Talk:Li-Meng Yan: Difference between revisions
→Great Quote from Tucker Carlson Interview: please stay focused on the value of the quote |
|||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
::In the course of trying to figure out what's going on with this I came across a [https://www.rt.com/usa/500862-covid-man-made-china-virologists/ ''Russia Today'' story] quite critical of her which put "whistleblower" in scare quotes. If RT of all places is skeptical enough to put the term in scare quotes I don't think Wikipedia should be characterizing her as a whistleblower in any way. I don't think the word should appear in the article at all. (p.s. in case it's not clear ''Russia Today'' as a [[Foreign Agents Registration Act]] registered lobbyist in the United States should not be used as a source in the article either.) --<span class="unicode" style="color:black;text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Struthious_Bandersnatch|▸₷<span style="font-variant:small-caps">truthious</span> Ⓑ<span style="font-variant:small-caps">andersnatch</span>◂]]</span> 07:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC) |
::In the course of trying to figure out what's going on with this I came across a [https://www.rt.com/usa/500862-covid-man-made-china-virologists/ ''Russia Today'' story] quite critical of her which put "whistleblower" in scare quotes. If RT of all places is skeptical enough to put the term in scare quotes I don't think Wikipedia should be characterizing her as a whistleblower in any way. I don't think the word should appear in the article at all. (p.s. in case it's not clear ''Russia Today'' as a [[Foreign Agents Registration Act]] registered lobbyist in the United States should not be used as a source in the article either.) --<span class="unicode" style="color:black;text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Struthious_Bandersnatch|▸₷<span style="font-variant:small-caps">truthious</span> Ⓑ<span style="font-variant:small-caps">andersnatch</span>◂]]</span> 07:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::How do you know that those are euphemistic "scare quotes" from Russia Today, and not literal quotes, quoting some other source?[[Special:Contributions/68.206.249.124|68.206.249.124]] ([[User talk:68.206.249.124|talk]]) 13:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Amazing amount of censorship == |
== Amazing amount of censorship == |
Revision as of 13:07, 17 September 2020
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 July 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
It is likely Li-Meng Yan was a visa-hunter as many other Chinese instead of a whistler blower. She didn't give any evidence so far to support her claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.144.131 (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- And your basis for that accusation, 14.200.144.131?
- I second the request for evidence for this accusation — Preceding
unsigned comment added by 128.252.174.220 (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting reference in hk01 news. You'll need google translate if you don't read Chinese.14.200.144.131 (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
In an interview with "Loose women" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lq3_rsBJ9w) Li-Meng Yan claims to have evidence that the Covid-19 virus was created in a laboratory but unfortunately also does not provide any evidence. 87.67.28.178 (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm new at making contributions. I added a paragraph that describes that Dr. Yan had claimed that within days she will provide "all the scientific evidence" to show that COVID-19 was man-made. To me, this claim is probably outlandish. So I believe it is very notable that she made the claim and her promise to provide such evidence in days. However, the reversion was due to unreliable sources, i.e., youtube and "Loose Women" talk show. But it is clear that she made the claim and no news org has investigated it. May I ask for help as to how to document that the claim was made without needing to cite that a news source has confirmed or denied the claim? I'm new at this, so please be patient with me, thanks! Cheers Chiffball (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Awaiting Evaluation of articles
Seems she is about to drop some more information. I will look around and see if I can find some reputable evaluations of her upcoming paper. The Chinese gift is a brutal and immoral dictatorship with no regard for human rights. Weaponizing a virus is not a moral issue for them. Their work with bat corona virus is well known F. L. (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Citation to her preprint paper
Since Li Men Yang Twitter account was 1. suspended (a) for unclear reason and (b) without explanation and (c) even though: "She had only four visible posts and one linked to the preprint paper that had not been peer reviewed", and 2. it happened just one day after her preprint paper was published, one may suspect that some form of censorship is happening against her paper. Not known. But suspected.
Since her paper was not yet peer reviewed, not much can be said about its content, about its scientific soundness. However censoring someone, especially without explanation, is unacceptable. Therefore I suggest to cite her preprint paper on her Wikipedia page. That is I suggest to publish the link to her paper, which is here: https://zenodo.org/record/402883084.225.164.59 (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- That's already in the article as Li-Meng Yan#cite note-30 ←this link will break as soon as another citation is added to the page but just press Ctrl-F and search for "zenodo" to find it again. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 12:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
👌84.225.164.59 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Great Quote from Tucker Carlson Interview
She has a heavy Chinese accent and so it takes some time to figure out exactly what she is saying, but the best quote from the entire interview IMO is when she talks about how the virus is man-made and "not from nature", she characterizes the virus as if it were a "...cow, with a deer's head, rabbit's ears, and a monkey's hands, so they can never get it from the nature." I find this metaphor extraordinary, and explains her opinion very clearly to the average layperson. If possible, I advocate that Wikipedia include this characterization in the article, since it will go a long ways towards cutting through the scientific jargon, and effectively convey meaning to the greatest number of people.68.206.249.124 (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Jackhammer111: Please don't simply undo work, please work to find a consensus. As above, there are many editors involved on this page, also including @老坛陈醋:@Amigao:@ArticleTheFirst:@CowHouse:@Telsho:@Whoisjohngalt: and others who want to see her, and her claims, clearly set out. If her credentials are in questions then raise and perhaps someone who knows the area will provide a source for those credentials. It doesn't help us understand the issue if you simply remove statements. If you have "three different sources" that "have debunked her" then please bring into the page. Then we all learn something. Or at least put up a flag on the claim so we can all look at this together. The Little Platoon (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Does anyone know of any kind of central database that registers credentials for academics? I can see that Dr Yan has credentials mentioned in news articles like CNN [[1]] and in a research publishing site [[2]], but is there a place where this stuff usually is decided?The Little Platoon (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll reiterate my original point so that it does not get lost in the other side-conversatins here. I have no opinion on Yan's credibility or reliability for purposes of Wikipedia. My only point is that, if anything of Yan is included in this Article, it should include the quote above, for the simple reason that it's "punchy" and makes her position very clear to the average layperson. I'm interested in forming a consensus on this point alone, and will leave it to others to work out other details.68.206.249.124 (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Whistleblower? Let's decide here
@CowHouse: has pointed to a dispute emerging between multiple editors as to whether she should be described as a "whistleblower" or "alleged whistleblower". What is your view? To my mind, until we have consensus, the subject should be described as "Said to be a whistleblower" or "described by some as a whistleblower." Thoughts?The Little Platoon (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@CowHouse: please avert edit war. I have put in the phrase, "said to be" to solve the problem for now. Would you please set out your argument here.The Little Platoon (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia policy: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Please follow policy and stop edit warring. Until we gain consensus on the talk page, the content should not be included since multiple editors have been changing the description between "whistleblower" and "alleged whistleblower" (see the edit history). According to your edit summary, I undid "a large amount of content". I removed two words ("and whistleblower") which were supported by four out-of-date references, as stated in my edit summary. The references used were out-of-date since they were all written before her recent claims that the virus was made in a lab. Unless most reliable sources are currently using that description, it is misleading to readers. Your recent edit ("said to be a whistleblower") does not solve the problem as it does not address that the sources are out-of-date (see WP:AGE MATTERS). CowHouse (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- In the course of trying to figure out what's going on with this I came across a Russia Today story quite critical of her which put "whistleblower" in scare quotes. If RT of all places is skeptical enough to put the term in scare quotes I don't think Wikipedia should be characterizing her as a whistleblower in any way. I don't think the word should appear in the article at all. (p.s. in case it's not clear Russia Today as a Foreign Agents Registration Act registered lobbyist in the United States should not be used as a source in the article either.) --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 07:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- How do you know that those are euphemistic "scare quotes" from Russia Today, and not literal quotes, quoting some other source?68.206.249.124 (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Amazing amount of censorship
You do not have to believe what she says it's true to burry it deep in the article instead of mentioning it in the intro. The fact that she claims COVID is made in a lab is much more important then human to human transmission timing. Again no need to report it as a fact, you can disclaimer it with usual "alleges" or "claims" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.85.29 (talk)
- What are you talking about? It is literally mentioned in the first sentence of the page. CowHouse (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia requested photographs
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class China-related articles
- Low-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- C-Class Women scientists articles
- Low-importance Women scientists articles
- WikiProject Women scientists articles
- C-Class COVID-19 articles
- Low-importance COVID-19 articles
- WikiProject COVID-19 articles