| Revision as of 19:52, 13 May 2021 editFirefangledfeathers (talk | contribs)Administrators31,647 edits →12 May 2021 edits. Wade's response to criticism: Replying to Generalrelative (using reply-link)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:15, 25 June 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,704 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Nicholas Wade/Archive 5) (bot | ||
| (722 intermediate revisions by 67 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Wade, Nicholas| | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Buckinghamshire |
{{WikiProject Buckinghamshire}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Biography | {{WikiProject Biography | ||
| |living=yes | |||
| |class=Stub | |||
| |auto=yes | |auto=yes | ||
| |listas=Wade, Nicholas | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{WikiProject Journalism |
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}} | ||
| | blp=yes | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| | algo=old(30d) | |||
| | archive=Talk:Nicholas Wade/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | counter=5 | |||
| | maxarchivesize=75K | |||
| | archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| | minthreadsleft=3 | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive=1 | |||
| }} | |||
| == COVID-19 Conspiracy theory == | |||
| RE: "While some experts have supported taking the lab leak possibility seriously, the majority consider it very unlikely, calling it "speculative and unsupported". | |||
| == Controversy == | |||
| Consider dropping this quote since Wade writes that a lab leak by an accident could have happened, and an accident cannot be a conspiracy. Plus, given the US Intelligence Community report and the work of Matt Ridley and Alania Chan suggests there is a lot of room for debate based on science, timeliness and evidence collected. ] (]) 00:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| This section is heavily biased. "]" is a loaded term usually used by critics of ] and ]. Critics use the term pejoratively to describe figures such as ], ] and ], 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. ] (]) 12:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :That statement is correct as written. The claimed conspiracy would not have been the leak, but rather the alleged cover-up afterwards. ] (]) 11:24, 11 March 2022 (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. | |||
| ::Given the congressional hearings, email leaks, and wide spread reporting about Fauci's premature publication of journal articles in the Lancet and Nature that concluded that the lab leak hypothesis was extremely unlikely when many on his own team believed it should be taken seriously, to describe the lab leak or the cover-up as a conspiracy theory seems misleading. ] (]) 00:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Politicians' shenanigans are not relevant for evaluation of scientific theories. See ]. --] (]) | |||
| :That statement is not correct as written, although perhaps it can be repaired. It contains a quote and and ] says "... it is important to make clear the actual source of the text ...", but the statement doesn't make that clear. The actual source is Kristian Andersen according to politico.com, talking about the leak. So the repair job could be: {{tq|... very unlikely, with Kristian Andersen calling the lab leak theory "speculative and unsupported".}} Alternatives? ] (]) 18:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure attribution is necessary. There are additional sources which essentially say the same thing, see ]. Those are all mostly secondary, peer-reviewed papers in reputable journals, and they say the same thing as Andersen. Attributing might give the false impression that the theory being "speculative and unsupported" is just one scientist's opinion, when there are in fact plenty of others writing (and getting reviewed and accepted by their peers) the same thing. However, there's nothing that prevents avoiding the quote entirely and rewording, which would resolve the issue. ] (] / ]) 19:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::"speculative and unsupported" is actually also the view of the scientific body writ large, per our ]. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 06:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::You think they used those words? Where? ] (]) 14:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The most relevant bits are quoted at ], but you're free to go dig through the sources yourself and see the whole context behind. ] (] / ]) 13:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<s>Even if the WP:NOLABLEAK essay contained the words, it wouldn't trump a guideline. And it's not my job to dig up support for a dubious claim. ] (]) 14:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)</s> Update: RandomCanadian , so this argument no longer matters. ] (]) 15:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is no longer the case that the lab leak theory is merely speculative. It is leading theory of the department of energy and the FBI. ] (]) 00:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What those people think is not relevant for evaluation of scientific theories. --] (]) 06:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The scientists at the department of energy are well regarded scientists. What is your basis for thinking it is not the leading theory of scientists? The former head of the CDC -- a scientist -- believes it and now scientists consider it at least as likely as any other. The Sunday Times's article quotes many scientists. ] (]) 12:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Wow, you used the word "scientists" five times. Now I am convinced. | |||
| ::::::No, of course I am not. That is very naive reasoning. You need to check ] to find out what Misplaced Pages accepts as reliable sources. Also, you need to learn that reliability of a sources depends on the subject. Also, you need to learn that the overwhelming majority of scientists are experts in one tiny field and completely ignorant laypeople in all the rest of science. There is no connection between energy and viruses, and there is no way of checking the reason why some secret service person has a certain opinion. Secrecy is inimical to science. | |||
| ::::::Please take note that this is ]. --] (]) 13:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes see also ]. We would want well-regarded secondary review articles that are peer-reviewed by experts and published in topic-relevant expert-edited scientific journals. And we definitely do not have that for the view espoused by the IP. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 14:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::So are we still sticking with this language? Really? ] (]) 04:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Disputed edits == | |||
| :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 ] the article needs to keep its focus on Wade (who is a journalist) and not wander off into broader debate over sociobiology itself. ] (]) 17:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| IP ] is invited to discuss their preferred content here rather than ]. ] (]) 22:23, 16 June 2024 (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. ] (]) 07:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis == | |||
| == Misplaced Pages being used for self-promotion == | |||
| The statements '... in which he argued that the possibility that the novel coronavirus was bioengineered and had leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, couldn’t be dismissed.' and 'Wade's argument is at odds with the prevailing view among scientists that the virus most likely has a zoonotic origin.' are inconsistent. | |||
| 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." ] (]) 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 ]. Regards, ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The conclusion that something 'can't be dismissed' and the conclusion something counter is 'most likely' are not 'at odds' as it's entirely possible to simultaneously conclude both, so this needs rewording in some way. | |||
| == 12 May 2021 edits. Wade's response to criticism == | |||
| Nightheron assures me that there is consensus on this particular wording, though at present I can't find it. ] (]) 11:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In regard to 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? ] (]) 12:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :My understanding of the history (which may be incomplete) is: On 2 December 2014 ] . On 16 January 2015, ] . On 22 April 2021, ] . Then ] and ] and ] 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 ] and a consensus would be required to re-insert it. Would each side accept that? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Bonewah}} Thanks for opening up this discussion. My case for not including the response was stated in my edit summary: {{tq|Wade's reply is ] when weighed against the stated view of over 100 geneticists and biologists.}} That policy states, in part: {{tq|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 ]. Perhaps I should also have pointed to ], since one of the things these geneticists are criticizing Wade for is the view that {{tq|a genetic link exists between 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. | |||
| :::{{re|Peter Gulutzan}} Thanks to you for compiling that timeline. I will just add that 1) ] and ] appear to qualify as ]s, so their edits alone would typically not be considered as building a consensus. And 2) ] makes it clear that {{tq|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'': 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. ] (]) 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 ]. The suggestion that Wade's response carries any appreciable weight in comparison to the critiques from dozens (if not hundreds) of scientists is spurious. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 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 ] 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. ] agrees, saying in part "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 16:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|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 ] 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. | |||
| :::{{tq|Indeed ] 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, ] also says "Misplaced Pages 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: | |||
| :::{{talkquote|Wade responded, claiming they had misrepresented the claims in the book, and saying that it presented a "principled" objection to racism.}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 16:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::+1 to this suggested text. Very much in line with my suggestion above that we {{tq|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.}} ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 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. ] (]) 19:16, 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.] (]) 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. Including Wade's defense is appropriate. ] (]) 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.] (]) 16:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|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. | |||
| ::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. ] (]) 19:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|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. ] (]) 17:07, 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 18:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tq|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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 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. ] (]) 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 {{tq|anti-evolutionary myth}}? As to the rest of your argument, i.e. ({{tq|I see no reason...}}, the reason is presented very clearly in ], one of our core policies. Neutrality does not mean presenting ''both sides''; it means presenting all sides according to ] 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. ] (]) 19:43, 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. ] (]) 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''. ] (]) 19:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thank you for the correction. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:15, 25 June 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nicholas Wade article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
COVID-19 Conspiracy theory
RE: "While some experts have supported taking the lab leak possibility seriously, the majority consider it very unlikely, calling it "speculative and unsupported".
Consider dropping this quote since Wade writes that a lab leak by an accident could have happened, and an accident cannot be a conspiracy. Plus, given the US Intelligence Community report and the work of Matt Ridley and Alania Chan suggests there is a lot of room for debate based on science, timeliness and evidence collected. 173.72.254.24 (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- That statement is correct as written. The claimed conspiracy would not have been the leak, but rather the alleged cover-up afterwards. NightHeron (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Given the congressional hearings, email leaks, and wide spread reporting about Fauci's premature publication of journal articles in the Lancet and Nature that concluded that the lab leak hypothesis was extremely unlikely when many on his own team believed it should be taken seriously, to describe the lab leak or the cover-up as a conspiracy theory seems misleading. 97.120.181.231 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Politicians' shenanigans are not relevant for evaluation of scientific theories. See Indiana Pi Bill. --Hob Gadling (talk)
- Given the congressional hearings, email leaks, and wide spread reporting about Fauci's premature publication of journal articles in the Lancet and Nature that concluded that the lab leak hypothesis was extremely unlikely when many on his own team believed it should be taken seriously, to describe the lab leak or the cover-up as a conspiracy theory seems misleading. 97.120.181.231 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- That statement is not correct as written, although perhaps it can be repaired. It contains a quote and and WP:RS/QUOTE says "... it is important to make clear the actual source of the text ...", but the statement doesn't make that clear. The actual source is Kristian Andersen according to politico.com, talking about the leak. So the repair job could be:
... very unlikely, with Kristian Andersen calling the lab leak theory "speculative and unsupported".
Alternatives? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)- I'm not sure attribution is necessary. There are additional sources which essentially say the same thing, see WP:NOLABLEAK. Those are all mostly secondary, peer-reviewed papers in reputable journals, and they say the same thing as Andersen. Attributing might give the false impression that the theory being "speculative and unsupported" is just one scientist's opinion, when there are in fact plenty of others writing (and getting reviewed and accepted by their peers) the same thing. However, there's nothing that prevents avoiding the quote entirely and rewording, which would resolve the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- "speculative and unsupported" is actually also the view of the scientific body writ large, per our best sources. — Shibbolethink 06:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- You think they used those words? Where? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- The most relevant bits are quoted at WP:NOLABLEAK, but you're free to go dig through the sources yourself and see the whole context behind. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Even if the WP:NOLABLEAK essay contained the words, it wouldn't trump a guideline. And it's not my job to dig up support for a dubious claim. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Update: RandomCanadian rewrote to avoid the quote, so this argument no longer matters. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- The most relevant bits are quoted at WP:NOLABLEAK, but you're free to go dig through the sources yourself and see the whole context behind. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is no longer the case that the lab leak theory is merely speculative. It is leading theory of the department of energy and the FBI. 97.120.181.231 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- What those people think is not relevant for evaluation of scientific theories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- The scientists at the department of energy are well regarded scientists. What is your basis for thinking it is not the leading theory of scientists? The former head of the CDC -- a scientist -- believes it and now scientists consider it at least as likely as any other. The Sunday Times's article quotes many scientists. 69.121.121.167 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, you used the word "scientists" five times. Now I am convinced.
- No, of course I am not. That is very naive reasoning. You need to check WP:RS to find out what Misplaced Pages accepts as reliable sources. Also, you need to learn that reliability of a sources depends on the subject. Also, you need to learn that the overwhelming majority of scientists are experts in one tiny field and completely ignorant laypeople in all the rest of science. There is no connection between energy and viruses, and there is no way of checking the reason why some secret service person has a certain opinion. Secrecy is inimical to science.
- Please take note that this is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes see also WP:RS/AC. We would want well-regarded secondary review articles that are peer-reviewed by experts and published in topic-relevant expert-edited scientific journals. And we definitely do not have that for the view espoused by the IP. — Shibbolethink 14:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- So are we still sticking with this language? Really? 72.94.251.88 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes see also WP:RS/AC. We would want well-regarded secondary review articles that are peer-reviewed by experts and published in topic-relevant expert-edited scientific journals. And we definitely do not have that for the view espoused by the IP. — Shibbolethink 14:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- The scientists at the department of energy are well regarded scientists. What is your basis for thinking it is not the leading theory of scientists? The former head of the CDC -- a scientist -- believes it and now scientists consider it at least as likely as any other. The Sunday Times's article quotes many scientists. 69.121.121.167 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- What those people think is not relevant for evaluation of scientific theories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- You think they used those words? Where? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Disputed edits
IP 2601:18A:C500:330:0:0:0:0/64 is invited to discuss their preferred content here rather than edit warring. Generalrelative (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis
The statements '... in which he argued that the possibility that the novel coronavirus was bioengineered and had leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, couldn’t be dismissed.' and 'Wade's argument is at odds with the prevailing view among scientists that the virus most likely has a zoonotic origin.' are inconsistent.
The conclusion that something 'can't be dismissed' and the conclusion something counter is 'most likely' are not 'at odds' as it's entirely possible to simultaneously conclude both, so this needs rewording in some way.
Nightheron assures me that there is consensus on this particular wording, though at present I can't find it. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:F086:443D:3F49:9BCC (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Categories: