Talk:Nicholas Wade/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit warring over source-supported category

There's a very high quality RS directly calling Wade's writing conspiracy theories. Furthermore, there are countless very high quality RSes calling the same theories espoused by others (and those theories espoused by all who espouse them, including Wade) conspiracy theories. Without evidence of RS pushback against this claim, the edit warring is nothing more than WP:CRYBLP and needs to stop. There's no policy justification for this, absent any sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

From the article text: Some experts have supported taking the lab leak possibility seriously, while the majority consider it very unlikely, calling it "speculative and unsupported".[26][27] Others noted the explosive and implausible nature of Wade's allegations about virologists conspiring to avoid blame for causing the pandemic,[28] with Science-Based Medicine among those calling Wade's argument a conspiracy theory.[29] In other words, there is not consensus (and the article is not saying) he is a "conspiracy theorist". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I also note that at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_3#Category:COVID-19_conspiracy_theorists several other editors suggest that the way that category is being used is resulting in BLP violations. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink on July 3 added the category, 力 reverted Shibbolethink's edit, MjolnirPants reverted 力's edit, Thriley reverted MjolnirPants's edit, MjolnirPants reverted Thriley's edit -- the second revert by MjolnirPants within one day -- along with an accusation of edit warring, 力 reverted MjolnirPants. WP:CRYBLP is an essay, WP:BLPCAT and WP:UNDEL are policies, 力 and Thriley are in the right. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what the point of noting that WP:CRYBLP is an essay is, but nothing other than FUD is apparent.

And again, without source pushback; this is categorically not a BLP vio, otherwise the category itself would be a BLP vio, which it very clearly isn't. So, I'm still waiting for some sources arguing that Wade's assertions aren't conspiracy theories. I'd dearly love to see someone put forth the argument that Wade's assertions are true or even reasonable, also. I could use a good laugh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The WP:OPINIONCAT guideline is also relevant here: Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals"). Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic (see Category:Activists). The existence of an RS calling Wade a conspiracy theorist is not enough for this categorisation - reliable sources may, after all, be biased - we need that his promotion of some thesis is inherently notable and that it is NPOV that the thesis consitutes a conspiracy theory. I think this is a standard that, say, Jair Bolsonaro meets but Wade does not. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

His promotion of the theory is in the article already, which begs the question of why you needed to point out that his promotion must be notable. Also note that his last appearance in the news cycle was for promoting a bunch of racist conspiracy theories by misrepresenting science. Sure seems like a defining characteristic to me. And since, apparently this needs to be spelled out: belief in and advocacy for conspiracy theories goes well beyond a "personal opinion". OPINIONCAT absolutely does not apply. And I'm still waiting on some sources that show this is even contentious. Nobody's presented even one, yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't call Wade a conspiracy theorist in wikivoice; instead the claim is attributed. For the reasons given at WP:BLPCAT, the bar for inclusion in categories is higher than wikivoice claims: just in case you have not read the policy page, that is because unlike claims given normally in an article, category inclusions cannot be sourced. That Wade has been pushing a theory with racist implications does not mean that the rules don't apply to his article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• In my view, the most pertinent guidelines are WP:DEFINING, WP:COPDEF and WP:NONDEFINING. Yes, some reliable but opinionated sources verifiably label Wade as a conspiracy theorist. More sources discuss how the lab leak hypothesis was initially too quickly dismissed amidst a charged cultural-political landscape, muddying the definition of what constitutes COVID-19 conspiracy theories, misinformation, and disinformation. At the heart of the issue is whether Wade is commonly and consistently labeled as a conspiracy theorist by reliable sources, so much so that it becomes a defining trait and not just one of many verifiable but non-defining traits. I think the category itself will likely be deleted, since it's often subjective and unlikely to be defining for most people. But even if it remains, I think the fog of war has not yet settled around the "definingness" of the label with respect to Wade. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the so-called lab leak consensus statement WP:DUE in the lead of this article

• Discospinster I have removed the WP:UNDUE sentence from the lead and I see other editors here have discussed this and related matters before. Just because something is supported by some sources doesn't mean it is always DUE, especially when there are other sources saying otherwise. The sources cited did not even reference Wade's article, and do not represent "the prevailing view" of scientists. 79.70.179.144 (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• The most relevant argument here is WP:FRINGE. Wade is alleging that the virus was created as a result of deliberate manipulation (gain of function research); not the more mundante "might be a natural sample accidentally leaked from the lab". That has been dismissed by people with relevant expertise (virologists, not journalists). So we report that. The rest is unhelpful water-muddying and deflection. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wade is alleging that the virus was created as a result of deliberate manipulation. No he didn't. He merely posited it as a possibility. Can you point me to "long-standing consensus" you cite in the removal of the POV tag? 79.70.179.144 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how you would call saying that "[...] the case that SARS2 originated in a lab is so substantial" is not alleging that the virus was created as a result of this; after having literally having spent a whole article accusing scientists of being unethical and arguing exactly this theory about the virus' origins. As for the rest, it's an appropriate, and necessary, way of putting this into context with the mainstream scientific view, which is that "There is today no evidence that such an accident had happened with SARS-CoV-2"; that "Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory." and that "As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event. (...) There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin.". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The full quote is: If the case that SARS2 originated in a lab is so substantial, why isn’t this more widely known? This is not a statement of fact but an WP:OPINION, made in response to the dismissal of the hypothesis as a conspiracy theory, as we (accurately) cover in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory. If as you say this is in reference to a version of the hypothesis that sets him apart from other proponents, you should be able to discuss this here, instead of removing the POV and FV tags and accusing me of edit warring. 79.70.179.144 (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

And I don't know how you figure that "positing it as a possibility" deserves a "merely" compared to "alleging". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

See WP:OPINION. 79.70.179.144 (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

"Can you point me to "long-standing consensus"" Check out Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus in that template in regards to this matter which I is why started this discussion here. Perhaps the creator of that consensus template (ProcrastinatingReader) can clarify the consensus on this matter here. Are we now going to have such statements in the lead of every article of every journalist, scientist and politician who has expressed an opinion on this topic? That would include Josh Rogin, Rowan Jacobsen, Nicholson Baker, Matt Ridley, Ian Birrell, Michael R. Gordon, Katherine Eban, Donald G. McNeil Jr., Faye Flam and Paul D. Thacker, among many. To varying extents, it would also include scientists David Relman, Marc Lipsitch, Ralph S. Baric, Richard H. Ebright, Filippa Lentzos, Francois Balloux, Michael Eisen and Derrick Rossi, and Alina Chan. To varying extents this would also affect articles on politicians like Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo and Tom Cotton, and officials like Robert Redfield and Peter Ben Embarek. 79.70.179.144 (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:MAINSTREAM. Science isn't a popularity contest. The only sources that matter are those published by people with relevant expertise (virologists/closely related fields) in relevant publications (peer-reviewed journals). These say the same thing (that a deliberately manipulated virus is pretty much an implausible conspiracy; and that the accidental lab leak of a natural simple (even if that were what Wade actually promoted, which it is not) has no supporting evidence); and this has been discussed over and over again, and unless you can come up with similar sources to those I've cited (more complete sample here), then you're just wasting everyone's (including your own) time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:OPINION. Scientists expressing opinions without providing evidence does not make either of the two leading hypotheses a conspiracy theory. Are you going to add a similar sentence to the lead of every other scientist, journalist and politician who has expressed an opinion on this? 79.70.179.144 (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Scientists writing review articles (what is cited at the given page) is a far more reliable source and leagues away from mere opinions by individual contrarians being interviewed in newspapers and from politicians pandering to their base. To take a similar example; on Wikipedia, we write of climate change and evolution as accepted facts, cause that is the mainstream scientific view, even if, yes, you can find people - including politicians - who suggest otherwise. That leaves you with two options: A) find similar, high-quality sources which provide arguments to the contrary; or B) drop the stick. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Comparing the origins of COVID-19 to the science behind climate change is quite a stretch. Thriley (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Might be quite a bit of hyperbole, but the situation as far as high-quality reliable sources are concerned is rather similar in that relevant experts (climate scientists / biologists ; or in this case virologists) are pretty much unanimous (see the cited WP:NOLABLEAK) in favouring one hypothesis vs. the other. A more apt comparison might have been the Trump claims of electoral fraud; widely parroted but entirely unsubstantiated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The United States intelligence community, major journalists, global leaders, etc did not consider Trump’s claims possible. They do consider the lab leak a possibility. Thriley (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Which is not what Wade is arguing for (Wade is not arguing "natural virus accidentally leaked from lab"; he's arguing "virus created by [incompetent/unethical/insert other adjective] scientists via laboratory manipulation"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The article currently does not mention the difference, it currently reads: “On May 2, 2021, Wade published an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists which advanced the claim that COVID-19 likely originated from a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology”. Thriley (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Then this probably should be clarified to some extant. Wade's claims are treated to some depth in COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#As_a_bio-weapon; we probably ought not to duplicate too much of the information here; instead simply providing a summary and the wiki-link. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Wade’s claims in his article should have been clarified months ago, but a number of the editors that have been working on this article have been more eager to marginalize him as a charlatan than to detail and analyze what he actually said. Thriley (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Casting aspersions and ascribing questionable motives will do you no good. If you think the article is incorrect, and you have a good idea as to how to improve it, the usual advice is WP:FIXIT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Accusing someone of edit warring for putting in a POV and FV tag is also casting aspersions. I recall another editor called Mr Ernie saying it takes two to edit war. Please don't remove the tags till this issue is resolved. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

No, putting inaccurate tags because your don't like the present version of the article is not helpful and was indeed a continuation of the edit war. I'm not blind to the context of your edits, and you haven't provided anything to substantiate that the given sources do not support the assertion that Wade's claims are at odds with the scientific consensus, for example, so the FV tag goes right out the window; and the NPOV with it too. Now, you're free to follow my advice and find sources; or keep beating the poor old dead horse (who at least got a few months respite this time around). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Again I ask you: Can you point me to "long-standing consensus" that you cited in the removal of the POV tag? The template Shibbolethink linked to didn't link to any discussions relevant to this page or similar pages. The discussion here is whether the sentence is DUE for this page, and pages of other journalists, scientists and politicians who have expressed opinions on this topic. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This topic was disruptively discussed to death on many different pages. Nobody has the patience to argue over and over again the same arguments simply because it's a new page. All irrelevant as this was argued on this page anyway; see Talk:Nicholas_Wade/Archive_3 and the second section of Talk:Nicholas_Wade/Archive_4. Also, FWIW, notice for everyone, the IP has gone to the Dramaboard about this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks for linking to the discussions, as I originally asked. Consensus can change, and we are now discussing the change in consensus reported in the popular press, like this report in South China Morning Post, and in the scientific literature, like this new letter in the Lancet. As Thriley noted, the United States intelligence community, major journalists, global leaders now consider this a possibility, so the sentence in question no longer reflects current consensus. We could instead say that most agencies in US intelligence community are reported to have assessed that the virus "probably" hasn't been engineered, while some scientists like David Relman believe it to be a possibility, and that both agree more data is required to make a proper assessment. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

That's WP:FALSEBALANCE. We follow the more reliable sources. So secondary peer-reviewed papers are given more weight than newspapers, interviews of scientists in the minority, and governments (who are by nature acting out of political motives). An opinion letter from scientists (what you are linking to) is a primary source for the opinion of its authors, and shouldn't be given undue weight. Given that it appears to have been published yesterday, that it is a primary source which is at odds with the existing secondary sources, and that it's definitively too soon to know what impact this will have, I see no need to rush to include this, especially not here. I'll note that this isn't the first such "contrarian" letter to be published in academic journals; but unless there are further secondary sources which actually show a change (and, with the previous letter, that was not the case), I see no reason to change anything in this article, either. In any case, Wikipedia is not a breaking news website. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

According to this comment from another editor in a related discussion, the job of scientific journals is science. Scientists cannot assess from their armchairs what is happening behind the closed doors of a laboratory in China. To do so would be bad science, as Wade explained in his widely cited and highly regarded article. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 01:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

So great. Neither can the US government (remember the infamous weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?), or journalists (who, if, according to you, we couldn't even trust scientists, who at least have a specific formation in the field they're writing on, are certainly not even comparable). And the scientists are indeed here and on other articles being used for the science (that there is no evidence for a laboratory origin in the virus' genome, in the epidemiological data, in genetic data of the virus' evolution, ... ; all fields covered by science). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Alternative wording suggestion

I'm only coming from a thread at ANI to suggest an alternate wording that makes the phrasing less... POVish? Currently the lede is In May 2021, Wade published an article in support of the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, fuelling the controversy around the origins of the virus. Wade's claims about the origin of COVID-19 are at odds with the prevailing view among scientists. I would suggest, as that last sentence sounds a bit too POV, something more like In May 2021, Wade published an article in support of the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, contrary to the prevailing scientific view, and fuelling controversy on the origins of the virus. (references removed but you can assume they are in there). Similar switchup of language in the body would help there too. What I see from sources, ignoring the MEDRS factor, is that Wade's Medium article was a key catalyst in the lab leak debate, and that's how it should be presented, and not so much to necessarily discredit Wade directly, which is what the way the wording currently presented seems to get to. Its a minor switcharound but enough to make this a bit more neutral on that factor and place it in context. Details of the theory are best left to the lab leak page already. --Masem (t) 14:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Support. I don't see this suggestion as fundamentally altering how we portray the consensus, and I think it wins on style points. So I'm in favor. Whenever someone suggests something that they feel makes a difference, but i think is equivocal, I'm okay with the change. That's consensus via compromise, baby. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Support per Shibboleth, since I essentially think the same thing here; and in the spirit of not making an endless debate over minor wording changes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

And oppose "at the time" per NightHeron. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Support and add how his article effected what Vanity Fair called a "shift" in the ground [1], in challenging what we call here the "prevailing scientific view" at the time. I would also add that caveat, and it doesn't imply that it's not still the prevailing scientific view, but that there has been a shift somewhat and this article was a factor in that. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Support the OP's suggested alternative wording and oppose the addition of at the time, which falsely suggests that it's no longer the prevailing scientific view. NightHeron (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Support OP's wording and support IP's caveat or something similar that tells our readers that Wade's article was a factor in shifting the prevailing view. Sources do describe a shift in view, and Wade is credited for that.--Francesco espo (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"Sources do describe a shift in view" - as pointed out above, there has been no such change in the actually relevant sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The sources referenced on this page do in fact attribute Wade for what they describe as a shift/change in view, such as the Vanity Fair article by Katherine Eban, as well as the Science Based Medicine by David Gorski, and the Los Angeles Times article by Michael Hiltzik. The shift/change of view, is accurately described in COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Timeline, though we do not attribute Wade there, which we should. If even the articles countering Wade's view describe his article as being influential in this shift/change, then we should cover it as such. 2.96.240.198 (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a change in view in the popular opinion, maybe, but that's not relevant to describing the scientific consensus. There has been no shift in the actually relevant sources, so "at the time" would be inaccurate, since the "prevailing scientific view" (which is, indeed, quite different from that promoted by newspapers) has not changed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

By relevant sources you mean WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but in the context of the China COVID-19 cover-up, determining the origins of COVID-19 cannot be a matter of scientific inquiry only. Anyway, Wade has been credited for a shift in opinion, and we can call it either public opinion or scientific opinion. This New York Times opinion piece calls it a "landmark essay". 2.96.240.198 (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It is neither surprising nor significant that a rabidly anti-Chinese non-scientist admires Wade's essay. The same opinion piece calls the Chinese government "a regime more interested in propaganda than human life." If China is so uninterested in human life, how would he explain China's Covid-19 death rate, which stands at 4 deaths per million population, compared to the US Covid-19 death rate, which is 2,000 deaths per million population? NightHeron (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Grandfather

My addition of the sentence "He is a grandson of Lawrence Beesley, a survivor of the sinking of the Titanic." was reverted by User:NightHeron as "irrelevant detail, per WP:UNDUE". I am now discussing per WP:BRD. I believe this is an innocuous addition, and fleshes out the awkwardly short 2-3 sentence "Early life and education" section. While of course the biographic article should focus primarily on Wade's writing career, which it does, I don't see the need to reject anything that is not about such. Indeed , Wade's Titanic ancestor, and Wade's writing on about him, has been covered by he likes of The Atlantic, The Nation The Economist, and a news blog of 20 minutos. Wade has also written introductions/afterwards to books about the Titanic,, and has been invited to speak about him, so I disagree this is an irrelevant detail to his biography. Note I'm not even arguing we mention Wade's additions to these books or what he has written about his relative. Does any one else believe this fact is out of place in Wade's biography? --Animalparty! (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

yeah, I'd say innocuous and WP:DUE as just this one sentence. One could argue maybe a few more sentences are appropriate, but for now let's compromise on this one. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. That this person's grandfather was a survivor of the Titanic does not seem to have much if any relevance here (if there is a relevant link, then there should be secondary sources which discuss this and not afterwords written by the article subject). At best, it's interesting trivia, but therein lies the problem: trivia, even if interesting, is not encyclopedic information. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen a cited notable grandparent removed from an article before. Doing so seems unencyclopedic. Thriley (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

There being a source is the very minimal criteria, but there are plenty of things that are included in sources that we don't include in an encyclopedia, either because their relevance is limited (as in this case), or for many other reasons. This isn't a phenomenon limited to grandparents, or even to biographies. Lots of things that appear in the news are simply not encyclopedic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

A notable grandparent is always relevant. I can’t imagine any reason for excluding this fact. Doing so would go against all biographic standards I am familiar with. Thriley (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:NOTNEWS is a red herring in this case (WP:ONUS is more apt). A news report would be "On 13 April 2012 Nicholas Wade discussed his grandfather on WAMC radio." This is a piece of biographical information that has some relevance to Wade's life and writing, but would be given very little weight. Should we also omit his birth place and education? --Animalparty! (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

If you have a source that says that Wade's grandfather was a major influence in his life, then mention of the grandfather (and citing the source about him having been a major influence) would not be undue. Otherwise, the fact that his grandfather had been a Titanic survivor is an insignificant detail in an article about Wade. NightHeron (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The 2012 centenary Penguin Classic "Titanic, First Accounts"—edited with a long introduction by Tim Maltin (an expert on the Titanic) and a long afterword by Nicholas Wade—contains extensive material on Lawrence Beesley, a notable survivor and one of Wade's grandfathers. Maltin's uncle was a pupil of Beesley much later. One chapter from Beesley's 1912 book, as well as two letters in the contemporary US press, are extracted in their entirety. The Penguin book is a WP:RS and Beesley's accounts seem noteworthy. On the doomed voyage, Beesley, by then a practising Christian Scientist, planned to visit his youngest brother in Toronto. With his 2nd class ticket for £13, Beesley kept his numbered boarding card; the duplicate card was later discovered in a leather bag at the bottom of the ocean. The recorded facts about Beesley as a survivor of the Titanic seem to be notable and uncontroversial. Although parents are omitted in the BLP, mentioning that Beesley was one of Wade's grandfathers seems reasonable. Mathsci (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Beesley is notable (for example, he was the inspiration for a character in the Titanic movie), which is why he has a BLP. But does anything in those sources show an influence on Wade's life or career? The fact that someone has a notable relative is just an insignificant footnote in their life unless there's sourcing that shows something more. NightHeron (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

So if Beesley were the grandfather of David Beckham, you’d be making the same argument? Thriley (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

If the circumstances were the same (namely, no relevance beyond being a grandparent), then yes, it would be the same argument. Of course, what you've not mentioned is that the circumstances are not the same, namely there is a quote from Beckham himself about the influence of one of his grandparents (and, to note: that is the only grandparent mentioned). So apples and oranges, as expected... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: You are inventing arbitrary goalposts in demanding sources show his grandfather was "a major influence," and "insignificant" is your opinion, which you're free to have. Again, are his birth place and schools "major" enough to be included? I recognize at this point we are mainly arguing opinions than holy WP:PAG here (which allows some discretion and common sense), as I am of the opinion a biography should be as complete as possible while still respecting core content policies. Selectively bringing out calipers and protractors and Wikilaw to measure every single word hinders the goal of writing quality encyclopedia articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty: My removal of that sentence was policy-based, per WP:PROPORTION: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. The amount of "treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject [Nicholas Wade]" concerning his grandfather seems to be zero. NightHeron (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There you go with the calipers (note the words "should", not "must"). Wade has written of his grandfather in a major newspaper at least thrice, (WP:ABOUTSELF allows reliable—even questionable—sources to be used within reason). He has contributed to books about the Titanic, as already mentioned, thus his writing about his ancestor has been a minor but not insignificant part of Wade's life and writing; others have commented on it, as already cited, and here's another. And another.

Re. "opinion": the problem is that your opinion that this should be included is also just that, an opinion. As to whether it is significant or not, then this is a simple logic problem. You are saying it is. The simplest way to prove that is for you to provide sources (like the one provided for Beckham) which shows this. It's not my or NightHeron's job to prove the negative. If the only sources about this Beesley do not (or only trivially) mention his descendant, and the ones about Wade also only provide a very meager level of coverage, then this is a shut case and there's not much to argue about. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty: If you could find a source saying that thinking about his grandfather and the sinking of the Titanic shook Nicholas Wade's trust in science and technology (not his grandfather's trust, which is irrelevant in this article), then your case would be much stronger, since that would show an influence of the grandfather on Wade's career. NightHeron (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

So far, I haven’t seen any reason not to include the grandfather. If this were any other individual on Wikipedia, the grandfather would be mentioned. It is irrelevant if or if not his grandfather had an influence on his work. The fact is the fact. This is an encyclopedia, not an essay. Thriley (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If this were any other individual on Wikipedia, the grandfather would be mentioned. It is irrelevant if or if not his grandfather had an influence on his work. The fact is the fact. An assertion unsupported by any actual reasoning or evidence. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it is a summary of knowledge, not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. Listing every known fact about some person and their ancestors is not relevant unless this information serves to provide some useful context (for example, listing that Bach was born in a family of musicians, and how this had an influence on his musical education, is relevant. Here, its more of a grey area). Asserting that you think otherwise is perfectly fine, but if you don't provide anything to support your argument, it is effectively self-defeating and can be safely disregarded. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

As we appear divided between people who think this addition would improve the article and those who think it would not, a request for comment inviting more perspectives seems warranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

References