User talk:Bon courage

New Happy New New

Three years. Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 02:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

And to you Roxy! Alexbrn (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Undid revision on clinical benefit of a ketogenic diet

Discussion moved on the Talk page. -- Dandv 02:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Issue with sources used

Hi Alexbrn,

Can you tell me specifically wat the issue is with me using this study to claim that Noopept may cause an increase in BDNF in the brain: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19240853/? This will help me understand Wikipedia rules going forward. Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoggeek (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! That is primary research. In general, any WP:Biomedical information on Wikipedia needs secondary sourcing as set out in WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Right thanks, that seems clear enough. So the rat cell study currently being used as a source in the pharmacology section; that's a seconday source? Only it seems very similar to the one I used as a source, and it doesn't even support the claim it's being cited for! It says Noopept works by various mechanisms, none of which have anything to do with AMPA receptors.

Correct, the only WP:MEDRS in that section is PMID 12596521 - so a trim would be in order. Or an update with better sources. Maybe PMID 30295186 is useful? Alexbrn (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll get right on it. Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoggeek (talk • contribs) 15:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The only caveat I'd add is that PMID 30295186 is Russian, and Russian neurological material has a poor reputation, so a WP:REDFLAG might apply for any surprising claims (e.g. about effects on human health). Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps an edit stating exatly what the study says rather than extrapolating from it? i.e. that Russian researchers found rats injected with Noopept increased BDNF output? Those are simply the facts and people can extapolate from them, especially as to what "Russian researchers" means in terms of reliability.

I don't think statements about pharmacology are so sensitive, but I notice that review was making some bold claims about treatment efficacy from its data, which could be more problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the Noopept article. It was irritating me having that misinformation up there like that, almost encouraging people to use the stuff! I think it's a lot better now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoggeek (talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

These "nootropic" articles are generally in poor shape, and it's a question of damage management rather at the moment. Alexbrn (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin in COVID-19

I edited the section Research/COVID-19 which was reverted by Alexbrn. There were two parts to the edit. The first part of the edit was simply to give the date for that the NIH guidelines on ivermectin were released. That information is on the NIH website. I will insist on my edit unless it incorrect or misleading in some way.

--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)My edit:

The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use ivermectin for COVID-19,[86] in Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines released on August 27, 2020.

--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Alexbrn version:

The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use ivermectin for COVID-19.[86]

The second part of my edit was related to a meta-analysis of clinical trials on ivermectin.

--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)My contribution was:

A meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization showed an 83% reduction in mortality in hospitalized patients treated by ivermectin. A presentation of the work by Andrew Hill was given at "Ivermectin Against COVID-19 Collaborative Workshop", December 15-17, 2020, sponsored by MedinCell, S.A..

--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)The contribution was removed in Alexbrn's version

The explanation give by Alexbrn was: "Unreliable source per WP:MEDRS, and misrepresented to boot". The source of information was a talk at a scientific conference on COVID-19. Unless there is a more specific justification of removal of this contribution I am going to insist that it is included. What exactly is "unreliable" and was is "misrepresented"?

Again, the material that was posted refers to a presentation at a scientific meeting. Is there a specific prohibition against such a reference? On the other hand, the guidelines specifically encourage references to meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. That was exactly the subject matter that I referred to. The quote from the quidelines is as follows:

The best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[12]--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines. A Youtube video is not reliable. This is not a meta-analysis by the WHO, it is a researcher who is part-way through performing such a meta-analysis giving an interim personal update. As he says, the data suggests ivermectin is effective, but the WHO is waiting for high-quality data before it can decide. In due course this meta-analysis will be complete and will then be a WP:MEDRS we can use, with results which are based on better data than is currently available. Please continue any further discussion of article content at article Talk pages. Alexbrn (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI Notice

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

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks - accusations of sockpuppetry by User: Britishfinance. Thank you. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Repeated minimally-explained removal of my edits

I can't help notice that you've undone or vastly reverted every single edit of mine to articles such as Low-carbohydrate diet and Air ioniser. The edit reasons were laconic, showing minimal effort, and not helping me improve the edits. I had to painstakingly engage with you to divine what the problems were. My last revision that you've undone matched the style of another article you patrol, Whole30, and I specifically set the edit reason to "Matching Whole30" in order to prevent your wrath. Not only did that not work, I see that you did not "lede unbomb" Whole30, which confuses me about your (double?) standards. I am slightly upset by this behavior towards me. It makes me feel targeted, and treated like a wikivandal. I would prefer a more cooperative attitude. I'm far from new to Wikipedia, but since you're more experienced and have access to better sources, I would appreciate a more constructive approach towards my edits. -- Dandv 06:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings Dandv! My first piece of advice is to WP:FOC and stop imagining things about "wrath" and "targeting"; I have nearly 500 articles on my watchlist and wouldn't even recognize your account name. My second piece of advice is to remember that the WP:ONUS to get consensus for adding disputed content lies with the editor wanting to make it - it's no good complaining that improving the encyclopedia takes work, and I'm afraid I have no duty to help you make the precise edits you personally want. You might want to learn about the WP:BRD cycle as a possible way of proceeding, paying heed to the "D" part of it. Third, it's ironic you invoke "minimal effort" while in fact engaging with your edits has meant retrieving and reading en entire journal article when you had merely inserted some content from looking at its abstract. For ledes, you should know by now that they summarize body content, so inserting new material directly into a WP:LEDE is problematic. And there are reasons why the Whole30 article is as it as: with its dearth of sourcing we have to dig for fairly crappy sources. That does not make a good template for other articles where there is rich vein of quality sourcing available.

I hope all this makes sense. Thanks for your efforts to help improve Wikipedia which, in the end, I am sure will have good results! Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications! I have read the policies you mentioned and as an example of applying WP:BRD, I have moved (technically re-added) the U.S. News & World Report ranking of the ketogenic diet from the lede section to the Ketogenic diet section of the article. If that reference does belong in the section (as opposed to the lede), then that is the kind of constructive edit I was hoping for from other editors - moving my content to the proper place, rather then deleting it. If it still doesn't belong there, I would really like to understand why it belongs in Whole30 at all. By the logic of crappy sourcing since nothing better is available, then it seems a few of my other reverted edits should be included, since there's no better research yet? -- Dandv 21:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the U.S. News & World Report source is marginal; let's see what others think. For health effect sources, please also be aware of WP:MEDRS; there are very strict sourcing guidelines for health claims. Please continue any further discussion at the article Talk page(s). Alexbrn (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

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

---

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. JustStalin (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not really an appropriate template, unless you consider updating content with the best-quality sources "disruption". If anything's disruptive it's more your bad reverts which, rather, worsen the article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You removed well-sourced content that supported the majority scientific position, which was included in the article long ago by consensus, multiple times while refusing to discuss those removals on the talk page first. That's textbook disruptive editing. JustStalin (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Err, you might find that "the majority scientific position" is better represented by recent secondary sources in quality peer-reviewed journals, more than a bunch of older material in lay-press. And as for your "discuss first" demands, that is textbook ownership, reinforcing by your dishonest imagining of some sort of "refusal" on my part - ironic when I was posting to the Talk page while you were busy revert warring. Anyway, you have your crappy old sources in and have successfully removed the WP:MEDRS so we need to see what other editors say, to get a wider consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Your misrepresentation of a source at Nutrisystem

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

---

The source says that "Nutrisystem demonstrates better short-term weight loss than control/education and behavioral counseling; however, we identified no long-term trial results. We conclude that Nutrisystem shows promise, but the lack of long-term RCTs prohibits definitive conclusions."

In other words, the evidence shows Nutrisystem helps with short-term weight loss, but the long term effects cannot be assessed, because there are no long-term studies. Yet you misleading imply that there is "no good" evidence for Nutrisystem's long term effects, when in fact that is no evidence/studies (good, bad, or indifferent) one way or another.

Also, calling the evidence of short-term weight loss "tentative" is pure OR on your part.

This is obviously a case of tendentious editing and misrepresentation of sources. Cut it out or I will report you. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation. Your edit claims that Nutrisystem increases weight loss by 3.8% (relative to other weight-loss programs), but in fact the study says Nutrisystem "achieved at least 3.8% greater weight loss at 3 months than control/education or counseling." LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Thank you for a voice of sanity

On that article. You know the one I'm talking about.

I think my next Wikipedia session is going to involve far less contentious topics. You demonstrate a high level of patience that I lack. I commend you for that. Jdphenix (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Likewise thanks, always good to have some WPMED sanity helping improve articles - and I think the situation overall is much better now. Alexbrn (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

So how does this actually work long term?

If we're here to build an encyclopedia, and our response to constant fringe POV pushing seems to be actually engaging in brain consuming debate that ultimately leads nowhere, what exactly are we doing again? Honestly by my eye, the response to actually engage seems to be a miscalculation. I'm not sure of a better option though. Jdphenix (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there's been just a couple of bad patches lately. Usually it's less fraught than this and in the end usually works out okay - though once or twice I've thrown up my hands and left articles to fester in a dreadful state. I suspect somehow American politics is a driver of some of the problems we're seeing, but (through avoiding that topic) I'm not sure how. Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair characterization. In short, our (now former) president's administration was pushing unproven conspiracy garbage. I squarely blame them for the hydroxychloroquine debacle. There's more to learn, but your instinct to avoid the topic is the right way to go.

I just remember burning my free time just being curious and reading about all kinds of topics on WP. I'm far from an polymath, but I do have an insatiable curiosity that WP has always been able to sate. I decided to expend some effort editing because of seeing the POV pushing that we (recently?) seem to be dealing with.

Guess I just need to decide if my editorial motivation rooted as described is worth the frustration. I'm not a medical expert, but I have a brain. Jdphenix (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Thank you for your incredible patience and efforts to ensure that Wikipedia articles remain neutral, while participating in repetitive talk page discussions. I noticed this more recently around COVID-19 related articles where there is urgency, but also in general in relation to medicine and other topics. —PaleoNeonate – 19:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, though TBH sometimes I wonder if engaging actually helps . Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Up to a certain point at least, it avoids leaving the impression of consensus by silence; while remaining aware of ad nauseam, firehosing/Gish gallop, non sequitur, red herring, whataboutism and pushing the impression of great legitimate controversies etc... —PaleoNeonate – 00:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Though now I find I spent a fair amount of time arguing with a sock. Hey ho! Alexbrn (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS is a comment-type of article?

The Zoumporlis et al MEDRS you provided in this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=999521296 is labeled as a "Comment" type of article. Although this fact can weaken its validity, I actually have no objection keeping it in the discussion for the sake of saving us time re-editing stuff and, most importantly, because it seems like a good relevant source.Forich (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, despite the name sometimes in journals a "comment" like this can be a full review - hence it is categorized as such by the publisher/PUBMED. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Basis (linear algebra) on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on MEDRS/RS debate regarding fringe lab leak theory

Your comment on whether MEDRS are mandatory before editing a claim implying the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy/fringe idea is requested by this Diff in this page, please take a look. Forich (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI posting about your conduct on Nutrisystem

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

---

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious_editing,_misrepresentation_of_sources_by_User:Alexbrn_on_Nutrisystem. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Very brave! Perhaps you'd be better off engaging with the discussion on the article's Talk page? Alexbrn (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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

More on Nutrisystem

I have opened up a discussion on the Dispute resolution Noticeboard, as advised in the closed ANI. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you can re-write the submission without the personal attacks, and ping other involved editors I would be very glad to participate. But until then, I decline. I would also want you to clarify whether you have a WP:COI of any kind. Please let me know it you can manage to re-submit the DR request in a less WP:BATTLE-groundy way. Alexbrn (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no COI whatever. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

See above. Alexbrn (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Your revisions

Hello,

You recently removed a segment of the article Potassium chloride to which I had very recently attributed two citations - your edit-summary indicated them as "unreliable". Both referenced texts were scholarly publications. Your measure of experience on Wikipedia quite perspicuously exceeds mine by a large margin, so I intend not to question your authority; I'd simply like to understand the rationale which justified this revision.

Thank you! Interops (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Please see WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines (with maybe WP:WHYMEDRS / WP:MEDFAQ alongside). I cleaned-up some primary sourcing at the article (which is in generally terrible shape anyway). Please continue any further discussion at Talk:Potassium chloride. Thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Interops (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Swiss

I undid revision 1001656585 because precision is lacking to the existing NIH reference in the COVID-19 section. To be precise--as stated in the cited press release--the NIH upgraded its recommendation from "against" to “'neither for nor against', which is the same recommendation given to monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma, both widely used across the nation" (U.S., that is). The Covid-19 section should be unlocked to allow autoconfirmed users such as myself to clarify the wording--which is what the notification says is allowed for autoconfirmed users such as myself to do, but does not in fact allow it. --Swisswiss (talk} 19:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't bring press releases to Wikipedia, they are nearly always useless for the encyclopedia. Start at WP:5P and if you have further comments on the article, please put them at Talk:Ivermectin. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Nitric Oxide

MEDRS/RS makes sense under normal circumstances. In the middle of a pandemic secondary sources arrive too late. Just about every measure to control COVID-19 has come too late. Cari.Firelight (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, during the pandemic Wikipedia has a heightened need for good-quality sourcing, and sanctions are in place to discourage editors from swerving them (you have been notified of these). I have now twice reverted your additions at Treatment and management of COVID-19 because they lacked reliable (or even relevant) sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Much has been written about how best to address emergencies. Sticking to rules meant for normal conditions usually prolongs the emergency. My edit does not say nitric oxide is a recognized treatment but that it is being investigated. In my view the sources are credible and relevant. You have provided no reason for claiming otherwise. Please let me know what source you find unreliable, or what part you find irrlevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cari.Firelight (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines, and continue any further discussion at the article's Talk page. Thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not lying. Are you trying to perpetuate the mass carnage?

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

---

I've added the WHO source.

https://www.who.int/news/item/17-12-2020-a-parasitic-infection-that-can-turn-fatal-with-administration-of-corticosteroids

Are you trying to kill people? See I'm not edit warring? Each edit was quite different from the next. I was working to rerfine the edit. You reverted instead of helping with the easily finable reference. READ IT.

LOOK AT diff=1002626197! Got it?

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Hi again, a hopefully small favor?

Can you ping me on any discussions where an extra brain may be helpful? I can't edit many of the articles regarding COVID-19 as I do not have extended confirmed access rights. That level of protection has been recently added to a few articles in this subject area.

I'm willing to wade in to discussions, but it annoys me that I can't fix easy problems and obvious fringe, and it annoys me more that I have to waste yours (or a similar editor's time) to do the same. Jdphenix (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to be sure to avoid an appearance of WP:CANVASSING. If you haven't already, you may wish to add the following WikiProject pages to your watchlist:

• WP:FT/N
• WT:MED
• WP:WikiProject COVID-19.

If something needs attention, I often ask for more eyes in these places. Alexbrn (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that's perfect. That's a better solution as it doesn't rely on you to get me to notice them. Jdphenix (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak again

Boing! has removed ScrupulousScribe's topic ban after only a few days after it was implemented, as such I have revived the community topic ban proposal. ScrupulousScribe has revealed their true colours in a post on Dingleingy's talk page

Dingle, I read this essay yesterday and this essay earlier today, and I would suggest that you read them too and close the ANI. I created this account on the urge to right something that I felt was wrong, and while it hasn't been hugely successful in the way I went about it, I believe I have achieved my overall objective, and I trust that other editors who understand the science, as well as WP Policy, will pick up where we left off. While they often act obtuse, our contrarian friends are slowly coming around to realizing that the lab leak theory wasn't quite what they first thought it was, and if you listen in on their conversations (here), you can see some cogs starting to turn in their heads (they're past the second stage of realizing that the leak doesn't mean "Bioweapon + Trump + bleh", but they are still a bit before the final stage of understanding the risks posed by certain gain of function studies). Let's meet up again at the Village Pump.

It's clear that ScrupulousScribe is not editing with a neutral point of view. I think this article in the SPLC is really informative, even though it is about far right editors, as the "Civil POV" tactics are the same, as admins are more focused on conduct than content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I already commented on that proposal. I suspect this may, in some form or other, end up at arbcom. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I know, I just thought I'd let you know. As for ArbCom, It depends how long they stick around for, most of the WIV lab leak pushing accounts have been ephemeral, lasting for only a few weeks at most. Though ScrupulousScribe is more persistent than most. Do you think the complete removal of all mention of lab leak conspiracy theory related content from the WIV article is an improvement or not? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I put some back, and it seems okay as is. To be honest, I think it's all a bit of a nothingburger kept aflame by US political considerations. It bothers me a lot less than - say - treatment misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This time last year I was arguing with a persistent SPA that SARS-CoV-2 should be called the "Chinese virus" without any sort of context in the article lead, sourced entirely to newspaper headlines, which took months to resolve eventually by a NPOVN RfC. It ultimately doesn't matter to the end user what happens behind the scenes on the talk pages if the article remains stable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, you made a concerted effort to portray me as some kind of Nascar-watching, Mountain Dew-sipping hillbilly truther promoting conspiracy theories from the Donald. In truth, the only position I advocated for is the inclusion of a hypothesis from a number of respected scientists quoted in reliable sources, proposing that the virus could have originated from a lab, and most likely a lab in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. My position was/is completely different to those of other transient editors you countered before, and my reliable sources were much more recent, and provided new information.

Most of the scientists proposing the lab leak theory as quoted in the reliable sources I provided, focused on the seeming pre-adaption of the virus to humans, and the gain of function studies that the WIV was known to be doing (as discussed in this time-stamped video interview with Peter Daszak or on his Twitter here), and the controversy surrounding the missing data in Professor Shi's February paper in Nature and her addendum to it (the new information, which you can learn more about about here); but there are also other lab origin possibilities, such as a mistaken prick of a needle, contamination through waste disposal, or the reselling of lab animals to the local wet market (like this report from UPI indicates, and was known to have happened with other labs in China).

Both you and Alex carried on the conversation, conflating legitimate lines of scientific inquiry with debunked conspiracy theories, refusing to acknowledge the differences between them, culminating in Alex finding a paper that seemingly rules out all lab based scenarios, which he considered to be among the "best" of the MEDRS sources that could be found, which I found to be highly disingenuous on his part. It's entirely possible that an intermediate host or virus will be found, which will rule out all lab-based origin scenarios, but it has been over a year already, and its looking less and less likely to happen, especially as the addendum that Professor Shi made to her Nature paper revealed that they were holding another eight SARS-like coronaviruses that they were working on in undisclosed ways, and neither she nor the Chinese government are being very forthcoming with any details. This controversy will only get bigger, and you will have to be more congenial with editors, transient or longstanding, who propose lab origins and bring forward reliable sources with quotes from respected scientists and experts. You will also have to beef up your own knowledge of virology and epidemiology, to understand what is being proposed, and what is not.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, we know from the best sources that the "constructed in the lab" story for Sars Cov 2, is a conspiracy theory. Once this sunk in, all I've really seen beyond that is arm-waving from editors, like the above, with nary a decent source in sight. As with most fringe topics, we have diehard true believers who will push and push. Wikipedia tends to prefer mainstream, solid sources. Alexbrn (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Constructed in a lab" is hardly a scientific term to encompass all lab origin scenarios. And to that point, like I have told you before, Ralph Baric, who is one of the foremost experts in coronaviruses and synthetic virology has publicly countered that claim in a public interview he gave to Presadiretta (a reliable source by any account), saying that with the current technology (2), it wouldn't be possible for us to know if the virus was made in a lab (as a Chimera). For those with a basic understanding of the subject at hand, Baric is not saying it is would be impossible for us to know if the virus was created from scratch as a synthetic virus, as that is a completely different thing (and near impossible with current technology). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Constructed in a lab" is the terminology from peer-reviewed, secondary sources as cited. Youtube is not a reliable source. My recommendation is to get good sources first, and from them get the concepts. You are doing it the other way round, and this is always a a bad idea. Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

RAI's Youtube channel is a reliable source. And as I and other editors like Arcturus have pointed out, the MEDRS source you referenced doesn't address all lab origin scenarios, such as those proposed by the abovementioned scientists in reliable sources and the statement of the USDOS. As WP:BESTSOURCES says, If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a content discussion. I'd have those at the relevant article. Jdphenix (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Jdphenix It began as a personal discussion that turned into a content discussion. I'm glad we had this discussion because it's difficult to discuss content with personal issues in the way. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It really isn't though. Also, edits like this one seems like a very effective way of giving someone evidence if they're interested in you not editing on this topic. Jdphenix (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• We went through the process of finding the best sources, and have summarized them for what the conspiracy theory is (that the virus was lab-engineered). If there are other "scenarios" not dealt with in these sources, propose an edit on the Talk page. I'm genuinely unsure what they are which is why I refer to "hand waving" above. From my previous experience of Arcturus's sourcing opinions forgive me if I don't treat their source selection as exemplary. I expect in a year or two we'll have university-press academic books examining how this stuff took hold in the public imagination, and it could be interesting then to revisit the topic for a more retrospective look at it. People have a need for stories, and conspiracy theories can make for compelling ones. Alexbrn (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The MEDRS sources provided, which do not trump the statements of the US government and respected scientists quoted in reliable sources, did not differentiate between the different lab origin scenarios that there are, though I think you know that already. Besides for myself and Arcturus, there are other editors who have made this point, and it would be a waste of our time to continue engaging with you in discussion, as I don't believe you are genuinely "unsure" as to what those alternative scenarios are. I don't believe you are balanced on this issue and acting in good faith, and I see it is also not below you to keep a false guilt by association between a scientist with a POV you don't like and holocaust denialism on a page where it completely fails WP:DUE, based on a biased source with only a partial quote (see the talk page there). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The MEDRS sources provided, which do not trump the statements of the US government ← very witty! They kind of do tho'but. No, I truly am unsure about what your imagined scenario is, because it's is something that only ever gets indirectly alluded to and arm-waved about, rather than plainly stated. Alexbrn (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Source selection? Yes, I hold my hands up to that one from the BBC. I should have known better, given the way the BBC is going. It's getting to the point where they should be listed as a deprecated source, along with The Guardian. Nevertheless, I stand by my comments about the WHO and its officers. It will always be possible to find RSs proclaiming their pontifications. The trick is to be able to identify bullshit when you see it - right across the board, not just from one side of the debate. Unfortunately, bullshit from the WHO (of which there is much) is rarely, if ever, rebuffed on Wikipedia. Arcturus (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)