Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:41, 6 July 2023

User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely

MfDs for this article:

This article seems to be a WP:CONTENTFORK of COVID-19 lab leak theory. I'm not sure if essays are considered an exception to the rule because they're not in mainspace, but I'll let others decide. WP:ESSAYFORK may also be relevant. An article talk page is the appropriate place to voice disagreements with article content. This type of essay seems to violate WP:NOTADVOCACY. It's ok to use User space to draft an RfC, but essays are permanent fixtures, and are really meant to be focused on policy and guidelines. The void century 18:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CambridgeBayWeather, you closed the prior discussion about this on 19 May 2021 as keep. Using WP:CCC language, do you regard that as a "recently established consensus"? If not, should all prior participants be notified? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been two years since then and Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change is policy. If you do notify all previous editors you need to be careful of Wikipedia:Canvassing. It also suggests ways to notify them. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the policy I referred to. I ping these prior participants:Guy Macon PaleoNeonate JoelleJay SmokeyJoe JzG Vaticidalprophet Ched JPxG Beyond My Ken Rhododendrites Forich ජපස LuckyLouie Bonewah EuanHolewicz432 Weburbia MjolnirPants XOR'easter 力 Elli 31.41.45.190 GKFX Hyperion35 Mlb96 FeydHuxtable User:ThatIPEditor Novem Linguae Nyttend backup Alexbrn. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage: as I'm fairly sure your ping to Alexbrn would have failed due to the username change. Your ping of the IP would also have failed but as a blocked webhost it's not worth anything more. AFAICT, there's no other ping that would have failed other than any who chose to turn pings off. Nil Einne (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep and speedy close - This is a userpage essay that does not violate WP:UP. See "what may I have in my user page": "Non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters". Quoted policies above do not apply. And as stated in the previous MfD, WP:IDONTLIKEIT also does not apply. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep - seems to be in line with WP:UP. JustinReilly (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep - really now, as we say in the compiler business this leads to undefined behavior. undefined behavior is anything including and beyond allowing the compiler to do anything it chooses, even "to make demons fly out of your nose." Theheezy (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a content fork masquerading as an essay, It is worded as an article, Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fun fact: this page gets no real pageviews except when someone nominates it for deletion. My opinion hasn't changed since the last time, so meh per what I wrote there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the appropriate Wikipedia policy, WP:MEH. :-) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an essay, just a years-old tirade masquerading as such. not an appropriate use of userspace. ValarianB (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep per "oh my god, I got pinged to this two years later? didn't we stop arguing about this at some point?". More realistically: keep per WP:UPYES and WP:USERESSAY, which are very lenient on the content of user essays and intentionally permit substantial variance in coherence and content of "things that are broadly statements on Wikipedia". As JPxG said the first time around: "Is there an addendum to WP:IDONTLIKEIT I haven't seen that says "this suddenly becomes a great argument if it's a politics thing you disagree with"?" Vaticidalprophet 14:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons this was kept last time. Arguing that a user essay is a content fork of an article? Really? Elli (talk | contribs) 14:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~. . . unless~~ We also have WP:NOLABLEAK. I request that both sides of this be given equal treatment. Keep both ~~or delete both~~. [I am the author of the essay under consideration here.] Honestly it's a little strange that that essay is allowed to have a mainspace shortcut, while mine is not. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually partly rethinking that. The two sides should have equal treatment, but I think keeping both is best. As others have said, essays don't have to follow most policy. Furthermore, I do actually like WP:NOLABLEAK, because at the time it was written, it did a good job of demonstrating what it was trying to demonstrate. And I do still think that it's curious that users are arguing that my essay is being argued as a content fork, while the other one is not. At what point does WP:OTHERSTUFF just become an excuse for double standards? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "double standards" and NOLABLEAK being mainspace come from the fact that that essay is correct, while yours is not. Happy to help. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to delete a userspace essay. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I've said anything about deleting it or not (or voted in this MfD for that matter). For someone who strives hard to keep terrible content that does nothing for WP's mission as an encyclopedia as opposed to a soapbox centered around fringe theories, you sure are bad at actually reading. Best regards. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am being quite civil. It is quite relevant that, in your case, the (Personal attack removed) be pointed out. After all, this concerns the removal (or not) of a piece of writing - of a far longer and complex nature than my comment here. If one is unable to comprehend said writing, how are they expected to decide on its value for WP's purposes or the guidelines it does or does not violate? I'll leave that one with you. Best regards. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No you are not being remotely civil. You accused me of striving hard to keep terrible content, when I am merely commenting in a MfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The piece of writing that is the subject of this inquiry is terrible in my personal opinion, which I am entitled to. The fact you are striving hard in this case is driven by the objective observation that you have a. requested a speedy close, unlike any other user here, b. responded to three separate vote threads to argue your case, and c. reaching very hard in terms of arguments to support your viewpoint. Therefore, "striving hard" is my objective observation, not one meant to deride any person, but to describe their actions as they are. Best regards. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You would be in an immensely stronger position with that statement if crucial raw data supporting the scientific papers arguing against LL were available. Just as a for-example, we have this sentence:[1] WIV staff members have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 and were reported negative (Cohen, 2020). So can we see the raw data supporting that sentence? No, we cannot. Click through to the Cohen reference there, and you will see what that sentence is based on. Now, the fact that this paper has been accepted into a prestigious journal, and the raw data are unavailable, is not relevant in Wikipedia mainspace. It is, however, relevant to truth. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it fairly remarkable to see such anti-scientific sneering out in the open here on Wikipedia. I would say this is prima facie evidence that this account should be banned. Does anyone else find this to be entirely disconfirming? It is an achingly familiar line I have seen before from the likes of Flat Earthers, creationists, race realists, etc., etc., etc. What good is keeping this account around doing for WP:ENC? jps (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The availability of raw data is a core principle of science. It is not, however, a core principle of Wikipedia. That's one thing the essay is getting at. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. This is just WP:PROFRINGE posturing. No different from what we've seen before. Remember climategate? Same rhetorical bluster. Same lack of "there" there. jps (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not engage with me on the level of how we can know that the sentence is true? The paper says that WIV staff members were tested and found negative. If that is the case, and it is a fact we can rely on, then surely there is evidentiary support for the sentence, and such evidentiary support can be supplied. And an ad hominem attack someone who points out the failure to supply evidence makes matters worse. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what Wikipedia is for. There are plenty of other places on the internet where you can engage with what is or is not true. This looks to me like you are WP:NOTHERE which is, ironically, what I argued the last time this was up for deletion. jps (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Others have argued WP:TRUTHMATTERS. The comment I was responding to was saying that the other essay was correct and mine is not. I did not bring up truth on this page until that happened. But surely, once others have brought up truth-related points, it is appropriate for me to do the same. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRUTHMATTERS. Lies and misapprehensions should not be masquerading as Wikipedia essays-cum-articles anywhere on this site. It looks to me that it is also a WP:POINT violation. jps (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that it's actually this MfD nom which violates WP:POINT. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool story, bro. I think it's painfully obvious that when someone writes a WP:FAKEARTICLE like this in response to an essay which has a certain broader community consensus, it is obviously not being done in the spirit of collaboration and good will. Meantime, this MfD has allowed for discussion of what seems to be at least a controversial point, so I don't see how you could think that the filer is trying to disrupt just to make a point. jps (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The prior close was fine and there was absolutely no need to waste people's time with this matter of ultimately no consequence. Miner Editor (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its a WP:SOAPBOX argument promoting a WP:POVFORK for one specific article. That's not an essay. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. Two years ago you might, if you looked sideways, possibly conclude that a lab leak was at least plausible, but that was then and this is now: the lab leak claim, at this point, is used primarily as a Sinophobic propaganda tool, and as an excuse to attack living individuals such as Fauci. We can discuss the theory neutrally in main space, but it has no business being uncritically repeated anywhere on Wikipedia. It's the COVID equivalent of climate change denial at this point. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about the articles published over the past several months by the Times about the lab leak theory? But that doesn't matter, since WP:NOT thankfully does not apply to userspace essays. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. The intro to WP:SOAPBOX says this applies to [...] user pages and content hosted on Wikipedia is not for ... When policy says Personal essays on Wikipedia-related topics are welcome, it's referring to WP namespace-related viewpoints. It's not saying that essays are a place to express any opinion. The void century 16:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOAPBOX also specifically says "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project." This essay is a statement of opinion, referring to positions of other covid article editors, and it is non-disruptive. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see your reading issues cropping up here again - internal policies and guidelines clearly refers to the discussion of policies (and guidelines) in the abstract, not their specific application in any article's case, which is a topic for talk pages of said articles. This essay (as one could so generously refer to it) is not a statement of support or opposition to any one policy or guideline that WP presents in the abstract, rather it is a clear polemic with the way a specific article is written (and also a polemic with reality, if you will). What you quote yourself serves to undermine your point. Best regards. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is lab leak (a known phenomenon with other diseases worldwide) Sinophobic but "exotic animals at wet markets" (a more culturally-specific phenomenon) not? I personally think it's the latter but I don't think either can fairly be called Sinophobic. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
known phenomenon is a stretch. AFAIK, no major pandemics are thought to have originated in a lab leak. The void century 23:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. "No epidemic has been caused by the escape of a novel virus".^[1] There is a long history of conspiracy theorists blaming serious diseases on lab leaks though, including SARS, Ebola, HIV, and H1N1.^[2] –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a web host for personal rambles about encyclopedia topics. Agree with the other delete !votes made so far. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems perfectly harmless and alternate viewpoints should not be specifically targeted for censorship. David A (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a userspace page, it's not really important enough to bold vote on. It certainly seems a lot less of an issue than Wikipedia:Topics where reliable sources should be banned from Wikipedia indefinitely. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTAWEBHOST. This has very little to do with Wikipedia itself and is much more about advocacy. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 01:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, If not agreeing with the content of an essay is grounds to delete it we're not going to have many essays left. Its clearly an essay not a content fork. If the complaint is about the format I'm sure the author would be happy to give it a less article like appearance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essays with opinions are fine even if we disagree with those opnions, but the opinions should be at least marginally related to Wikipedia (and I don't mean "an opinion about something that Wikipedia has an article about"). Otherwise they should be removed per WP:NOTAWEBHOST. This essay should be treated exactly as we would treat an essay advocating for or against chemtrails, antivax, bigfoot, or even brushing your teeth. Except of course any essay about [ https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ]. That one is the TRUTH. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8373617/

[2] ttps://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-origin-of-sars-cov-2-revisited/

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 *'''Delete''' per [[WP:POVFORK]] and [[WP:NOTAWEBHOST]]. This has very little to do with Wikipedia itself and is much more about advocacy. —&nbsp;[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 01:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''', If not agreeing with the content of an essay is grounds to delete it we're not going to have many essays left. Its clearly an essay not a content fork. If the complaint is about the format I'm sure the author would be happy to give it a less article like appearance.  [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 05:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
+* '''Delete:''' Essays with opinions are fine even if we disagree with those opnions, but the opinions should be at least marginally related to Wikipedia (and I don't mean "an opinion about something that Wikipedia has an article about"). Otherwise they should be removed per [[WP:NOTAWEBHOST]]. This essay should be treated exactly as we would treat an essay advocating for or against chemtrails, antivax, bigfoot, or even brushing your teeth. Except of course any essay about [ https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ]. That one is the TRUTH. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 05:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)