Talk:Nicholas Wade

Controversy

This section is heavily biased. "Genetic determinism" is a loaded term usually used by critics of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Critics use the term pejoratively to describe figures such as E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, and none of whom are generally considered fringe scientists. Wilson, for example, has never considered himself a "genetic determinist", and instead has insisted that human nature is the result of culture working on a biology that "channels" it, or keeps it on a "genetic leash". In other words, genes predispose humans to certain behaviours, but do not rigidly determine them. Nicholas Wade holds a similar position. I would attempt to rewrite the section more neutrally (both perspectives, including those who support Wade), but unfortunately I do not have the time at the present; I have simply added a template for now. Hayden120 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "genetic determinism" is used just once and attributed to its source, Marks, which is how it's properly done. The controversy section is weighted too much to Marks but he should be properly identified as anthropologist and geneticist, given the juxtaposition with Wade's quote that follows Marks views.

The section needs work, but note how Wade's quote is cherry picked from an article showing Marks has a lot of company in his opinions of Wade-that's no way to "balance" things. And there's just a single statement there now referring to Wade's opinions of sociobiology -per WP:Coatrack the article needs to keep its focus on Wade (who is a journalist) and not wander off into broader debate over sociobiology itself. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur. The section looks like it was written by Marks himself. At the very least, someone should put up a disputed neutrality warning. 70.197.84.231 (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia being used for self-promotion

Who is Jonathan M. Marks, and what does he have to do with the NY Times writer? Posing as information about a general dispute with certain of Wade's writings Mr. Marks or his amanuensis is merely drawing attention to himself. "In other news Kevin Federline said Vanilla Ice's music sucks." Housewares (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ii removed the criticism from Jonathan M. Marks since the source was self-published (blogspot). Such sources shall not be used about living persons per WP:BLPSPS. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

TFair enough--if Marks had a notable involvement with the subject it would deserve a concise description rather than the movie-poster-style blurb placed over his name. Housewares (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I would note that Jonathan Marks is a respected molecular anthropologist, although one who tends towards polemicism. Certainly more respectable than Wade. 171.64.203.240 (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

12 May 2021 edits. Wade's response to criticism

In regard to this edit series, i support the inclusion of Wade's response to his critics. This seems obvious to me that if criticism of his work is notable enough for inclusion, his response is presumptively worth including as well. The edit summary provides no real indication as to what the problem is, only that we should take it to talk. Ok, here we are. What exactly is the problem with this material? Bonewah (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of the history (which may be incomplete) is: On 2 December 2014 31.48.190.58 added the critical letter. On 16 January 2015, 84.121.56.93 added Mr Wade's reply. On 22 April 2021, Generalrelative removed Mr Wade's reply. Then Dcrellin and 98.116.80.134 and John2510 tried to re-insert but Generalrelative reverted them all. I believe that Generalrelative is correct to say that a consensus is required to re-insert Mr Wade's reply, and I believe that the editors who oppose Generalrelative are correct to point out that the response to the critique is allowable and would provide some balance. However, I propose: get rid of the critique too. It is a letter to the editor so removal could be justified with WP:BLPSPS and a consensus would be required to re-insert it. Would each side accept that? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

For my part, that seems acceptable. The letter and reply dont say much that we dont already say elsewhere and the citation (currently ref 14) could be moved to the next sentence "Other scientists argued that Wade had misrepresented their research". I imagine we could find a place for the citation used in the removed text as well. Bonewah (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bonewah: Thanks for opening up this discussion. My case for not including the response was stated in my edit summary: Wade's reply is WP:UNDUE when weighed against the stated view of over 100 geneticists and biologists. That policy states, in part: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. If you're skeptical that Wade's view really represents such a tiny minority, just look at the wide variety of critical sources cited at the main article A Troublesome Inheritance. Perhaps I should also have pointed to WP:FRINGE, since one of the things these geneticists are criticizing Wade for is the view that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence. An RfC over at Race and intelligence has recently affirmed that this view is fringe and therefore needs to be treated consistently with that guideline. How the language here would reflect that can certainly be debated, and I'd be happy to do so. For the record I'd be happy to include a paraphrase of Wade's denial that his book supports this fringe view, but not his accusation that all of these scientists have simply not read it.

@Peter Gulutzan: Thanks to you for compiling that timeline. I will just add that 1) Dcrellin and 98.116.80.134 appear to qualify as WP:SPAs, so their edits alone would typically not be considered as building a consensus. And 2) WP:SELFPUB makes it clear that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. That applies to all of the nearly 140 geneticists who signed the letter. Further, this letter was discussed at length in a secondary source, in this case Science: [1] That's not just some letter to the editor. That is a major and thorough repudiation which is newsworthy in and of itself. If anythings, we should cut the views of David Dobbs and Charles Murray, neither of whom are experts in the filed of genetics. Generalrelative (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• I find Wade's response to be somewhat disingenuous: While it's true that the book does not posit a genetic link between intelligence and race, and indeed acknowledges the consensus view that such a link is unlikely, the book nonetheless works very hard to posit a mechanism by which such a link could work as well as claiming that such a mechanism is likely to exist (indeed, that's the central thesis of the book). On top of that, his book assigns a genetic importance to race which is not found in the views of actual geneticists (hence much of the criticism).

With that in mind, I agree with Generalrelative that adding Wade's response would be an exercise in false balance. The suggestion that Wade's response carries any appreciable weight in comparison to the critiques from dozens (if not hundreds) of scientists is spurious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that Wade's response is either false balance or should be weighed against other scientists views with an eye towards Undue. We are not presenting Wade's views as correct or incorrect, we are simply presenting them as Wades views. If this were an article about Race and intelligence for instance, then i would agree with you that Wade's responses would have no place in that article. However, this is not an article about race, its an article about Wade. Indeed WP:WEIGHT states in part: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as flat Earth). (emphasis mine). This is an article about Wade, and by extension, his views, and so this is the appropriate place to represent them. WP:FALSEBALANCE agrees, saying in part "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity" (emphasis mine again). Again, we are not doing that here. Moreover, if either false balance or undue was an issue, then the problem would be with including Wade's books about the subject of race and genetics, not with his response to criticism of the book. Look at the preceding paragraph in the article. It contains the line "...in which he argued that human evolution has been "recent, copious, and regional" and that genes may have influenced a variety of behaviours that underpin differing forms of human society." Thats the fringe claim, not some note that his critics are wrong. But even there we are not running afoul of any Wikipedia rule. There is no problem with articles that describe fringe beliefs and their adherents. The issue is in presenting those fringe views in articles about the mainstream view. Bonewah (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that Wade's response is either false balance or should be weighed against other scientists views with an eye towards Undue. Considering that over a hundred scientists have concluded "this book supports a racist view of intelligence," it's fair to call that "commonly accepted mainstream scholarship." Wade dismisses this without addressing their arguments in a way that would be WP:UNDUE even were he an expert in the subject, arguing against a single other expert. When one considers that he's a non-expert arguing with over a hundred experts... Yeah, that's a false balance.

Indeed WP:WEIGHT states in part: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as flat Earth). (emphasis mine). I don't see how that is a positive argument for the inclusion of Wade's claim that most scientists haven't read his book. In fact, WP:WEIGHT also says "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view," and the claim that "none of these scientists have actually read my book" is, without a doubt, a minority view so tiny as to be insignificant.

Now, my opposition is not to the inclusion of Wade's response at all, but to the inclusion of the ridiculous (and rather petulant) notion that none of the signatories had read his book. If you were to write something that better characterized Wade's response without lending weight to his numerous fallacies, I'd be okay with that. For example:

Wade responded, claiming they had misrepresented the claims in the book, and saying that it presented a "principled" objection to racism.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

+1 to this suggested text. Very much in line with my suggestion above that we include a paraphrase of Wade's denial that his book supports this fringe view, but not his accusation that all of these scientists have simply not read it. Generalrelative (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I also support this proposed language. I would slightly prefer just the first half, ending it at "...book." It's important to maintain the WEIGHT on the objections of a large group of scientists by keeping our note on Wade's response brief. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any editor's personal view of the substance or validity of an entry is relevant. When there is disagreement like this, the best solution is to provide the reader with both sides and let him decide. It's unfair to provide only one side of an argument, especially when elimination of the other side is based upon editors' personal views on the validity of the arguments. John2510 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any editor's personal view of the substance or validity of an entry is relevant. Once again, we have someone attributing something they don't like to a "personal view". What I wrote was not a personal view. One of the central theses of Wade's book is that race is much more genetically meaningful than geneticists have claimed it is, a thesis which, when combined with his other cherry-picked assertions about racial genetics and the heritability of IQ form a mechanism by which the relationship between IQ and race could be explained (assuming that Wade were actually correct in his numerous assertions). This is not opinion, but rather a logically inescapable consequence of any informed reading of the book. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That boils down to: You're certain that your conclusion is "inescapably" right to any "informed" person, therefore readers should be prevented from reading the opposing view. John2510 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, prove me wrong, then. You've read the book, right? And you have a functioning grasp of genetics as it pertains to race, right? Until then, your objections are nothing but hollow rhetoric. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I also support inclusion of Wade's defense. As a fallback, I would support removal of both the attack and the defense. I think it's absurd to suggest that an individual's defense of his personal position is UNDUE, simply because he is making it himself, rather than as a group. Generally, when an individual's actions are attacked in a public way, the significant and relevant defense is the one that person gives.John2510 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Including Wade's defense is appropriate. Stonkaments (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I also note that Wade's defense of his actions was quoted in the Science article that is cited as a source for the attack. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/geneticists-decry-book-race-and-evolution Apparently, Science thought his position was significant and appropriate to include. I submit that WP should as well. It disturbs me to see materials actively omitted from articles for the reasons stated here - because editors disagree with their substance. Readers should be provided with the opportunity to consider both sides of any argument worth including.John2510 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Readers should be provided with the opportunity to consider both sides of any argument worth including. That's what we're discussing here: whether his response is worth including.

It disturbs me to see materials actively omitted from articles for the reasons stated here - because editors disagree with their substance. I have good news for you then. No one is basing their position here on such reasons. You've simply misread the discussion above. Generalrelative (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? If both sides of the argument are to be included, then we need to include his response, and not just the attack. It's apparent the editors of Science realized the need for that. John2510 (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems there is some support to simply excluding the block quotes entirely, which is fine by me. That a controversial book solicited criticism and resposes to same is unremarkable, and, as such, should be just removed. Ive made a compromise edit, feel free to modify, revert, etc so long as you discuss why here. Bonewah (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That edit was not even close to a compromise, and in fact, resembles more the sort of edit I might expect from some random edgelord IP who decided to troll this discussion. Please don't make such an edit again. Both me and Generalrelative have proposed compromises, including specific wording in my case, which Generalrelative has endorsed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That a controversial book solicited criticism and resposes to same is unremarkable. What kind of reasoning is this? It seems you're arguing that WP should not discuss responses by experts to controversial claims because of course experts will challenge such claims. But I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not making such an absurd argument. Would you mind clarifying? Generalrelative (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to pile on, but I also object to the "remove it all" edit being considered a compromise. Peter Gulutzan suggested it above, Generalrelative gave a good-faith counter, and there hasn't been any discussion of it's merits since. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok then, is the core of the objection the fact that Wade's response includes the claim that the critics must not have read Wade's work? The reason i ask is the same as my response to Generalrelative: The quotes we had tells the reader almost nothing. The critics say "you misrepresented my work" Wade says "you misrepresented my work". Ok, how? In what way? The only thing we really say is that there was criticism of an ill defined nature. The quotes do nothing to clarify anything, so if the jist of it all is that there is criticism then we might as well just say that. In so far as MPants would accept a response from Wade that doesnt include claims about who read what, then.... fine i guess, but we still arent saying much. Maybe we could say something to the effect of Wade replys "As no reader of the letter could possibly guess, “A Troublesome Inheritance” argues that opposition to racism should be based on principle, not on the anti-evolutionary myth that there is no biological basis to race." Or if you prefer "Perhaps I could point out an error in one of the few specific statements in their letter. They charge me with saying that “recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results.” I say no such thing. What I do say (p. 193) is that “It may be hazardous to compare the IQ scores of different races if allowance is not made for differences in wealth, nutrition and other factors that influence IQ.”. Im not in love with block quotes in general, but if we are going to quote Wade's reply then we should at least quote something that provided the reader with useful information. Bonewah (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In so far as MPants would accept a response from Wade that doesnt include claims about who read what, then.... fine i guess, but we still arent saying much. The whole point of this discussion is to determine how much to say about Wade's response. Given the vast difference in expertise and numbers here "not much" is pretty much the target. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, i want to emphasize, this is not an article about race and genetics, its an article about Nicholas Wade. And i see no reason to paraphrase Wade's response to his critics while quoting those critics directly. If the problem really is the part where Wade says his critics must not have read his works, then perhaps we simply say "Wade responded in a letter "“A Troublesome Inheritance” argues that opposition to racism should be based on principle, not on the anti-evolutionary myth that there is no biological basis to race.". At least that quote tells the reader something sort of informative. Bonewah (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Why on earth would we want to use this BLP as a platform to uncritically present Wade's fringe view that the scientific consensus on race is an anti-evolutionary myth? As to the rest of your argument, i.e. (I see no reason..., the reason is presented very clearly in WP:NPOV, one of our core policies. Neutrality does not mean presenting both sides; it means presenting all sides according to WP:DUE weight; and in this case Wade's own view counts for almost nothing when weighed against essentially the entire scientific community. There is no ambiguity here. Generalrelative (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, i want to emphasize, this is not an article about race and genetics, its an article about Nicholas Wade. Again, I want to emphasize that this argument is a non-sequitur. Our policies on WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE apply to the whole project, just like WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:MPOV do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

For me, that claim about critics not reading is not the core of my objection, although I agree it's problematic. I'm mostly focused on WEIGHT. Many scientists promoting a consensus view are criticizing one scientist who promotes a fringe view; we should reflect the asymmetry in this article. There are many single-sentence summations (not direct quotes) of Wade's letter that I would support including. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll just add to this that Wade is not a scientist. He's a journalist. And he now writes for blacklisted publications like the NY Post. Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

At this point, there doesn't appear to be a consensus to include the attack in the absence of his defense, which calls for both to be removed. John2510 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Given that A Troublesome Inheritance promotes a fringe view claiming evolutionary genetic effects on differences in IQ and in social/political activities between races and nations -- a view that's rejected by the consensus of geneticists -- it is sufficient that we have the one sentence that's already there quoting a well-known person (Charles Murray) in support of those fringe views. Any more attention to that POV would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. The current version of that section looks fine to me. The operative policy in such a case is WP:FRINGE. NightHeron (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

John2510's statement is correct, and NightHeron's statement is false, WP:FRINGE is not a policy. However, WP:BLPSPS is a policy and Mr Wade is alive. And Generalrelative did not give a "counter" to what I said -- WP:SELFPUB does not trump WP:BLPSPS and anyway read the last sentence of WP:SELFPUB before quoting it again. At least 3 editors have said they would accept removal, and re-insertion after removal would require consensus (WP:ONUS, WP:BLPUNDEL), nobody tried to "counter" that observation. However, I don't dare do the removal because I think there is an edit war in progress. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the worst wikilawyerly argument I've ever read. Ever.

It carries absolutely no weight with me, and has made a serious dent in the weight I will ascribe any argument you make in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've removed quotes from criticism pending any consensus to include them in the absence of his defense. I've left mention of the criticism, together with the footnotes, so that any reader may explore the issue further if he chooses to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

^I have no idea who's comment this is^ mine starts below. Bonewah (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

<-Ok lets start from the top. @Mpants and @generalrelative, the reason i keep emphasizing the fact that this is an article about Nicholas Wade and not one on Race and Genetics is because the subject of an article is what determines what constitutes fringe views and, more importantly, what 'claims' are even being made in the first place. Lets look at WP:Fringe theories. The 'in a nutshell' sums up what im talking about nicely "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear." (bolding mine). The bolded statement is the relevant one here. So an article about Race and Genetics would be the 'mainstream idea' noted above and the *contents* of Wade's book would be the 'idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field'. However, since this is an article about Wade himself the claims that Wikipedia are making are threefold:

1. That Nicholas Wade wrote a book titled 'A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History'
2. The the book in question solicited (notable, in my opinion) objections from geneticists et al.
3. That Nicholas Wade responded to those critics.

The contents of Wade's book is mostly irrelevant in this regard because we are not presenting the contents of the book as either true or false, we are merely noting that Wade wrote them, as is appropriate in a biography. So, @Firefangledfeathers as well, while its important to note that the contents of Wades book runs counter to the mainstream view, this article is not the forum to weigh those claims. Additionally, because we are not making any claims about the contents of the book, WP:FRINGE is not relevant here.

Ok, moving on. @NightHeron, if a one sentence quote from Charles Murray is sufficient, then i propose we remove the quote from Murray (which also adds nothing to the article) and replace it with one from Wade which is, at least, responsive to the criticism we also feel is notable. And, i want to re-iterate, i do feel that his critics claims are notable enough to be included here, i just dont think this is the place to litigate those claims.

@Firefangledfeathers, why should we use a direct quote from his critics but not one from Wade himself? Honestly, if you want to write a summary of the whole thing that quotes neither, im fine with that, depending on the wording, of course. But if we are going to quote his critics directly, then we should do the same for Wade. I see no reason for the dissimilarity.

Hopefully this clears up my position on this. Bonewah (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The unattributed entry above, and the edit, were mine. Sorry. John2510 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

the subject of an article is what determines what constitutes fringe views That literally flies in the face of WP:FRINGE and is not, and has not ever been a policy or guideline on this project. There is a proposal above with three editors behind it. Either get behind it yourself, or offer your own. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

No it is literally what fringe says. As for your demands that i "get behind it yourself, or offer your own" i did offer my own, here based on what the editors in question claimed was their issue. And what was your oh so helpful response? To call me a troll diff, even taking the time to go back and make your comment even more caustic that it was already. Bonewah (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Fringe views are fringe regardless of the subject of the article. Since you contend that FRINGE says "literally" the opposite, can you point to that part of the policy. If you are suggesting that your quotation of the policy above justifies your view, I think you need to explain further. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You say this article is not the place to weigh fringe claims against mainstream views, but I am certain that the correct such place is everywhere on Wikipedia. There should be no dark corners or walled garden of Wikipedia where fringe views are presented uncritically.

I am very far from understanding how you are interpreting FRINGE. In your quote from the nutshell, I find the two sentences you didn't bold to be pertinent. This article is either "about the minority viewpoint" or it isn't. If it is, then we need to contextualize. If it is not, then we should minimize. Part of FRINGE, WP:ONEWAY, is specifically about fringe mentions in "other articles":

Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories. Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources.

You see no reason for dissimilarity in this article's treatment of Wade and his critics, I see the discrepancy as mandated by our policies and good sense besides. Do you believe, in general, that BLP articles about purveyors of fringe theories should give equal weight to them and their mainstream critics? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• I literally have nothing more to say to editors who insist upon lying about policy and making WP:POINTy edits. I don't care what you think about any of this. The only proposal that's gotten any traction here was mine, so I'm implementing it, and ready to call in an admin when the inevitable edit war starts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  At least three editors have expressed support for removing the critique quote in the absence of Wade's defense, so I don't think it's accurate to say that your proposal is the only one that's gotten any traction. Stonkaments (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Stonkaments, the denial is classic WP:MANDY stuff and should be excluded because WP:PROFRINGE. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You think that makes a consensus? This is right now 3 against three, and your side has:

Misrepresentations about policy.

Pointy edits.

POV pushing.

That's not a consensus. At best, there's no consensus for anything, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a consensus. I said your claim that your proposal was the only one with any traction was false. At best, there's no consensus for anything, here. I agree, so let's work towards that before making any more changes. Generalrelative made a bold change and was reverted; the next step in the WP:CYCLE is discussion. Stonkaments (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me try a simpler formulation. This is not the place to discuss the rightness or wrongness of Wade's book. This is a biography, not an article about race. @ Firefangledfeathers to answer your question directly, I believe BLPs are for biographical information. There is ample reason to include a brief note of criticisms, where relevant (and, again, I think these criticisms are relevant here) and ample reason to note his reply. Keep in mind that all this yammering about Fringe, about Undue, about a dozen other rules people think apply is over a *single sentence*. Hell, its even less than that, its about if we should quote the man or paraphrase him. But here we all are, so ill put it back to you; you said you were ok paraphrasing his reply, but not quoting him directly. Why? And if you were to write the paraphrase, what would you say? Bonewah (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I really think you need to look up the definitions of "compromise" and "whitewash", because you really seem to be confusing the two. The reaction to this book is a big part of what makes Wade notable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

My preference is to exclude his response entirely. As a compromise, I am okay with a short paraphrase. Why a paraphrase but not a quote? Because full quoting gives Wade's view more weight than short paraphrasing. My compromise paraphrase would be a truncated MjolnirPants suggestion: "Wade responded, claiming they had misrepresented the claims in the book."

I get that this discussion is intense and none of us can maintain our perfectly polite posture forever, but I have to object to "yammering" as a description of good-faith application of Wikipedia policy. The fact that there are "a dozen" guidelines cautioning against inclusion of Wade's response is revealing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

If Wade defends Wade against more than 100, he is in the position of a tiny minority. So: Whether we like or not, according to WP:DUE there is only one option: The cristicism has to be included, his response not. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as Due requires us to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." and the source we are quoting thought it necessary to repproduce Wade's response in full, I would say that the prominence of Wade's viewpoint is actually greater than those of his critics. But if we are going to endeavor to fairly represent this debate, and fairness is the important part of Due that so many seen to want to overlook, then the fair way to do it is to either carefully quote both, or carefully paraphrase both. Bonewah (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bonewah: Rsk6400's argument is based on what the policy WP:DUE says. As to your statement that the prominence of Wade's viewpoint is actually greater than those of his critics –– when Wade is a science journalist reporting on genetics and "his critics" in this one instance are 139 genetics professors –– I find it utterly baffling how someone (even in their very subjective view of fairness) could think this. It is certainly diametrically opposed to the principle of due weight. Generalrelative (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

If this were an article about genetics, then you would be right. It is not. Its an article about Wade. And the viewpoints being expressed here are 1) Wade wrote a book. 2)the geneticists in question feel wade misrepresented their work and 3) Wade thinks his critics misrepresented his work. To give voice to Wade's critics while silencing him is manifestly unfair, which is exactly what Due tells us to avoid. The science article we use as a citation published Wade's response in full and is, therefore, the view (that Wade feels the critics misrepresent his work) that is most prominently represented in the published, reliable source. And what does Due tell us to do in that circumstance? Represent them in proportion to how the sources represent them. Bonewah (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It's an article about Wade, who wrote about genetics, so the views of geneticists are indeed deserving of a good deal of weight. Wikipedia is not "silencing" a widely-published author if we refrain from giving them the last word about their book (particularly when Mandy Rice-Davies applies to that last word). XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that MANDY says, in part: If a reliable source has checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so, which is the case here.[2][3] Stonkaments (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:Mandy is an essay, not policy. And pretty much everyone has said that the geneticists views are deserving of inclusion here. And if removing what someone said isn't silencing them, then you and I have different definitions of what might constitute silencing. This is even more absurd when you consider that the source for this reprinted Wade's reply in full and as the last word. But I guess reiterating that WP:DUE and WP:NPOV in general both say that we must represent views "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" won't do much good at this point. Even though the published, reliable source we use does exactly what you say we must not do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonewah (talk • contribs) 17:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It's an essay, but an essay that makes a good point. Running a reply after the piece it replies to is typical practice for many publications, particularly scientific journals; it does not indicate that the publication in question regards the reply as the definitive take. And to say that omitting a statement about the thoroughly unremarkable event of an author standing by his own book is "silencing" strikes me as quite hyperbolic. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

you and I have different definitions of what might constitute silencing That is true. You have a wrong definition. Galileo Galiei was silenced. Giordano Bruno was silenced. Nikolai Vavilov was silenced. Wade is still free to write whatever he wants, and there is even a large newspaper ready to print it. All that happened is that one website, Wikipedia, does not cite that one quote of his. That is not silencing by any meaningful definition. Otherwise you would have to repeat everything I say, since if you do not, you are silencing me by your own definition. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Section break

It is apparent that we can't agree on a version to keep while this dicussion is taking place. I would like to propose either (a) the version with the critics' quote and Wade's quote (this was status quo before Generalrelativity's first removal) or (b) a version with no mention of the book at all. I am unsatisfied with both options, which is probably a good sign. If someone has another proposal, feel free to make it. In general, I would love to focus on building consensus and not edit warring in the meantime. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD would call for option A I believe. Stonkaments (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

How about we leave mention of the book, but take out all the details about criticisms and praise and responses and so forth until we hash out what to say? Bonewah (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem with including Nicholas Wades response is that it requires either a summary or a quote from it, either of which potentially misrepresents Wade's position or the position of the scientists letter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I take it then you would support an edit that either paraphrases Wade, or quotes him directly but doesn't misrepresent anyone's position? Im fairly confident that I could construct that. Bonewah (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how including Wade's quote misrepresents the position of the scientists. You could argue that Wade misrepresents the scientists (though I don't agree), and/or that the scientists misrepresent Wade, but by including both quotes (clearly attributed to their authors) and not making any claims in wikivoice, Wikipedia is simply documenting the debate and not misrepresenting either side. Stonkaments (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I could see something like, "Wade issued a statement in response to the letter disputing the allegations" Based on the Science article where it is reproduced in full as an addendum to the piece, but as there isn't any analysis of the statement in secondary sources to my knowledge, to include Wade's own reasoning is arguably undue. My own point is that one could take one of several sentences made by Wade in the statement as a quote, which could variously make Wade's response appear differently. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: see here where I did something very similar, which Stonkaments reverted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

So is the dispute over whether the letter should be included or over whether Wade's response should? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Wade's response. The Scientists' letter quote was removed in the middle of the discussion about Wade's response, in an extremely WP:POINTY way, with Bonewah calling that a "compromise". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The dispute was originally about Wade's response. Fairly early on in the discussion, some editors began disputing inclusion of the letter as well, especially in saying that both should be included, or neither. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Or, at least as far as I'm concerned, both can be paraphrased. The notion that somehow Undue or Fringe requires us to paraphrase or exclude Wade's response while quoting his critics in full is nonsense. @Hemiauchenia:, if you were to paraphrase the scientists criticisms, what would you say? Bonewah (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The notion that somehow Undue or Fringe requires us to paraphrase or exclude Wade's response while quoting his critics in full is nonsense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggested language

Based on an examination of the sources cited here and at the main artilce A Troublesome Inheritance, as well as a rereading of WP:NPOV, here is my suggested language to describe the book:

In 2014, Wade released A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, in which he argued that human evolution has been "recent, copious, and regional" and that genes may have influenced a variety of behaviours that underpin differing forms of human society. The book has been widely denounced by scientists, including many of those upon whose work the book was based. On 8 August 2014, The New York Times Book Review published an open letter signed by 139 faculty members in population genetics and evolutionary biology. After publication, the letter was signed by 4 more faculty members. The letter read:

Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, political institutions and economic development. We reject Wade's implication that our findings substantiate his guesswork. They do not.

We are in full agreement that there is no support from the field of population genetics for Wade's conjectures.

The book was further criticized in a series of five reviews by Agustín Fuentes, Jonathan M. Marks, Jennifer Raff, Charles C. Roseman and Laura R. Stein. which were published together in the scientific journal Human Biology. Marks, for instance, described the book as "entirely derivative, an argument made from selective citations, misrepresentations, and speculative pseudoscience." Other reviews were more moderate in their criticism, such as that of H. Allen Orr, who wrote in The New York Review of Books that "Wade's survey of human population genomics is lively and generally serviceable. It is not, however, without error. He exaggerates, for example, the percentage of the human genome that shows evidence of recent natural selection."

Note that I've included only responses from subject-matter experts, i.e. geneticists and population biologists. That excludes Wade of course. I would be willing to compromise somewhat and include a paraphrased version of his WP:MANDY-esque retort such as MPants suggested above, but that's about as far as I believe WP:DUE allows us to go in the interest of compromise here. Striking comment that could be construed as non-neutral Generalrelative (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Generalrelative (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: Per the suggestion below from Silver seren, I'll offer specific wording for a paraphrase of Wade's response:

Wade issued a statement in response, saying that these scientists had misunderstood his intent.

Please consider this appended to my suggested text above, just below the block quote. Let me know if you'd like to propose any changes. Generalrelative (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

References

RfC about suggested statement

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus that the proposed text should be included. This RfC is not a vote count, instead I'm looking at the arguments made and whether they are founded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Proponents of including argued:

• The book is one of the things Wade is best known for, and therefore should get proportionate coverage in his bio.
• There's strong evidence that the viewpoint Wade expresses does not enjoy mainstream scientific support, as indicated by the letter signed by more than a hundred scientists. It's therefore appropriate to fairly represent the (lack of) support for Wade's ideas in the scientific field.

Neither of these arguments was much addressed by the opposers. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 16:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Is the suggested edit above a balanced and neutral statement about Wade's book that is WP:DUE for this article? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Oh, so your idea of compromise is to make the article even more unfair to the subject? Unsurprisingly, I object. As stated above, Due clearly states that we are to fairly represent all significant viewpoints. To claim that Wade's viewpoint on his own work is not significant is sophistry. Bonewah (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:MANDY is a good read if you're interested in finding out where some of us are coming from on this issue. And WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. Generalrelative (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The suggested text looks fine to me. It's concise, encyclopedically toned, and in line with the relevant policies and guidelines. XOR'easter (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Thank you for your research. I continue to propose "Wade responded, claiming they had misrepresented the claims in the book" or something of similar weight, as about the maximum MANDY allowable by DUE/FRINGE. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Im still waiting to hear why a paraphrase of Wade's position is ok and Wades on words on his position is not. Bonewah (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Addressed above. Here's a diff. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Just adding that I've said much the same thing at least twice, much higher in this thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Obviously, per above ad nauseam. Bonewah (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Addendum, WP:NPOV Clearly states that it means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." An edit that quotes Wade's critics at great lenght while going out of its way to exclude Wade's response is in no way fair, proportional and without bias. WP:FRINGE does not supercede Neutrality. Indeed, FRINGE also insists that we represent each side fairly and proportionally. It takes some powerfully motivated reasoning to conclude that a policy that insists on fairness actually requires us to be unfair, but that is what the proponents of this edit have done. Bonewah (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This level of detail is UNDUE for the article on Wade; it would of course be appropriate for the article on the book itself, where it appears it was largely copied from. The proposal also disregards the many editors' feedback here that Wade's response warrants inclusion. MANDY and NPOV argue for–not against-–including Wade's response. Stonkaments (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  MANDY and NPOV argue for–not against-–including Wade's response. I would suggest that you reread both. Generalrelative (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  MANDY is an essay and nought more, and and fie on all you that are treating it in this discussion like it is policy. As for NPOV, Generalrelative, does NPOV not say that all significant viewpoints be included, with their respective DUE WEIGHTS? Where in NPOV, Generalrelative, does it state that only one viewpoint gets included and the opposition and any response gets excluded entirely? That seems to be what you're arguing in your (unnecessarily snippy) reply to Stonkaments Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  "significant viewpoints" - that's the key: Wade's viewpoint is FRINGE, so while it might get a short mention here, it means we need avoid giving it equal weight (FALSEBALANCE) with his critics. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yup, RandomCanadian is entirely correct. Here's the key quote from NPOV (you'll see it quoted above as well, in my first response on this talk page): Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. As has been explained again and again and again in this discussion and in the above, when the claims of a single journalist are weighed against those of ~140 subject-matter experts, the single journalist's view is quite obviously that of a tiny minority. There is really no ambiguity here at all. My addendum which indicates that Wade disputed the letter is more than enough to represent the significance of his response to our readers. Generalrelative (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's not clear to me that anyone here is treating WP:MANDY as anything other than good advice. My own approach is clearly stated above: WP:MANDY is a good read if you're interested in finding out where some of us are coming from on this issue. And my suggestion to Stonkaments that they try rereading it was rather gentle when you consider the fact that they'd gotten the entire point of the essay precisely backwards. Generalrelative (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Stonkaments, er, no, they do not. NPOV indicates going with what reliable independent sources say, and ignoring affiliated and self-published sources (including the subject). We are not a newspaper, where the editors always give the last word to the subject. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  Well, the reliable, independent source we cite reprinted Wade's response in full. Sadly, that fact, along with the fact that WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and even the much cited WP:FRINGE all say clearly and immediately state that we are required to represent views 'in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" will be ignored. Bonewah (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have tried to stay out of this discussion, as I really dislike the entire subject, but I have a suggestion for a comparison to a non-controversial individual. We have a page for the famous biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck where his works are discussed. Much of the discussion involves quoting other sources and individuals about his work, some of it complimentary and some of it critical. The article is also clear (although it could be clearer) that his views on evolution, while remarkably well-developed for his time, turned out to be incorrect. My point is that we absolutely should be quoting criticism of a subject's works on that person's article, and we should note when their works are dismissed, criticized, or invalidated by mainstream scientific consensus. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support this proposal. The continued arguments against it are not persuasive in the slightest, and do more to undermine my faith in the editors making them than anything else. The only argument's I've been given towards exclusion consist of the assertion that WP:BLP somehow "overrides" WP:NPOV, meaning that we "cannot" say this much about it. The argument is a non-sequitur, full stop. This is the most notable event in Wade's life, and as such, should be the most prominent part of his bio, which this proposal still doesn't even do. However, this proposal represents a good, reasonably well-balanced compromise, and as such, is the best option for settling this issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Nothing wrong with it. Including Generalrelative, XOR'easter and Firefangledfeathers, that makes 5:2. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Support per the reasons given above. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC) (See new comment below)

• Oppose. This is an article about the person, not about the book. This level of detail about the book's reception is excessive for a biographical article, per WP:COATRACK. Gardenofaleph (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Do it right an RfC with no canvassing and a short question might have some weight so if you want a decision that can be taken seriously we can discuss that way. Would be even more serious if people didn't bring up essays or call opponents liars. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Update: I see that Generalrelative is now trying to make a short serious question after getting counsel from Redrose64. I suppose that there's no need to ping everyone who !voted before the question was changed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support This seems like a good overview of what is clearly a primary subject of notability for Wade. And it properly exhibits the response by the scientific community on Wade's pseudoscience cherrypicking in the field of race and intelligence. I do think his response should be represented as well, so some attempt of properly paraphrasing needs to be done, even if it will be difficult. Separately, I am concerned about the number of pseudoscience POV pushing users on this talk page, though I guess that's what this topic area is always like. Silverseren^C 02:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  That makes sense. I've offered my own attempt at paraphrasing above in response to this suggestion. Generalrelative (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Would you care to cite a diff where a user pushes pseudoscience in this talk page? Bonewah (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Anyone that is supporting Wade's viewpoints is pushing pseudoscience. Silverseren^C 18:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Also, if you want me to be specific, up above you said "so your idea of compromise is to make the article even more unfair to the subject". There is no being "unfair" to the subject. He is a pseudoscience pusher, that fact needs to be represented in the article with the response by the scientific community. To not do so is to violate the FRINGE rules we have here on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 18:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  "I do think his response should be represented as well..." His response isn't represented in the proposed edit. That's the core issue in this discussion. John2510 (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  And an addition that includes his response can be accepted as well. But, regardless of that, the material above showcasing the response to his pseudoscience is needed in the article. Silverseren^C 18:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  See my addendum above. Generalrelative (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Including, and quoting at length, from attacks on Wade's work, without including his own defense is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Readers will be presented with on only one POV - unable to educate themselves and make informed decisions. The fact that it is Wade himself defending his position is all the more reason to include it. When someone is attacked, we typically like to know what they have to say for themselves. It's brief enough that the only reason to exclude it would be to deprive readers of understanding both sides of the argument, which violates NPOV. While the proposed edit piles on from the previous UNDUE version, with more criticisms, even Murray's defense of Wade's work has been stripped out, with no explanation. The excuses provided here are bogus justifications for not only violating NPOV, but turning this BLP into a one-sided attack on Wade. If there's a consensus to ensure that no one can consider other points of view then, well... that's Wikipedia. Given that this is a BLP, an appropriate entry would be along the lines of stating that his book faced criticism (including a brief summary and footnotes), which Murray and Wade defended (including a brief summary and footnote). Anything more is UNDUE in this context. John2510 (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Actually I did give an explanation: I've included only responses from subject-matter experts, i.e. geneticists and population biologists. Murray is neither of these. Note that I also cut the critical remarks by David Dobbs for the same reason. Generalrelative (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Including, and quoting at length, from attacks on Wade's work To call the quotes from actual scientists about Wade's misrepresentation of their work "attacks" is complete and utter bullshit. Full stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  And because you believe Wade's statements were misrepresentations, it is critically important that readers not be exposed to contrary views, lest they reach a different conclusion. POV much? It's appalling they way some WP editors see WP as a tool to persuade (by only telling one side of an issue), rather than to educate and to provoke thought. John2510 (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's not about what I believe, as I've said countless times thus far, and which should be obvious to anyone with the competence to work on this project, but what the actual experts in this subject believe. FFS. P.S. The blatant hypocrisy of that personal attack is noted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  The number of times you say something doesn't add to its validity. The critics allege they Wade's statements are misrepresentations of their work. Wade contends they are not. You believe the former and not the latter, and therefore want to censor the latter. John2510 (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  This is not a matter of personal opinion. It is Wikipedia that weighs the views of subject-matter experts more highly than those who have no relevant expertise. When the subject is genetics, it is therefore geneticists whose views hold weight. If a journalist like Wade says to a geneticist "My book accurately represents your genetic theory" and the geneticist says "No it doesn't", there really is no contest as to whose view we should be presenting as notable. Now multiply that by approximately 150. Generalrelative (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that Wade is right and 140 something geneticists are wrong about how genetics work? Wait, strike that, you absolutely are suggesting that, what I mean to ask is if you've got the cajones to state it outright, so we can just get the WP:AE ball rolling on your impending topic ban right away. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  I clearly said nothing of the kind, but the fact that you would make such a frivolous threat to seek administrative action for my affront to disagree with you tells us a lot about you. Wade's statement that you want to keep out is not one about "how genetics work." It's a comment about whether he took a position on the cause of racial differences in IQ results - responding to an allegation that he mischaracterized his critics' work. He's as entitled to have an opinion on what he said and meant as anyone. Probably more. John2510 (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's what I thought. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Generalrelative: what is your brief and neutral statement? At almost 4,600 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Redrose64: Thanks for your query and for the information. I'm hoping that MPants has now fixed the problem. Please do let us know if there are any continuing issues with the RfC's formatting. Generalrelative (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

    It's now showing correctly, Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly written, appropriate use of high-quality sources, adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. NightHeron (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support as OP. The suggested text above was my attempt to balance the need to respect WP:NPOV and the desire to compromise with those who disagree in good faith. Now that this is officially an RfC (thanks to MPants for adding the template and reformatting), I'll ping XOR'easter and Firefangledfeathers in case they'd like to restate their opinions in !vote form for greater visibility. I'll also ping users who have contributed to the conversation above but haven't weighed in here yet: Guy and Hemiauchenia. If I've missed anyone, please let me know (or ping them yourself). Generalrelative (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Poorly written, inappropriate use of a low quality source, violates two guidelines and a policy. I'll ignore the biased question whether it's merely "due" and concentrate on greater reasons it's unacceptable, and on the matters that were discussed earlier (the quoted critique and the response). (1) The quote is from a letter to the editor about a book review by David Dobbs. Generalrelative violates the MOS:SIC guideline by omitting the important first words of the first sentence. It actually said "As discussed by Dobbs and many others, Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, , political institutions and economic development." The omitted first words are important because they were what Wade may have been responding to, and they're false. Mr Dobbs's review does not discuss anything about IQ or intelligence. When the context is "we know it contains a falsehood", that's WP:RSCONTEXT guideline violation. (2) WP:BLPSPS policy says "Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources." A letter to the editor fits that. The suggestion (far above in the thread) that we can ignore WP:BLPSPS and try WP:SELFPUB instead won't work, you can't wave a policy away and anyway WP:SELFPUB says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (3) The letter has five authors (Coop, Eisen, Nielsen, Przeworski, Rosenberg), they submitted "on behalf of" others, it's arguably true that the letter was "signed by" others but WP:INTEXT says attribution has to be to "the source", not the applauders. (4) There is no good evidence in this article that Mr Wade said something about a race/intelligence correlation, so it's irrelevant that such a correlation is bad in the estimation of both the critics and Mr Wade. So, if anyone is here due to Generalrelative's notice to the Race+Intelligence talk page or MjolnirPants's post to WP:FTN, please actually read this talk page's entire thread before believing that the subject is related to the pages you were called from. (Notifying WP:BLPN would have been right but might be unnecessary.) (5) I urge the closer to read the entire thread since many of the supporters' statements and actions are exposed in earlier sections, and especially note that, if the critique is removed, yet more re-insertions without consensus would yet again violate WP:ONUS and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  BLPSPS and SELFPUB don't apply. This letter wasn't self-published; it was submitted to, accepted by, and published by the New York Times. The part of BLPSPS you quote isn't referring to letters to the editor, but user-generated comments on blog posts.

  The letter wasn't "arguably" signed by others; it just plain was. The other signatories are noted via link at the end of the letter and their names and affiliations are available at the link. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Added to this: the letter's notability and the fact that it was signed by ~140 senior human population geneticists is attested by Science [4] (and this is clearly cited in my suggested text above). Generalrelative (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Peter Gulutzan:, I also want to comment on your SIC→RS:CONTEXT claim and your point (4). The beginning of the sentence omitted by Generalrelative says (with my added emphasis) "As discussed by Dobbs and many others". Dobbs didn't directly discuss intelligence, but many others had. No falsehoods involved.

  Regarding SIC, the meat of the quote is the opinions of its authors, not the fact that others have discussed similar points.

  Finally, there's great evidence that Wade has engaged in speculation about race/intelligence, and it's the reliable sources quoted in the suggested text. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  It just sounds in your long rant here that you're trying to defend the WP:FRINGE pseudoscience views of Wade that is very much a derided and debunked race and intelligence claim rejected by the scientific community. Silverseren^C 04:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose For a bio of this size, it looks like a WP:PROPORTION vio to me. I would suggest trimming it down to about 3 sentences. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I don't understand the oppose arguments on the grounds that this would be too long or out of proportion: this is actually shorter than the current text about this, and more succinctly gives the main elements. The NYT letter could still be summarised further, but the proposed text definitively seems a step in the right direction, to correctly describe the serious criticism the book attracted from topic experts, while avoiding FALSEBALANCE counter-statements (NPOV is "neutral according to what the reliable sources say", not "entirely, strictly 100% neutral"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Repeating myself: If Wade defends Wade against more than 100, he is in the position of a tiny minority. So: Whether we like it or not, according to WP:DUE there is only one option: The cristicism has to be included, Wade's response not (the short paraphrase is OK). Walls of text by people who don't care about WP's rules don't make me change my mind. Our readers have a right to be informed about mainstream science. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've already said as much, but I should probably make my !vote harder to miss. Like RandomCanadian, I don't find the "too long" or "out of proportion" arguments persuasive. It's concise, encyclopedically toned, and in line with the relevant policies and guidelines. The length and level of detail are appropriate for the topic, since the reception of this book is a significant part of why the author is noteworthy. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support most of this: we should be following our policies on fringe views here, which require us to cover what geneticists actually made of Wade's book. With respect to the addendum reporting Wade's rejection of the letter, this isn't ideal per WP:MANDY since it is just an unannotated quote of Wade's response, which for our purposes is a primary source. A Nature blog post mentions Wade's rejection of the letter (from a different response by Wade?) without just quoting it. There might be better sources out there for the aftermath of the NYT letter. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Jerry Coyne, one of the signatories of the letter, wrote up such a piece with an extensive discussion of Wade's rejection on his blog, Our letter to the New York Times criticizing Nicholas Wade’s book on race. This is on the edge as an RS, but if Wade's response is to be included, we need some kind of non-fringe context. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - of course it's not due, this is a BLP article, and that amount of detail is unwarranted, considering the length of the article, and especially the way it's framed as a quote in the middle of the article. The short summary in the paragraph above is sufficient. Leave it out. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Wildly UNDUE to make two-thirds of his 70+years biography on just the latest one of his books, especially since it has it’s own article one could simply say “criticized” in a line or two and leave the rest to a wilkilink. Also clearly UNDUE to cherrypick quotes of no particular significance to his life. And no, not neutral - this proposed text is strongly negative and limited to criticisms. Do better to use Google or read Amazon and get a better view of his work and less an ATTACK article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  The following secondary sources attest to the fact that the quoted letter is indeed of particular significance to Wade's life:

  1) Michael Balter, "Geneticists decry book on race and evolution", Science: [5]

  2) Ewen Callaway, "Geneticists say popular book misrepresents research on human evolution", Nature: [6]

  3) Michael Hiltzik, "Racism, the misuse of genetics and a huge scientific protest", LA Times: [7]

  For expert commentary, see:

  4) Jerry Coyne, "Why Scientists Decided to Issue an Indictment of Nicholas Wade's Book", History News Network: [8]

  5) Mark A. Jobling, "Trouble at the races", Investigative Genetics: [9]

  6) Marcus Feldman, "Echoes of the Past: Hereditarianism and A Troublesome Inheritance", PLOS Genetics: [10]

  I'm not sure what one gains by linking to Amazon.com however. User-generated reviews? Generalrelative (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  The secondary sources which you cite as proof that the letter is significant all cite Wade's response, either in full or in part. FRINGE does not supersede NEUTRALITY. Bonewah (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  In saying that "FRINGE does not supersede NEUTRALITY" you're arguing against a straw man, and you seem to be misunderstanding the relation between WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. No one is claiming, and no one could logically claim that the fringe policy supersedes the neutrality policy, because the former policy is part of the latter one. From WP:FRINGE: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight... The article explains the POV of Wade's book and quotes Charles Murray supporting it. That's enough. When geneticists in large numbers say that Wade is misrepresenting their work, and then Wade says that he's not, per WP:UNDUE it is not appropriate for us to quote a non-geneticist claiming that the geneticists are wrong about their own work. NightHeron (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Two points in response to Bonewah: a) I was clearly replying to the allegation that my suggested text represents cherrypicking quotes of no particular significance to his life. Pointing out that my argument doesn't respond to some other argument which I (and others) have addressed elsewhere is unhelpful. And b) my suggested text does cite Wade's response in the addendum. What it does not do is give his response equal weight with the statements of scientists. That is precisely what is required by the policy WP:BLP for discussing allegations of wrongdoing: If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance. Reported ≠ quoted. Generalrelative (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  I understand the relation between WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE perfectly, especially the part where it says that we must "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I have no idea why a quote from Charles Murray is appropriate or, 'enough' but a quote from Wade is out of bounds. What i do know is that including several paragraphs from Wade's critics while excluding Wade's reply is not fair, or proportional and certainly not without editorial bias. The sources named both in the article and offered here all reprint Wade's reply either in full or in part and yet, neutrality be damned, editors here are insisting that somehow fringe allows them to exclude Wade's response altogether. Bonewah (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  I understand the relation between WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE perfectly, especially the part where it says that we must "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Yet here you are, stridently opposed to us following that "proportionately" part. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Bonewah: Why on earth do you keep on making the demonstrably false claim my suggested text attempts to exclude Wade's response altogether? Did you miss the Addendum I added days ago? Is this all a big misunderstanding? Generalrelative (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Generalrelative:I did miss the addendum because everyone was arguing so vociferously for so long that that Wade's response should be excluded in its entirely. I still contend, however, that quoting his critics at great length while offering a weak, single sentence paraphrase of his reply is not proportional or neutral. @MPants at work: yet here I am, disagreeing that you have followed the "proportionately" part at all. Bonewah (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Aha, I'm glad to hear this. We may disagree about a great deal, but at least now, hopefully, the conversation will be a bit clearer. Generalrelative (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

When a non-geneticist, writing for the general public, makes claims about genetics that are rejected by over a hundred geneticists, my understanding of the word "proportionately" is that we're being quite generous in giving Wade a weak, single sentence. NightHeron (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll say that I think noting Wade's response is necessary: it's the difference between showing that he argued about it versus implying he just quietly accepted their judgement. But anything beyond that is quite clearly a false balance. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with that, FWIW. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The number of sources covering the letter presented here are enough to justify writing an article about the letter itself. The closer should probably bear that in mind when reading objections decrying the weight it's given here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose Totally disproportionate for a biog aricle. This is borderline COATRACK and quite pointless considering that an article about the book exists. There the contents of the book, its ideas, and the controversy it sparked can be explored in full. A sentence or two about the book is all that is needed or apt here. Pincrete (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support the suggested edit, but without the addendum sentence. When the source for his expected denial is an article detailing how 140 scientists say he's wrong, the idea that we should give any credence to his assertion that they are all somehow misunderstanding his not-at-all-racist-really argument seems reminscent of the Lobsterson fanbois. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comment on this subject. It is necessary and proper to include criticism of a subject's works and writing, especially where that criticism is from SMEs, published in reliable sources (NYT and a peer-reviewed journal), relevant, and given due weight. The proposed text meets these qualifications, in my opinion. This is the same standard we apply to anyone who publishes works that are considered controversial or just plain wrong by a significant segment of the scientific community. One could argue that it would be undue weight if we did not include this criticism. Wikipedia has no requirement to document subjects in a flattering manner, we do not even necessarily have to be "fair", even with BLPs. What we have to be is NPOV, verifiable, and accurate as to what reliable sources tell us. This should not be a controversial edit here, the scientific community has been exceptionally clear in rejecting the views of people like Wade and Murray.

  As to whether discussing Wade's book constitute's undue weight, my understanding is that this book is one of the more significant things that make the subject notable. We wouldn't say that it is undue weight to discuss Principia on Newton's page, would we? Hyperion35 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Hyperion35's comment right above. I was thinking the same thing: it may feel awkward sometimes to focus on one work of someone who's had a long and distinguished career, but it's what we standardly do when one work's impact (positive or negative) has been much greater than all others. It may at times be disappointing to those who already knew and were looking for other, more detailed information on some less well-known aspects of the subject (like, e.g., many would already know about Newton's Principia but would be more curious about his work on alchemy). However, it's an encyclopedia's job to proportionally reflect the attention given by existing sources to the various aspects of the subject, and this edit proposal does just that. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 22:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The objections to the content seem oddly misplaced. While I recognize the WP:CRYBLP arguments in some of them, a lot of the others are questions of WP:WEIGHT or WP:SUMMARY which are largely editorial questions that should be resolved through normal editing. I suppose that the reticence of the editing environment could cause a situation where every edit needs to be proposed through this nonsensical and laborious process, so fine, but in an ideal good faith world, there would be an addition that provided more context (and removed the current emphasis on Charles Murray's opinion found in the text) and could be tweaked to achieve the best possible result for the reader. Right now, the article's current text doesn't really capture the precise issues with the book and the proposed text does a better job. Could it be improved? Almost certainly. But that improvement should be on top of the proposed addition rather than a stamping of the foot and a sticking out of the lower lip as I am seeing in this conversation in part. jps (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Seems like a perfectly clear, neutral, and proportionate summary of the situation. I'll also add that putting "strong" in front of a !vote is fine, but this ain't going to be a snowball. The strength of anyone's emotions won't make their arguments automatically any more or less persuasive. Grayfell (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Greyfell: That's very true, but I think we both can agree that a "Tyranosupportus" counts as at least, 6, maybe 7 !votes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This looks ok to me, and significantly better than the both-sides-ism of the present article, which repeats the usual error of modern journalism of showcasing opposing views as if they are equally significant when they aren't. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support: In short, FRINGE applies, the suggestion is DUE when comparing Wade to critics, its length is appropriate (with remedies available for anyone who disagrees), and quotation from the scientists' letter helps keep the section brief.
  First, Wade's scientific beliefs in this book are FRINGE, and I am not sure anyone has argued otherwise. If someone disagrees, please say so. Many of our arguments are proceeding on the assumption that there's near-universal agreement on this point. Since this section is discussing a book that contains fringe views, our policies emphasize that we need to contextualize those views using mainstream, reliable sources. This is true even though this article is not primarily about the book or Wade's fringe views, with the Mentions in other articles section of FRINGE applying most specifically.
  To ensure that Wade's views are presented in proportion to their prominence in RS, I'd argue that, conservatively, we should present criticism vs. support at a ratio on the order of 100:1. The scientists' letter is good evidence for at least 140:1. At any reasonable ratio, pro-Troublesome Inheritance views would deserve a negligible, perhaps vanishing, amount of treatment in this article. Before Generalrelative removed a direct quote from Wade's response letter, the majority (about 57%) of the section on Troublesome Inheritance explained and supported Wade's views. At least two !voters in this discussion have objected on UNDUE grounds but supported versions of this article with such inappropriately skewed coverage.
  I continue to oppose the MANDY-esque addendum language for similar prominence-proportion reasons; it might be DUE if we spent 1,500 words or more summarizing how RS criticize the book. I would accept Generalrelative's addendum if necessary as a compromise to achieve consensus, but it seems none of the opponents of this proposed language have changed their minds since the addendum.
  The suggested language is not too long in comparison to the biography as a whole. In absolute terms, I think three paragraphs is not an unusual amount of space to afford to a writer's best-selling book. In relative terms, I believe the suggested language is disproportionate to the current size of the article but that the appropriate remedy is to expand other parts of the article. His time as NYT science reporter could surely be expanded. When compared to the pre-debate version, which spent about 260 words on the book, the suggested language is only slightly longer (280 words, 294 w/ addendum).
  Editors hoping to keep the Troublesome Inheritance section short should support inclusion of a quote from the scientists' letter, as it's probably the most succinct way to convey to readers the significant mainstream opposition to Wade's book. Absent a letter signed by so many subject-matter experts, we might need to quote or paraphrase from many more individually-authored reliable sources to properly contextualize Wade's views. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:55, 23 May 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.

Titanic survivor ancestor

Regarding this edit by Generalrelative, I don't think the claim is self-serving enough to require a third party source. I'm open to having my mind changed, however. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I wouldn't mind at all if you or anyone else wanted to restore it. Honestly it seemed like an uncontroversial cut to me. Anything even marginally controversial can wait until the current RfC is finished. But I would suggest that the heading "Personal life" should be changed to something more appropriate. Generalrelative (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The claim would seem more appropriate to the "early life and education" section, which generally covers ancestry when it's worth mentioning. I'm still a little too on the fence when it comes to WP:DUE to restore it right now, however. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Origin of Covid

Wade has been outspoken in his belief in the lab leak theory as the origin of COVID-19:[11]. I think this deserves a mention, especially as mainstream news sources have been discussing it in recent weeks. Thriley (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Has this gotten any coverage in secondary sources? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are three I found after a quick search:[12][13][14] Thriley (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Good job. I'll support a couple of sentences about this if you want to write it up. Or I can do a write-up, if you like. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is another source from Vanity Fair that mentions Wade's article on covid-19. It may be a suitable source as well. Gardenofaleph (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting that the article was republished here, to avoid WP:SELFPUB issues. I'd suggest being cautious regarding NPOV/BLP, sticking to the bare facts about his statements rather than whether he's right or not in his opinion/perspective. See as an example: Robert R. Redfield#COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, according to WP:NPOV the statement you're citing by the Trump Administration official Robert Redfield speculating about the origin of COVID-19 should not have been mentioned in his BLP without pointing out that his opinion is at variance with medical consensus. That BLP needs to be edited accordingly in order to comply with NPOV. NightHeron (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. Whenever a notable figure makes a claim that diverges from the consensus of experts, regardless of the expertise of the individual themselves, we should note this disagreement. That is at the heart of WP:FRINGE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I've corrected that little bit with one sentence describing the claim reported there as, essentially, pure bollocks (it does say "after being manipulated", with the term "manipulated" being, at best, really obtuse as to what kind of "manipulation" is being referred to). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Llll5032: Your interpretation of SYNTH is wrong, in this case. SYNTH would apply if the statements were not directly related (for example "X says A, Y says B, therefore C"). But in this case, we have one person who promotes a fringe claim, and we need to balance it with the actual science per WP:NPOV. Most sources refuting this claim do not mention any proponent by name. Basically we have "A promotes fringe viewpoint X. Relevant sources say that X is bollocks." We have a duty to our readers to identify such cases and inform them that the subject's statements are incorrect or at least unsupported. Also, I don't know if the text in the article is a direct quote or just a very awkward wording, but "manipulated" is an ambiguous term (does it refer to deliberate [genetic] manipulation ("the control of someone or something in order to get an advantage, often unfairly or dishonestly" [15]), or to simply routine manipulation of samples by lab workers ("using something, often with a lot of skill"? Not that it changes anything for the claims being unsubstantiated, but it should be clear what fringe theory Redfield is actually promoting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, Llll5032, Just chiming in to support the statement that SYNTH doesn't work that way.

"Public figure X said Y. Y is demonstrably false." is not synthesis. It is juxtaposition. See WP:SYNTHNOT. Will happily explain further at Talk:Robert R. Redfield if necessary.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Great care must be taken to not to pummel him. Many mainstream scientists believe a lab leak is still a possibility. Thriley (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, no care must be taken. We are under no obligation whatsoever to not "pummel" someone. The only thing we must take great care to do is reflect what the sources say. If the sources pummel him, then we shall get in a few vicarious licks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, Thriley is correct that care must be taken, but he was mistaken in how to apply that care. We have an obligation per BLP to accurately state or summarize Wade's claims, and we have an obligation per NPOV, FRINGE, and other policies to accurately state that he is at odds with the current scientific consensus. Consider Andrew Wakefield as an example. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That's actually an example of what I meant. That article pulls no punches with reference to Wakefield's fraud (almost the entire lede and more than half the body are about it), and that's because the editors there followed the sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem with comparing Wikipedia's treatment of Wakefield with its proposed or actual treatment of Wade is that Wakefield was investigated and found to have committed actual fraud, along with a host of other misdeeds, whereas Wade is simply expressing views somewhat outside the mainstream. Bonewah (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You've missed the point of the reference (not a comparison). Wade is not being directly compared to Wakefield, nor are their articles being directly compared. Instead, what is happening is that Wakefield's article has been presented as an example (not a comparison) of an article that dutifully follows the sources, and I have chimed in to point out that it does so even though the sources are merciless, as an illustration of my overall point that as long as we follow the sources in how and what we write such a section, will will never violate NPOV or BLP.

In any case, I've added a sentence based on the Atlantic source. I met WP:FRINGE standards by describing the conspiracy theory as just that, but if that's too controversial, we can change that wording to more explicitly describe the theory, then add another sentence pointing out that it's unsupported by evidence, though I'd note the the latter puts more weight on the skeptical side than this method. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I added a bit more specifics on the nature of Wade's allegations (against not just the media but the scientific community too). Generalrelative (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, thank you, that's actually much better than my initial edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You guys have distorted FRINGE to the point of absurdity, but im fairly sure saying that one more time isnt going to change any minds. Bonewah (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this very civil and useful comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

And so, to be clear, the thinking is that Wade's article about the origins of Covid is important enough to mention in his biography, but... not important enough to actually link to? Or is this a similar situation as above, that somehow Fringe and/or Undue allows you to not link to Wade's article while talking about it? Bonewah (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

1. That's not how you outdent. I fixed it for you. You can see how it's done now. If you weren't trying to outdent, then go ahead and revert that part, but please explain what "<-" meant.

2. Nobody at all has opposed linking to Wade's article. Not in this entire thread. I've got no idea where you're getting that notion from, beyond a possible battleground view of this discussion.

3. So go add his article as a source! It's a better use of your time than just complaining about the rest of us while doing nothing yourself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, seeing as you complained mightily when i made one update, which i invited people to revert if need be, and you and your ilk argued extensively above the exact logic i described, i felt that maybe the best bet was to moot the idea on talk first. Bonewah (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

And also to be clear, you think "In May of 2021, Wade published an article which advanced a popular conspiracy theory about the origins of COVID-19, and accused the US scientific community and media of being complicit in a cover-up." is an accurate, unbiased description of Wade's article? No NPOV problems there, in your eyes? Bonewah (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup, looks good to me. I've added another source which is quite informative: [16]. I recommend it to anyone who's legitimately open to being persuaded by evidence on the matter. Generalrelative (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, Here I am, the next morning, still trying to figure out which part of that could be construed as non-neutral.

• The claims that the conspiracy theory is popular?
• The claim that it's a conspiracy theory?
• The claim that Wade wrote and published the article?
• The claim that he accused scientists and the media of being complicit?

I mean, each and every one of those is so well-sourced/self-evident that us not stating them as facts in wikivoice would be a serious NPOV vio. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Bonewah, I seem to recall reverting you and explaining why it was not just a bad edit, but a bad idea to begin with, but by all means, continue whining about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Bonewah, I too think the recent edits in this area are bad. I wonder how many others do. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Relevant to this discussion: an RFC covering what policies are applicable to Covid origins information. Bonewah (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, Oooh, more vague complaints! How helpful! There's a bulleted list above of the assertions in this edit. Please state clearly which elements you think are false, and provide reliable sources that state clearly that they are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@MPants at work: You're right, I don't see how this could be controversial. However, seeing as it is, I've removed it. We can hold another RfC, I suppose, once the current one is closed. This is definitely not how Wikipedia editing is supposed to work, but I suppose Wade has become some kind of nexus for culture war issues and (pseudo)science so here we are. Generalrelative (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, I reverted you because the complaints here don't have any basis in policy. I mean, there's literally no substance to them. No-one has asserted that there's anything false or misleading about any specific part of this, only complained that the edits were "bad".

If a rational critique emerges, then yeah, we should discuss that. But the WP:IDONTLIKEIT commentary here is entirely irrelevant on it's own. We should never make changes to an article based on an editor's personal preference. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@MPants at work: No worries, that makes sense. Generalrelative (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, how about WP:BRD? You boldly added this change. Other editors feel it should be reverted. And we now discuss. Bonewah (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As for the edits in question, why dont we start by picking a better source than an editorial screed? The Washington Post's article Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible] describes Wade's Article thusly: May 5: Former New York Times science reporter Nicholas Wade, writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, reviews the evidence and makes a strong case for the lab-leak theory. He focuses in particular on the furin cleavage site, which increases viral infectivity for human cells. His analysis yields this quote from David Baltimore, a virologist and former president of the California Institute of Technology: “When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus. These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2.”. Thats a lot closer to Neutral than anything in that Atlantic article. Bonewah (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The cited source is about this subject, whereas the one you proposed mentions it in passing (and, itself, argues the same assertions Wade did). Furthermore: Wade's opinion which you seem to want to quote (once again, I've fixed that error for you) is directly contradicted by multiple actual scientists, something which seems to be becoming a running gag. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The cited source is an editorial, the Washington Post article is not. Further, the Post article does not mention Wade's article 'in passing' but as one item of many in a timeline. Bonewah (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Further, the Post article does not mention Wade's article 'in passing' but as one item of many in a timeline. If you can't understand what's wrong with this statement on your own, I won't be able to explain it to you. The "opinion screed" complaint is pountless: The facts cited to the piece in the Atlantic are not in dispute. If you really want to simply swap out the sources that badly, you go right ahead, and I'll ignore the fact that it's a passing mention. Just don't include Wade's quote. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bonewah and MPants at work: I had a moment to read the Washington Post timeline Bonewah had linked and it changed my perspective on the issue. Given the subject-matter experts pushing back against the idea that the lab-leak hypothesis should be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory", I no longer think that this is the right way to describe it here. It seems to be the case that this hypothesis has rapidly gone from truly being FRINGE to being considered at least plausible by a wide variety of subject-matter experts, and the timeline helpfully illustrates how. (I personally had been confused because the genetic evidence does seems to rule out a "weaponized" origin, but apparently that is not necessary for a version of the lab leak hypothesis to be true.) I understand that this is a fluid situation affecting numerous articles across Wikipedia, and that discussions are ongoing on a number of forums, but in this instance I think it's best that we remove the phrase "conspiracy theory". I still think that Wade is a charlatan, but a broken clock is right twice a day. Generalrelative (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be the case that this hypothesis has rapidly gone from truly being FRINGE to being considered at least plausible by a wide variety of subject-matter experts, and the timeline helpfully illustrates how. That is the narrative that is being pushed by proponents right now, but it runs up against several facts:

• It's still a remote possibility, only less remote now than it seemed previous.
• Genomic analysis contradicts it. The virus clearly evolved on it's own.
• The amount of misinformation out there makes the reach of this theory among experts difficult to accurately gauge, but makes it clear that the actual prominence is less than what is generally portrayed.
• One thing we can know about how widespread this belief is among experts is that it's not very widespread, at all. At least not now.
• Even if it becomes clear that the virus "leaked" from the lab, that does not imply that the virus was being deliberately studied at the lab.

As for how we should handle it: we should absolutely not be making large changes in how we portray this conspiracy theory based on news headlines less than a week old. News outlets produce and sell stories, meaning they are driven to sensationalize in the short term. If, in the coming weeks it becomes clear that the expert consensus is shifting, then we should absolutely begin to change how we portray it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Last i checked, the Washington Post is generally considered a reliable source. Why shouldnt we use it as a source when we describe Wade's Covid article and its impact? Bonewah (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Bonewah, I literally never even implied we shouldn't. In fact, I invited you to swap sources, above. I have never said anything that could reasonably be construed as opposing the use of that article as a source. In fact, the only things I have asserted here are:

1. We should follow our sources to avoid NPOV and BLP problems.

2. The edit as it stands is neutral and factual.

3. Your complaints have been uncivil and not policy based. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The way we describe Wade's article is radically different than how we the Washington Post describes it. As i said above, our description is not neutral and is at odds with what you agree is a reliable source on this subject. Bonewah (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Bonewah, The way we describe Wade's article is radically different than how we describe it. You should really start using the preview button, because this is literally nonsensical.

our description is not neutral and is at odds with what you agree is a reliable source on this subject. No, it is not. A conspiracy theory may turn out to be true: that doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

In any case, the language has now been changed by a very reasonable third party: [17] Can we agree that this is an acceptable WP:COMPROMISE? That would be a huge step forward for this talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, im not in love with the part about accusing people of a cover up, but i not going to fight it right now. I do have an issue with using the Atlantic opinion article as a source, however. I propose we replace that with the Washington Post article cited above. Seems everyone agrees that is a reliable source. Bonewah (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that's where the WP:COMPROMISE part comes in. After all, Frum's piece is not merely presenting opinion but also reporting on the political context and concrete facts such as the way in which Wade's article was represented on Fox News. Like it or not, this issue is highly politicized, and we should at least give our readers a window into that context. Nothing's stopping you from adding the WaPo piece in addition however. Generalrelative (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, I'm not particularly happy with it, either, which is how I know it's the best kind of compromise. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Go team WP:CONSENSUS. Generalrelative (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue may be politically charged, but we should not be. Thats what NPOV is all about. David Frum is not a reliable source on anything save David Frum's opinion, and, as such, is inappropriate for a biography. Bonewah (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you point to a policy or guideline which indicates that opinion pieces published in reliable sources like The Atlantic are inappropriate for BLPs? I had a look and did not see anything. Generalrelative (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, There is no such policy, and the claims here that the source is used for are uncontentious and easily verified in the primary source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, so much for team WP:CONSENSUS. reliable sources makes the distinction: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact ... Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." It even has a handy shortcut: wp:RSEDITORIAL. The Washington Post article is news reporting, the Atlantic op-ed opinion content. We are not making a statement attributed to Frum, we are making statements of fact and so opinion content is inappropriate. Bonewah (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Bonewah, If you don't have any suggestions for changes to the article, you've got absolutely no business on this page.

You really seem to view Generalrelative and I as the enemy, to be opposed at every turn, but that's really not the case. I'd rather you take a deep breath and realize that we need to work together than get blocked, but you really seem determined to justify the latter route, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I offered a very specific change, removal of the unnecessary citation to an editorial per wp:RSEDITORIAL. Bonewah (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is, I think, an acceptable source that covers some of the criticism of Wade's article (better than Frum's piece actually): [18]. From a cursory look, The Wire (India) appears to be reliable, and the article is straightforward science journalism. I would be happy to replace the Frum piece with this one. Generalrelative (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, I'm not fully married to the Frum article, but I do think it establishes due weight for mentioning it. I'd add this new source in addition to the Frum piece, though I agree than straightforward criticism of the original Wade article would be better sourced to this new one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Bonewah, Bonewah, You're proposing that we remove a reliable source from a notable commentator for reasons which you've so far refused to articulate beyond quoting a policy that explicitly permits uses like this?

Look, I made an example edit showing why this source should remain. If this article gets more attention, we're going to want to be able to expand on it. And that's easiest to do when we're working from existing sources.

If that's not enough, consider the very first question I asked in this section: Is this WP:DUE? Well, an article in The Atlantic that devotes significant coverage to this article makes that case a lot better than a WaPo article that mentions it buried in a huge list. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The Frum editorial is not a reliable source, per wp:RSEDITORIAL. As stated above, op-eds are not reliable for statements of fact. Frum is not an expert in this field nor the author of the work in question (Wade's article) nor is he referenced in the article. Therefore, citing his opinion adds no real value to this article. Bonewah (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Bonewah, Your repetition of a false statement will not make it true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work, I think that was the wrong diff link. You probable meant to use this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, Thank you, yes I did. I'll correct that now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

MPants at workI made no false statement. wp:RSEDITORIAL says what it says, editorials are inappropriate citations for statements of fact. Bonewah (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Bonewah, the policy you quoted does not say that. It says they are "rarely" useable for claims of fact, and I have, quite literally, already explained that utterly uncontroversial facts like "Wade wrote an article" are exactly the sorts of things they're useable for.

I also, quite clearly, showed you what sort of attributed content we could add, in an edit I only self-reverted to save you from edit warring over. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

"Wade wrote an article" can be sourced to the article itself. The issue for inclusion is of course the requirement for secondary sources reporting on that article for us to establish whether it is significant enough. That also appears to be a clear "yes". Therefore the only remaining issue is how precisely we need to word it. The usual way to deal with fringe theories is to mention, succinctly, their principal claims, and then balance it with appropriate material to show that it is FRINGE and to satisfy NPOV (i.e. basically we need to take the model of Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition and reduce it down to one sentence or two). So "Wade wrote an article about X where he claimed Y. Y is inaccurate/misleading/[appropriate adjective], per Z [reputable academic source(s)]." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And as i said, Frum is not a subject matter expert, so his opinions are inappropriate here. wp:RSEDITORIAL plainly applies here, the 'utterly uncontroversial facts like "Wade wrote an article"' are adequately sourced to both the article he wrote and the Wire article recommended by Generalrelative. The requirement for secondary sources reporting on that article is satisfied by both the Washington Post and the Wire citation. Bonewah (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't need the WaPo and Wire, when we have academic sources (preferred per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP) along with other newspapers (which are in agreement with the academic sources) which already address the main claims of the Wade article. Currently the text in the article does not satisfy NPOV and FRINGE, because it does not give any useful context about these claims to our readers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

In what way would you propose we change the article then? Bonewah (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

See the last edit. I've added a short sentence describing the current situation based mostly on high quality scientific journals, along with a newspaper which summarises this in layman's terms. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright, i offered a more succinct edit that still references the current mainstream views on the virus. Bonewah (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I actually like that edit quite a bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Bonewah, By that standard, Wade himself is not a subject matter expert. This issue has become politicized, in case you hadn't noticed, and I think David Frum qualifies as a notable opinion on politicized issues. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

He doesnt have to be, because we are not citing him as an authority on anything. There mere fact that the issue has become politicized does not mean that we should citing editorials. Donald Trump is also a notable opinion on politicized issues, but that does not mean we should quote him here either. Bonewah (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Bonewah, I really don't know why I bother when it's this obvious that you aren't reading anything I write, any of the relevant policies, or paying any attention to what's been happening elsewise.

I'm happy enough with the way it looks now, so go ahead and get the last word in. We both know you want to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@MPants at work and MjolnirPants: Your attitude is unhelpful. We could cite opinions, if they are really notable and/or if we had nothing better to cite. In this case, we have both academic journals and newspapers pieces which provide, respectively, scientific and political summaries of a sufficiently high quality that we don't need to go for opinion pieces or editorials. That the issue is politicised (and has also heightened existing bigotry[19]) is blindingly obvious. We can cite, for example, at least half a dozen articles for that (though likely not here, since it would be off-topic to simply giving a short and simple rebuttal to Wade): [20][21][22]. But we don't need editorials (which are really at the low end of the spectrum of reliable sources) when we have better, do we? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, read this thread. Read through the 3 days of empty complaining Bonewah engaged in. Read the way I had to poke and prod to get them to contribute anything helpful for three fucking days. Then, go back and read through the RfC. Read the distortions of policy Bonewah has engaged in, read the hyperbolic hand-wringing, read through the WP:pointy edits to the main article

Read the way I complimented their last edit. If you still can't understand why I'm a little burned out at this point, then kindly keep your damn opinion about it to yourself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 11:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit adding "obfuscated due to political agendas"

@NightHeron: I believe obfuscation due to political agendas is a core part of Wade's argument, and as such should be mentioned in the article. I've highlighted a number of quotes from Wade's article:

• "Yet the origin of pandemic remains uncertain: The political agendas of governments and scientists have generated thick clouds of obfuscation..."
• "It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, 'We declare no competing interests.'"
• "Virologists like Daszak had much at stake in the assigning of blame for the pandemic....If SARS2 had indeed escaped from such a laboratory experiment, a savage blowback could be expected, and the storm of public indignation would affect virologists everywhere, not just in China."
• "Science is supposedly a self-correcting community of experts who constantly check each other’s work. So why didn’t other virologists point out that the Andersen group’s argument was full of absurdly large holes? Perhaps because in today’s universities speech can be very costly. Careers can be destroyed for stepping out of line. Any virologist who challenges the community’s declared view risks having his next grant application turned down by the panel of fellow virologists that advises the government grant distribution agency."
• "The Daszak and Andersen letters were really political, not scientific, statements, yet were amazingly effective."
• "The records of the Wuhan Institute of Virology certainly hold much relevant information. But Chinese authorities seem unlikely to release them given the substantial chance that they incriminate the regime in the creation of the pandemic."
• "China’s central authorities did not generate SARS2, but they sure did their utmost to conceal the nature of the tragedy and China’s responsibility for it. They suppressed all records at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and closed down its virus databases. They released a trickle of information, much of which may have been outright false or designed to misdirect and mislead. They did their best to manipulate the WHO’s inquiry into the virus’s origins, and led the commission’s members on a fruitless run-around." Stonkaments (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: I reverted your edit because the reference to "obfuscat[ion] due to political agendas" is unclear, and it would be WP:UNDUE to go into enough detail to explain the strange-sounding conspiracy theory. The reader is left to wonder: Does Wade claim that the majority of the world's epidemiologists are dupes of the Chinese Communist Party, or what?

Thanks for coming to the talk-page rather than continuing to edit-war about this. NightHeron (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course. Can you think of an alternate wording that would be more clear? Maybe something like: Wade argues that... (A) "the origins of COVID-19 have been obfuscated by governments and scientists with potential [or alleged] conflicts of interest"; or (B) "investigations into the origins of COVID-19 have suffered from a lack of transparency and potential conflicts of interest." As noted above, I think this is one of the main arguments that Wade makes in the article, so it should get mentioned in some way. Stonkaments (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

That says that Wade is advancing a sweeping conspiracy theory about a large number of scientists and government health authorities. That's an extaordinary claim on his part, and we can't just mention the claim without putting it in context, per WP:FRINGE. As I said, a detailed, balanced treatment of the full range of Wade's speculations would be WP:UNDUE. NightHeron (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain why you view "a lack of transparency and potential conflicts of interest" to be an extraordinary claim and a sweeping conspiracy theory? I really don't see it that way. Furthermore, Wade's claims in this regard are discussed ("It accused not only the Chinese state but also the U.S. scientific community of complicity in a cover-up"[23]) and echoed ("...what my various hypotheses share in common is the suspicion that those covering the story let questions about how the story would be understood get in the way of finding out what the story was. Rather than be driven by the desire to know the truth, and to speak that truth to power (whether that power was in Washington or Wuhan), I fear a brake was applied to serve some ill-defined social interest"[24]) in reliable secondary sources.

Numerous other reliable sources have criticized the lack of transparency and potential conflicts of interest as well.[25][26][27][28][29] I honestly don't understand how this could be considered a fringe opinion. And it's not like we're making the claim in wikivoice; it's being clearly attributed to Wade himself. Stonkaments (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The claim that an entire scientific community reached a consensus on an issue because of nefarious motives is obviously an extraordinary claim. Speaking of political agendas, this is all occurring in a "new Cold War" context in which much of the US-based media are looking for opportunities to demonize the Chinese government. NightHeron (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have sources for the political agenda of US media? Consider contributing to the discussion at Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Media_coverage_section Terjen (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

PS: The claim that an entire scientific community reached a consensus on an issue is in itself an extraordinary claim, nefarious motives or not. Terjen (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: That's not what Wade says though; you're arguing against a strawman. Wade doesn't make any claims about the entire scientific community having nefarious motives. Wade highlights the specific conflicts of interest of Peter Daszak and the Chinese government, and how Chinese authorities have not been transparent in the investigations. These issues are very well-documented in numerous other reliable sources. Wade also discusses the subtle pressures faced by members of the scientific community that may disincentivize them from speaking out in dissent of the consensus view (especially when a particular view has been prematurely labeled a conspiracy theory). This argument is more speculative, but has clear support in other reliable sources on the topic (calls for "dispassionate science-based discourse" in the Science article [30]; a New York article talks of "conflicts of interest by researchers and administrators", and "very intense, very subtle pressures" on scientists not to speak out on laboratory biohazards[31]) In addition, the reliable sources previously linked that covered Wade's article have generally presented his claims in a sympathetic light.

All of this to say, Wade's argument is neither extraordinary nor a sweeping conspiracy theory, and reliable sources indicate that it is significant enough that it should be included per WP:DUE. Stonkaments (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Just look at the quotes from Wade that you provided. In reference to any virologist who challenges the community's declared view he says that Careers can be destroyed for stepping out of line. He depicts the scientific community of virologists as dominated by a bunch of unethical people with a political agenda and conflicts of interest who intimidate anyone who might be thinking of disagreeing. That's a pretty extraordinary claim. It fits in well with the anti-scientific attitudes that are unfortunately quite prevalent in the US these days. NightHeron (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur. The argument that Wade is not claiming there is some sort of conspiracy at foot is completely spurious and indefensible from a reading of Wade's article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus claim

Generalrelative reverted my careful revision of the sentence "This claim is at odds with the current scientific consensus that the virus most likely has a zoonotic origin." There were several problems with the original. First, saying "this claim is at odds with" is original research not supported by the cited sources. Also, only the first citation directly says there is a "scientific consensus" - see WP:RS/AC for this requirement; I spelled out the relevant claims in the other citations and added another significant viewpoint. Note that this POPSCI article isn't a solid source for a claim of scientific consensus, so I have removed the sentence for now in lieu of a solid reliable source that directly states there is a scientific consensus, preferably a strong WP:MEDRS review article. Terjen (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I was actually about to revert your edit as well, but Generalrelative beat me to it. The sources are pretty clear on the scientific consensus of Covid having a zoonotic origin. This has been true for months at this point and is supported by every major scientific organization. There is literally zero evidence for any other claim at this point, hence why the consensus supports said zoonotic origin. Even the small group of (often pseudoscience pushing) people/scientists who claim otherwise have to use weasel wording to try and push their claims, hence why you get wording like "There is a near-consensus view that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19, has a natural zoonotic origin" because they have to acknowledge the consensus despite making themselves be the "not consensus" group. Silverseren^C 22:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't have sufficient sources directly stating there is a scientific consensus as required by WP:RS/AC (see discussion below) but we have reliable sources substantiating that most virologists lean towards zoonotic origin, such as the May 27 New York Times article by Carl Zimmer stating: "Virologists still largely lean toward the theory that infected animals ... spread the virus to humans outside of a lab." Terjen (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

For comparison's sake, the lead paragaraph of Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 says: "The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of zoonotic origin in a natural setting, from bats or another closely-related mammal." I don't think we need to re-litigate the consensus debate here; if the main article moves away from that wording, then it would be appropriate for this article to follow suit. That said, I agree that "this claim is at odds with" seems somewhat problematic—we're dealing with a question of probabilities (which hypothesis is more likely), not a black/white right vs. wrong. If, for example, the scientific "consensus" gives the lab escape hypothesis a 40% chance of being true, vs. Wade believing it's a 60% chance, it's not really fair to say Wade is "at odds with" the scientific consensus. Of course, we don't any such precise estimates, and in the absence of sources directly claiming that Wade's claims are "at odds with" the scientific consensus, I agree that statement would violate WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Stonkaments (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I have been actively participating in the discussion on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and been disappointed about the lack of solid substantiation of the claim of scientific consensus. If there was a clear consensus, it should be trivial to satisfy WP:RS/AC with high quality WP:RS, including solid WP:MEDRS review articles that directly says there is a scientific consensus. Upon a challenge for the strongest WP:RS directly substantiating the claim of scientific consensus, this June 2020 review of "COVID-19 breakthroughs" was submitted. I review it on the Investigations talk page, finding it unsatisfactory. We need a better source to cite to state a claim of scientific consensus. Terjen (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that Wade himself describes the zoonotic theory as scientific consensus; see the excerpt from his article supplied in the previous thread by Stonkaments (the 4th bullet-point), where Wade calls it "the community's declared view" (he's talking about the community of virologists). His explanation for why he believes the scientific consensus is wrong is that they're engaged in a massive cover-up because of political agendas, conflicts of interest, and intimidation. That's a conspiracy theory of the sort that's common among deniers of scientific consensus. But my point is: Wade does say that the zoonotic theory is the virology community's "declared view". NightHeron (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, we can just use his own statement, respecting WP:RS/AC. Terjen (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Such as "In May of 2021, recognizing that the zoonotic theory is the virology community's declared view, Wade published an article which advanced the claim that..." Terjen (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Agree that any discussion about consensus need not be split amongst multiple articles. I'm not going to repeat what has been said at the Investigations page, and instead I'm going to suggest keeping the discussion there. Although the fact that even Wade argued that scientists have a prevailing view (before going off on the "vested interests" conspiracy tangent) is helpful - although of course I'm not sure if he's a reliable source for this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• I've yet to see a single source arguing that this is not the consensus view, and I've seen sources both supporting and arguing against this view which admit it's the consensus. To claim we lack sufficient sourcing to say that is simply false. Even one source is enough to establish the existence of a scientific consensus, provided there are no sources asserting a different consensus or denying that one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  I will follow the lead of @RandomCanadian and encourage that we keep further discussion on Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Why declare a "consensus" on the origin, given that all options are still open. Suffice to say, if you have a high-quality WP:RS like a strong WP:MEDRS review article that directly says there is a consensus as required by WP:RS/AC, please submit it. Terjen (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  On the claim of no source saying there isn't a consensus, you just have to go to the discussion above to find an article saying there is only a "near-consensus". Terjen (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The term is very clearly being used synonymously with "near unanimity", and as such, rather obviously falls within the range of what we consider consensus, unless you plan to argue that there's no consensus about the general safety and effectiveness of vaccines, owing to the tiny handful of virologists disputing it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Bottom line: Wikipedia shouldn't be among the first to explicitly call scientific consensus. Terjen (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

That is very close to a non-sequitur. The link you provided calls it that in so many words. There's no policy or guideline anywhere that says we must use the exact words used by our sources. In fact, doing so can get you banned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not an argument but a reminder about WP:NOTLEAD. Moreover, before discussing whether there no longer is a scientific consensus, we should first establish whether there ever was a clear scientific consensus per the criteria of WP:RS/AC, requiring reliable sourcing such as comprehensive WP:MEDRS review articles that directly says there is a scientific consensus. We should set the bar high: If there is an established scientific consensus, it should be trivial to substantiate with solid sources. Further discussion at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Why declare a "consensus" on the origin, given that all options are still open. Terjen (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Terjen, I find it rather ironic that you'd link to RGW in a comment in which you advance the proposition that we take the initiative in advancing a minority view among the experts that's linked to a political conspiracy theory. And by "rather" I mean "incredibly, almost humorously".

I would also reiterate my earlier point: the link you provided directly states that most scientists hold this view. That very clearly meets the criteria at RS/AC, which you have not accurately quoted here.

Also I would note that the consensus at that linked discussion seems to be against your position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The link is to WP:NOTLEAD which, perhaps confusingly, redirects to WP:RGW. No offense intended. Terjen (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

My comment above urges reviewing whether our claim of scientific consensus satisfies the requirements of WP:RS/AC. You twist it into "advancing a minority view among the experts that's linked to a political conspiracy theory", which makes no sense. The lengthy linked discussion [32] goes through multiple phases before getting here. In short: We haven't been able to substantiate there is a scientific consensus per WP:RS/AC. For such an extraordinary claim as scientific consensus, we should expect plenty of solid WP:MEDRS papers including comprehensive reviews directly stating there is a consensus, but alas, the few articles we have surfaced are wanting. Terjen (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no scientific consensus that the lab leak theory is impossible; rather, the consensus among epidemiologists is that it's unlikely (and several sources have been given for this in other discussions). Wade contends not only that it's likely, but also that the reason for the epidemiologists' consensus (the community's declared view, in his words) is a vast conspiracy in that community based on conflict of interest, political agendas, and intimidation. Wade's view is far outside the mainstream, and needs to be treated in accordance with WP:FRINGE and other policies relating to conspiracy theories. NightHeron (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As is becoming a pattern, I once again wholeheartedly concur with NightHeron's statement here. I also find the notion that claiming the existence of a scientific consensus is "extraordinary" to be spurious. Experts in a wide variety of fields regularly come to a consensus on a large number of major, minor and even esoteric questions. There exist many consensuses that are so unremarkable as to be not worth mentioning. Go ahead and try to find reliable sourcing for the scientific consensus that getting shot in the face is bad for your health, I dare you. Then try to argue from that lack of sourcing that there is no such consensus, and be prepared to be laughed at.

The consensus in this case is very near an example of that; it's just shockingly obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with the subject that a zoonotic origin is vastly more likely than any other. And as should be expected for such a mundane consensus, the only people pointing it out are those arguing against it and those trying to communicate it to the public. The claim that we need extraordinary sourcing for it is not borne out by policy, or even rote logic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron brings up points having no bearing on my argument: I am neither arguing in favor of Wade nor the lab-leak theory, but challenging the claim that the scientific consensus is zoonotic origin, or specifically, that we can substantiate scientific consensus as required by WP:RS/AC. Even if it was the case that the consensus is shockingly obvious, as @MjolnirPants believes, Wikipedia shouldn't be among the first few to declare a scientific consensus. If you think you can build a solid case for a declared scientific consensus, please submit it. I have tried but found the sources wanting. Terjen (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Terjen, As I have explained multiple times now: we would not be the first. Your very own source has already done so. And I would, once again, point out that your position is contradicted by the majority of editors in your linked discussion, who continue to raise arguments you have not refuted (myself among them). Which means, curiously, that we have evidence of a consensus of Wikipedia editors, in addition to the well-documented scientific one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: It's a straw-man to suggest I am saying we would be the very first to claim consensus, despite obviously having provided sources myself that say so. I am disappointed by the fallacious arguments - this is not how we build an encyclopedia. I got my hopes up with the journal article supposedly providing evidence for a well-documented scientific consensus - unfortunately, it didn't even mention a consensus. Did you submit the wrong link? Terjen (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Terjen, is it as obvious a straw man as this response is a red herring?

The source I gave you requires reading; you cannot simply Ctrl+F and type "consensus" and expect to understand what it's saying. I will give you a preview, however: It directly states that most authorities reject the lab leak hypothesis, and it's been presented to you before, so you should know this.

In any event, I believe I've made a convincing case, here, whether you accept it or not. So I'm going to refer you, once again, to the preponderance of editors disagreeing with you and leave this discussion. I would not advise you to attempt to edit the article to suit your assertions here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You again fail to refute the central point. What you need is to build a solid case based on reliable sourcing directly saying there is a scientific consensus for zoonotic origin, per the stricter requirements of WP:RS/AC. It is insufficient to submit a source saying that most authorities reject the lab leak hypothesis. It obviously fails WP:RS/AC but is also, argumentatively, a false dichotomy fallacy. Terjen (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Advise for better arguments as you leave the discussion: Focus on refuting the central point; Avoid constructing fallacious arguments including shifting the burden of proof (like demanding articles saying there is not a scientific consensus without having established there is one). You may find pg's hierarchy of disagreements helpful. The goal shouldn't be to win discussions by any means, but to build a better encyclopedia. Terjen (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The link to NOTHERE is not particularly civil nor warranted. As for sources, since RS/AC requires "reliable sources", and since you appear to be asking for sources which explicitly use the word "consensus" (there are many more which simply say "Most scientists think X" without using "consensus"), see the second source I cite here (for yet another slightly dated scientific journal which says the same thing), and also the recent sources listed previously (bottom of this diff, which if they don't use "consensus" use very similar wording), which you're surely aware of by now, including this (which says it explicitly). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Apart from POPSCI, considering your links there are only a couple of WP:MEDRS papers directly saying there is a scientific consensus on the origin:

• Dhillon, P., Breuer, M. and Hirst, N. COVID-19 breakthroughs: separating fact from fiction. The FEBS Journal September 2020
• Imperiale MJ, Casadevall A. Rethinking Gain-of-Function Experiments in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic. mBio August 2020

This is underwhelming substantiation of a scientific consensus. We also have the Frutos paper from March 2021, but it only cites the March 2020 statement in Lancet for a consensus claim without further substantiation. Is this all? Terjen (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is I can't find any MEDRS which contradicts this, from either before or after the WHO report. So, as correctly written and sourced in one of the other articles, the popular press has gone from basically one end of the spectrum to the other while the scientists have so far held out the basically consistent "possible but unsubstantiated and unlikely". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Terjen,You've gotten your answer multiple times, from numerous editors. Whether you like that answer or not is, frankly, of no concern to me or anyone else on this project. As for your little temper tantrum here, I'm afraid I'd actually have to respect you for your opinion of me to matter, so by all means, fire away. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Why'd you remove the comment about your name? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It didn't contribute to the discussion. Terjen (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. A little bit of banter when two people are disagreeing helps keep things civil. I was about to respond to it by noting that we almost named one of my sons Dustin when we found out it was an Anglicized version of Thorsten; literally "Thor Stone". The only reason we didn't was because there was a family name among the options, and we wanted to honor our ancestors, as all good Norsemen should. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I posted something similar on your talk page. Terjen (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear, i actually wrote that "at odds with the current scientific consensus" line and am ok changing it. That language was just a first pass to see if we could reach some kind of consensus here. Bonewah (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• The problem of the latest edit is that it is redundant with the next sentence and that it puts up undue prominence of placement by making it look as though Wade's paper principal claim was the recognition of the scientific prevailing view, which it isn't. If there's a way to phrase this less clumsily and avoid the redundance, that would be best. Otherwise, we're better sticking to summarising the main elements, which are A) Wade published a piece claiming the virus comes from a lab and B) This is at odds with the prevailing scientific view. That Wade acknowledged B is not particularly an important detail of A. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  Wade didn't claim that the virus came from a lab. That is a misrepresentation of Wade's claim, as is the current wording in the article (Wade...advanced the claim that COVID-19 originated from a leak....). Wade was very clear that he was not making any definitive claim about the origins of the virus, saying: "It’s important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory. Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer." He reiterates this point in his conclusion, which reads as follows: "There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached. That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence." Stonkaments (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Your objection to the wording makes no sense. The term advance the claim means to promote or advocate for the claim, which Wade clearly does in the passage you quote, when he asserts that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence. NightHeron (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"Advance the claim" is ambiguous and leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation—it could imply anything ranging from definitive and unqualified support for a claim, to a carefully qualified argument supporting the plausibility of a claim. This is especially important to get right on a WP:BLP, as the false claim that "Wade published a piece claiming the virus comes from a lab" could arguably be libel. I've added the qualifier "likely", which helps clarify somewhat, but I still think that alternate wording should be pursued. Stonkaments (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, adding the word "likely" makes sense. NightHeron (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This argument makes no logical sense whatsoever. Wade alleges a conspiracy to obfuscate what he clearly believes to be the actual origins of the virus. He falsely claims there is no evidence to support either theory, when there is actually biochemical evidence that the virus had not been the subject of study prior to the pandemic. He states in conspiratorial tones that the zoonotic origin "had gained not a shred of supporting evidence in over a year", despite the fact that that's exactly what we'd expect, under the circumstances. He even goes so far as to state clearly (contradicting his earlier statement about the absence of evidence) that "The evidence above adds up to a serious case that the SARS2 virus could have been created in a lab."

It would be a direct violation of WP:V to allege that he did anything other than to advance this view. Adding the word "likely" is fair enough, but altering the wording to suggest that Wade was merely speculating about the possibilities, and not explicitly supporting the lab leak theory would be inexcusably deceptive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's look at how secondary sources describe Wade's article:

• "Nicholas Wade published an argument for taking the laboratory-origin hypothesis seriously."[33]
• "And this month, the former New York Times science reporters Nicholas Wade and Donald G. McNeil Jr. have written long essays on Medium outlining why they take the lab leak hypothesis seriously."[34]
• "...it might be the most-likely explanation of the origin of the pandemic. That's the conclusion that acclaimed science journalist Nicholas Wade came to recently in a detailed post on Medium, where he meticulously examines the Wuhan lab-leak hypothesis, and finds the case for it plausible but unproven, while the case against it, and for a natural origin, is shockingly thin."[35]

These sources are in agreement that Wade was arguing that the lab leak theory is highly plausible, and should be taken seriously. But none of them characterize it as anything akin to "advancing the claim" that the lab leak occurred. So aren't we obligated to find a better wording that better matches the description in reliable secondary sources? Any interpretation of Wade's article that isn't supported by secondary sources would be WP:OR. Stonkaments (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikilink for lab leak hypothesis

Which is more appropriate to link to for Wade's article discussing the lab leak hypothesis: COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab origin or Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Laboratory incident? As I said in my edit summary[36] (subsequently reverted), I believe the latter is more appropriate, as secondary sources don't discuss Wade's article in the context of misinformation, but rather with respect to the valid hypothesis described in the Investigations article. Stonkaments (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there was no consensus for "COVID-19 misinformation" and conversations above show it's contentious, so it shouldn't be re-inserted if removed on good faith BLP grounds. Stonkaments's suggestion is more appropriate today but could become inappropriate the next time somebody changes the Investigations article. So I'd favour: no link. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wade's article is promoting a deliberately engineered virus. That is misinformation, since that has been ruled out by scientists (see Science-Based Medicine, unlike the plausible but extremely unlikely accidental release of a natural virus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)