution agency."
COming from someone who damn well knows that science doesn't work that way, that's a conspiracy theory. Full stop. And we have sources referring to it as that. This is not a debate, if you deny that Wade's article was advancing a conspiracy theory, then you're denying reality.
Note that I brought up 1 blog and 1 podcast; get your facts straight. And per WP:PARITY and WP:SELFPUB, they're all reliable, because they're all published by subject-matter experts. Also, nobody's "ignored your plea," not only have we already done that in this section which you apparently refuse to read (along with Wade's article, apparently), but I just did it again, a few comments above. Oh, and look; you responded to that comment. So you damn well knew I'd been engaging with sourcing before you accused me of not doing so.
So let's look at your bullet points.
  • Ariel Fernandez is not a credible source. He edits his own WP article, he's had multiple works of his challenged after publication (by the journals) and at least one refused publication, and another fully retracted. So yeah, I'm not surprised he'd say something which is contradicted by the majority of subject-matter experts. Especially considering that he's not a subject-matter expert. He's a drug chemist, not a virologist or epidemiologist. He's got less clue what he's talking about here than I do.
  • Axios is not saying anything shocking here. No-one in their right mind expected to have more evidence of zoonosis at this point. It takes years or decades to determine the origin of a virus.
  • The Atlantic piece was already used, but was removed by the same folks you've inspired with your refusal to read this discussion and repetition of their arguments. See WP:DISRUPT for an idea about why this isn't appreciated by those of us who actually care about improving the article.
  • I don't know why you quoted the factcheck.org article, I already summed it up.
  • That CJR bit doesn't actually say anything; it's just mentioning Wade's bit in passing. I'll quote the opening sentence of that paragraph, though: "What changed? There’s still no direct evidence to validate the lab-leak theory." I'll also note that they make it clear they consider Wade to be advancing the lab leak theory.
  • The Forbes bit was rejected long ago, because it's basically self-pub and Siegel is not an expert.
  • Wow, that's a blatant example of cherry picking from the Foreign Policy piece, which goes on to say "Beyond those crumbs of truth, however, everything is just speculation." Also, the does not, in any way "conflate 'lab leak hypothesis' with conspiracy theory", it calls Wade's assertion that there's an effort to suppress research into the origins a conspiracy theory.
So that's that. Also, Science Duuuuude has been a syndicated science reporter for several years. Using a pen name doesn't make someone unreliable. He's certainly more reliable than Ariel Fernandez, lol.
Oh, and you left out Science Based Medicine, possibly the most respected site for medical skepticism out there. They also directly call this a conspiracy theory and debunk Wade's various claims.
Now, this has been argued to death, and I'm done handing sticks to people who won't let the poor horse be buried in peace, so this is my last response humoring you. This issue has been settled already, and re-litigating it now is nothing but a waste of editors' time and energy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation link again

By my count five editors in this discussion have supported the link to misinformation, vs. another five who have opposed it, making it a clear case of no consensus. This insistence that there is any sort of consensus, or that the debate is "settled" and editors are beating a dead horse, is wrong and disruptive. Note that WP:NOCONSENSUS says: "...a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it." The link to misinformation should be removed. Stonkaments (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

By my count...
Consensus on Wikipedia isn't achieved by counting noses, it's achieved by strength of arguments, and, you, my friend, don't have that. And if you're just doing math, add my vote to linking to "providing misinformation". --Calton | Talk 12:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Consensus is not a vote count, so you ought to bring better arguments, or start an actual RFC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems fine to me to link to the misinformation article. If it's not misinformation, that should be dealt with at the misinformation article. Using a Wikilink isn't normally controversial. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    The misinformation article discusses specific instances of misinformation surrounding the lab leak hypothesis. Notice that lab leak hypothesis redirects to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, not COVID-19 misinformation. Stonkaments (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    You mean misinformation like the allegation that scientists would be punished for researching a possible lab leak? Because that's in the Wade article.
    Or his claims about the furin cleavage site being proof that the virus was engineered, which was just categorically false? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    I mean misinformation like when reliable sources use the word "misinformation" (WP:V), which you haven't provided for Wade's article. Stonkaments (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    This has already been proven beyond any reasonable standard, so I'm not going to argue about it with you anymore. Note that, even by your simplistic standard, there are now 7 editors who support this link, and only 5 who oppose it. And, as RC pointed out; you've got no arguments that haven't been thoroughly refuted already. So we're done here, there's no consensus to change it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    Its worth noting that several editors at WP:BLPN also pushed back on linking to the misinformation article. I see no reason why we shouldnt simply link to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 as that is the subject of Wade's article. This is, quite frankly, not an unreasonable request when numerous editors have expressed concerns about this link, even if there isnt a strict majority of editors who agree. Bonewah (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
    The editors who "pushed back" were all editors from this discussion except Kyohyi, who very strangely claimed that BLP standards apply to Wade's article (as opposed to Wade himself), followed that up by claiming that we shouldn't write about Wade's article here, then settled on asserting that we should write about this content in the misinformation article it's linked to, while admitting that the linking is "vague" and applies only a "broad brush label".
Alexbrn strongly supported this link, and Masem argued quite eloquently that we should expand the language describing how wrong Wade is while keeping the link, while AGFing that you guys are arguing in good faith because the current coverage isn't clear enough for you all to understand how obvious it is that Wade's article is misinformation. I'd note that Masem pushed back against Kyohyi's claims, as well.
I mean, your whole argument relies on WP:Wikilawyering that we must assume Wade is being accurate and honest in that article, we must assume that Wade's assertion that the virus leaked from the lab is not the same "lab leak" theory covered at the misinfo article, and that we must assume that the numerous sources which exist and which have been discussed in this very section don't exist because they're not used in the article. It's a completely illogical and unjustifiable argument, and it's made in support of making one of our articles less accurate.
Stonkaments has already been page blocked over this, so I'm going to leave you with a longer version of the same message I left them with: Your arguments have been systematically addressed and refuted by the majority of editors in this discussion (including the BLPN thread). You have not introduced any new arguments since the BLPN discussion. You have never once provided any evidence to support your claim that Wade's article is not misinformation.
Meanwhile, those of us supporting this link have presented dozens of sources showing that Wade's claims are false, including more than one which directly states that Wade was pushing conspiracy theories and at least one which mentions Wade's article in the context of "Covid-19 misinformation". We have addressed each of your arguments and refuted them, and we have continued to add new evidence as this discussion progressed.
I'm through discussing this with you, or with anyone else. The next comment I see here, from anyone furthering this argument (even if it's just someone replying to me with "+1, this is exactly how I feel"), I'm going to ask an uninvolved admin to review and close this discussion. Whether they want to formalize the very obvious consensus that this link is appropriate is up to them, but the horse is little more than a greasy smear on the grass at this point, while the supply of sticks seems inexhaustible. We have long since achieved a consensus, and the fact that you don't like that consensus is your problem, not ours. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
You have no special power to declare a discussion over. If you want to call an uninvolved admin, go for it, but im not going to be silenced on a talk page just because you want it. As near as i can tell, the whole notion that Wade's article = misinformation is original research by you guys. Just coming up with sources that site problems with Wade's article and then labeling that article as 'misinformation' is improper for the same reason that finding sources which site problems with De revolutionibus orbium coelestium and then calling that book as 'misinformation' is improper. As ive said before, this is not the place to adjucate these claims, but ive given up on that, just like ive given up on getting editors to adhere to Undue's requirement that we be fair and proportional. What i havent given up on is the notion of compromise, as in, maybe linking Wade's article about the a lab leak hypothesis to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 isnt so different from linking the general article about the lab leak hypothesis to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Or at least, maybe its not so wrong as to fight about it. Or you can call an admin, frankly, i dont care. Bonewah (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that my reading of the RSes linked support calling Wade's article "misinformation" in this context. I think it's actually a pretty clear consensus. Someone can start an RfC if they want, but I don't think the outcome will be against the misinformation wikify. Not based on what happened at BLPN.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Drmies has asked for this thread to be closed. I've seen these alternatives: (a) link to COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab origin (inserted and re-inserted by MPants at work + NightHeron + Generalrelative + RandomCanadian + MjolnirPants + Drmies + Chalst), (b) link to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Laboratory incident? (edited by Stonkaments), (c ) no link (suggested by me), (d) link Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#COVID-19_pandemic (suggested by Terjen in the WP:BLPN discussion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Important to consider which of these options is most in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Terjen (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

"See also" link

I've done my best to cut the Gordian Knot here and linked directly to COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis in a {{See also}} hatnote. It seemed the most logical choice, since that article discusses both the scientific investigations and the wacky conspiracy theories. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia.com entry for Wade

Here is the Encyclopedia.com entry for Wade:[3]. It may be helpful in fleshing out the article further. Obviously the entry is not an acceptable source, but it can be used to find further sources about Wade’s life and work. Thriley (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia.com entry is reproduced from the Contemporary Authors series by Gale Cengage, and is already cited multiple times (it's likely that References 1 and 2 refer to the same source). It's probably a fairly reliable source, albeit a mostly tertiary one. Tertiary sources are good for determining due weight and article structure. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I should have realized! Should the dozen books Wade has edited be listed on his article? That seems to be the standard thing to do. Thriley (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Generalrelative, I'm trying to improve this encyclopedic value of this entry by expanding it. I added some content on Wade's book so that it doesn't look like we're launching straight into an attack on it without describing it in some detail, and I did the same for his Medium article. Removing well-sourced content without discussion is indicative of the problem Thriley noted in the administrator noticeboard. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, these additions seem appropriate. Stonkaments (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the problem, frankly. As I said in my edit summary, the reaction to the book is what makes it notable enough to appear in the lead. The reader can easily read on to find out more about it. Generalrelative (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
1) The book was notable for being controversial, not simply for being widely denounced. As the article notes, psychologists and economists received it "more warmly", and several other reviews highlight Wade's courage in writing a politically incorrect book.
2) It's appropriate to mention what the book is about, before discussing the controversy. Stonkaments (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Generalrelative please see Andrew Wakefield for an example of a narrative given over what is now a widely discredited publication. This is completely missing in our article, and starts with what looks like a modern day book burning, instead of what should be a description of the book's contents for our readers. The ommission of the book description from the lead diminishes the encyclopedic value of this article. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
As I said in my recent edit summary, I'm with Generalrelative on this one. I am glad we briefly summarize the book's content in the body, but it's undue to give that summary so much attention in the lead. There's no expectation that we summarize a book before noting that it's controversial, especially when the controversy over a small part is more covered in reliable sources than the main points of the book. This is a straightforward NPOV point, and shouldn't be described as a book burning. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
79.70.173.174, thank you for providing the Andrew Wakefield article as an example. It is a much more thorough and encyclopedic article than Wade’s as it is currently. Hopefully this article can be brought up to the standards of that one. In the meantime, I think the lead should include more information about what Wade’s publications stated instead of just sentences of criticism and denouncement. Thriley (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
agree with Firefangledfeathers and Generalrelative here. Wikipedia does not have a duty to "fairness" or "accuracy" we have a duty to due-inclusion and weighted neutrality given the preponderant view of experts in the field. Even if some psychologists/econ ppl liked it, it doesn't matter if the overwhelming majority of the scientific community denounced it. The way we discuss the topic is based on that proportionality. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
This suggest a misunderstanding of NPOV, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. WP:5P2 says: We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy... The lead currently reads much more like a debate with a specific point-of-view, rather than neutrally characterizing relevant information about the book. And excluding a significant point of view is an inappropriate attempt to determine the "truth" of the matter. Stonkaments (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
You're the one who's misunderstanding NPOV, which does not say that Wade's viewpoints have to be described in the lead. The main body does give a fair, neutral description of the two viewpoints for which he's best known: 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 and he argued that the possibility that the novel coronavirus was bioengineered and had leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, couldn’t be dismissed. In a short article, that suffices. NightHeron (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
So you're arguing that because the main body gives a fair, neutral description of the controversy (i.e. accurately and in context), the lead section doesn't have to? Stonkaments (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Whether something that's in the main body also belongs in the lead depends on the particular article. If it's a short article covering several matters, then a full description of a controversy doesn't necessarily belong in the lead. Note that the sentence I quoted from the main body that describes Wade's viewpoint in A Troublesome Inheritance is in the lead of the article on the book. That doesn't mean that it belongs in the lead of the general article on Wade. NightHeron (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Whoa! the main body gives a fair, neutral description of the controversy alarmed me, it sounded like the body was not up to WP:FRINGE scratch. But it turns out the body is as WP:NPOV as the lede. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Just a reminder: believe it or not there is a difference between writing a NPOV, anti-fringe article, and writing a decent BLP article. A decent article is one that anyone, from ardent fans to fervent foes alike, can agree is well-written, balanced, encyclopedic and fair, and resembles neither an attack piece nor a puff piece. WP:BLPBALANCE states Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
That's not what NPOV means or ever meant. Wikipedia is written from a mainstream academic perspective, so Andrew Wakefield is a discredited academic and fraudster; Donald Trump has lied a lot and has been overtly racist and misogynist; Climate change is happening (even if this is somehow still the subject of political controversy); there are no Ancient astronauts; Project Veritas is far-right and a spreader of disinformation (despite the multiple rants by IPs on its talk page); so on so forth. We have no duty to please "ardent fans" or "fervent foes", whatever they may think of this article. As far as I see, this article does not look like a puff piece or an attack page, nor is it written in an unencyclopedic tone. I think this is fairly well done because all of the criticism is about Wade's writings and not about him in particular (as it should be); i.e. it is "the book" which "has been widely denounced by scientists"; and "Wade's argument" which "is at odds with the prevailing view among scientists" and has been "described as a conspiracy theory. Unless there's something I missed, I don't see anything here that is unfair or BLP-violating material. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with IP, Stonkaments, Thriley and Animalparty! that this article does not look like a balanced BLP.--Francesco espo (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    You can agree all you want, but if you just selectively ping people and don't provide any argument to back up your agreement, then it is not helpful to improving the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    I don't need to repeat their arguments in order to help improve the article. --Francesco espo (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Francesco espo: Apologies if you're already familiar with it, but if not you might want to read through the recent RfC which decided how we describe the book A Troublesome Inheritance in the article's main body: Talk:Nicholas Wade/Archive 1#Suggested language. Certainly the current discussion of how to describe this book in the lead is a separate issue, but a relate one, and related to the issue of overall tone as well. Generalrelative (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    Just agreeing with someone does not "help improve the article" in any way. Had a look at WP:VOTE recently? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicholas_Wade/Archive_4&oldid=1054111729"