Delete as copyvio; later rewritten, November 24th, 2006, see discussion.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
User:Jamiemetzl, who has written the lion's share of this mostly unsourced and overeditorialized article, is the subject of this article. He only ever has contributed to this article about himself. In this editorial in the Brown Alumni magazine, he expresses anger that the article previously was deleted and admits to writing (and rewriting) it. It is mere self-promotion. See WP:YOURSELF. Wikophile (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP policies listed above, the long list of publications, interviews, task forces, interpretive dances, etc, is too long--indeed it's longer than the text of this article. The list needs to be pruned. I'd prefer that someone else does this rather than myself (maybe Jamie can do it himself? Jamie?), but if not, I will go ahead and do the pruning. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lab Leak or Not? How Politics Shaped the Battle Over Covid’s Origin
A lab leak was once dismissed by many as a conspiracy theory. But the idea is gaining traction, even as evidence builds that the virus emerged from a market.
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Benjamin Mueller
New York Times
March 19, 2023
In December 2020, Jamie Metzl, a biosecurity and technology expert at the Atlantic Council who had worked in the Clinton administration, arranged a private telephone call with Jake Sullivan, the incoming national security adviser. Mr. Metzl made the case, he said, “that a research-related origin was a very real possibility.”
Mr. Metzl joined a small group, organized by French and Belgian scientists, who had said the lab leak hypothesis could not be ruled out. The scientists, he said, were having trouble getting letters published in science journals. With Mr. Metzl’s help, the group published its views in news outlets around the world.
I made an attempt to improve the article in a number of edits addressing: a) unsourced, b) promotional, c) undue content. And adding one paragraph for COVID-19 lab leak theory, the topic for which the subject has probably received more reliable source coverage than for all the other topics in the article. @Alansohnreverted almost all of my edits, including the "Like resume" tag I placed, without fixing any issues, in fact it's more of a resume than after my edits. Alansohn left a misleading edit summary copyedit and/or wikify; add / update ref(s). I apologize for my last edit summary not indicating why I removed so much content, but that doesn't justify a revert without appropriate edit summary. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem with User:AncientWalrus's edits can be seen in This edit, which claims to merely "Add COVID-19 lab leak sentences" while somehow (perhaps inadvertently) butchering away a full third of the content of the article. This appeared deliberately misleading. In good faith, I reinserted the material that had been inserted to "Add COVID-19 lab leak sentences" while restoring the deleted content and updating several references. I hope that AncientWalrus can offer a far better explanation for their actions in removing huge swathes of sourced content, perhaps this time without engaging in personal attacks. Alansohn (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already apologized for not noting deletion in my last edit summary. Not everything that is sourced has a right to be part of the article. In any case, the article is promotional, it is incoherent (e.g. chronologically), it includes undue items like He appeared on Meet the Press, discussing the topic.. It still contains text added by what appears to be the subject of the article. I'll give the pruning another go, then. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've now finished pruning in a more piece meal fashion. He claims to have been on a WHO committee. Would be good to add this if it's true. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made an attempt to prune weakly sourced content from this BLP in line with policy in these edits: [1][2][3][4][5]. Alansohn summatorily reverted all my edits with very limited justification: rv renewed butchery from User:AncientWalrus. You've been bold and butchered the article again and you've been reverted. It's time to discuss and get consensus. @Alansohn please provide edit by edit justification of why you consider the reversion of each of my edits is warranted. In contrast to you I've already done so (briefly) in each edit's summary. Thank you. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AncientWalrus, read WP:PRESERVE. Start looking for the better sources that would satisfy your concerns, imaginary or otherwise. For starters claiming as in this edit that the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is not sufficiently independent to support a claim that Metzl "helped establish a human rights investigation and monitoring unit for Cambodia" is ludicrous on its face. And check your dictionary for "summatorily". Note to self" Start reviewing some of the previous round of butchery to see what else should be reinserted into the article. Alansohn (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alansohn read WP:BLP and WP:DON'T PRESERVE. Your behaviour makes me wonder about WP:OWNERSHIP, you appear to have a close connection to this article that might make your independence appear questionable, see [6]. I wonder whether you understand WP:INDEPENDENT: the source (Carnegie Endowment for Internal Peace) is writing about its own visiting fellow. This is everything but independent. I would appreciate if you could editorialize less ("ludicrous", "butchery", "imaginary concerns") and AGF. I am still waiting for your point by point reason for your reverts.
AncientWalrus, you've prove my point for me. After being pushed to follow policy and dig deeper, the worst you could find that you believed demand removal was a portion of a quotation. I have no connection whatsoever of any kind to Jamie Metzl; the fact that he mentioned me once in a discussion about how Wikipedia works (or doesn't work) in no way indicates that my actions here constitute a conflict of interest. Alansohn (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's incorrect that the worst [I] could find that [I] believed demand removal was a portion of a quotations. In fact, this was just something that I thought that you could not imagine you objecting to. I still consider my other edits to be valid. Stop distracting and start arguing why you reverted the other edits or I will remove them in the future. It is not only the fact that he mentioned you once, but the fact that you seem to be proud of it and the fact that you don't engage in constructive discussion regarding my edits that creates in my eyes the appearance of conflict of interest or ownership. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
