Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:50, 21 July 2021

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:BLP noticeboard

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Buckinghamshire (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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: 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, 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. 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 "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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. There should be no dark corners or walled garden of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. 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, Misplaced Pages, 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, Misplaced Pages 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)

A quote from a document produced by 139 experts in the fields of population genetics and genetic biology balanced against a letter of refutation by one journalist—if Misplaced Pages and its editors are to be fact and scientific research based, policy requires that the first document be quoted and the second be paraphrased. Otherwise split the article; a short bio of the subject in one hand ad reviews of his books in the other. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 02:34, 21 July 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 (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)

Wade's article is not promoting a deliberately engineered virus as a bioweapon, which is the only theory that has been ruled out by scientists. Wade discusses accidental release of an engineered virus (via gain-of-function research), which is not misinformation, and still very much a plausible hypothesis. Stonkaments (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition, Wade imputes nefarious motives to the epidemiological profession. He claims that it's dominated by people with conflicts of interest and political agendas who intimidate the others. This conspiracy theory feeds the anti-science paranoia of the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers, and so falls into the category of COVID-related misinformation. NightHeron (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, Wade has always been like this. His and William Broad's book Betrayers of the Truth depicts fraud in science as more common than the historical facts justify, and A Troublesome Inheritance opposes the scientific consensus. He is an anti-science crusader, and always has been. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• As has been pointed out multiple times now, Wade's article advances a literal conspiracy theory in alleging without evidence that any dissent from the consensus view is punished. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  Can anyone provide any secondary sources that support the assertions that Wade's article advances a conspiracy theory or misinformation? Otherwise these claims violate WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPREMOVE. Stonkaments (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Purple cows eat red bananas on the North beach of Arkansas. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  The article currently nowhere states that Wade is promoting a conspiracy theory or misinformation (only that his view is well outside the scientific consensus), so I don't see what would need to be removed. FWIW, this (from a reputable anti-conspiracy website) quite clearly names him and rebuts his dubious claims; and this quite clearly identifies Wade as a "lab-leak proponent". This paper in a peer-reviewed journal rebuts most of Wade's re-hashed arguments (months before he even published his piece). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  The link to COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab origin would need to be removed. Stonkaments (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  The link is going to the most relevant place, i.e. promotions of theories of a deliberately engineered virus and allegations that scientists are unethical (which it doesn't take a PhD in anything to figure out is the subject of Wade's article). Again, I've also provided sources which quite explicitly name Wade as a proponent of this theory, and which rebut him. I don't see what you're objecting to. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm objecting to the implication that Wade's article is spreading misinformation, which is a contentious claim unsupported by any secondary sources, and therefore must be removed per WP:BLPREMOVE. Stonkaments (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Wade's contention that the profession of epidemiologists is corrupted by COI, political agendas, and intimidation and so is not to be believed certainly qualifies as COVID-related misinformation. NightHeron (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  That is your interpretation and analysis of the source, but you need to provide a secondary source to support it. WP:BLPREMOVE says: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: 1. is unsourced or poorly sourced; 2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research) Stonkaments (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  The whole 'lab leak = misinformation' thing is WP:OR and should be dealt with. As usual with Covid related articles, there is such a tangled web that the relevant discussion should be on the COVID-19 misinformation page, not here. At a minimum, I support its removal here and agree that this is covered under WP:BLPREMOVE. Bonewah (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  The whole 'lab leak = misinformation' thing is WP:OR That is categorically untrue, and an absolutely ridiculous assertion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  Stonkaments, go read my comment about about the purple cows. It's every bit as sensible and relevant as your argument here. Your assertion that Wade's article doesn't spread misinformation is categorically false, and utterly ridiculous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  RandomCanadian, Hob Gadling, NightHeron and MPants are of course entirely correct here. Continued sealioning and edit warring on this page by a small group of tendentious POV-pushers is disruptive and boring. Generalrelative (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  The funny thing about POV-pushers is they dont always know they are doing it. Bonewah (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  As much as I enjoy the irony of this, you should probably refrain from making personal attacks here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  Those that think this comment could be a personal attack on them, should stop their disruptive behavior rather than take offense. Terjen (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  My advice to anybody who endorses personal attacks is to WP:LOOKINTHEMIRROR. Two wrongs, disregarding entirely whether there is any substance to such claims, don't make a right. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Part 2: Electric Boogaloo

• Colleagues: please leave every bit of background knowledge and personal opinions you have about the subject at the door, no matter how reasonable or well-informed. Look to the published record. What is absolutely needed are secondary sources that explicitly refer to Wade's essay as promoting either misinformation conspiracy, or simply a version of the lab leak hypothesis. Sources that predate Wade's essay, or subsequent works that don't directly discuss it, cannot be juxtaposed to insinuate that Wade's views are one way or the other: doing so risks WP:SYN. Indeed, none of the citations following "This claim is at odds with the prevailing view" mention Wade at all. The only secondary source currently referring to Wade's essay is This Wire article, which states the essay "was seized upon by both political commentators and conspiracy theorists; it also drew comments from some scientists that the virus's origins warrant further investigation." Certainly Wade's views are open to criticism, but the lab leak hypothesis itself is not a conspiracy theory. Wade is not mentioned by name at COVID-19 misinformation nor Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. To insinuate Wade's article is COVID misinformation via sneaky wikilink is disingenuous at best, unless the consensus of directly relevant secondary sources claims otherwise. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  This has all been addressed already and the consensus here has been to reject these arguments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)@Animalparty: If you cannot present an argument that was not already addressed, I suggest you let the dead horse repose in peace. Two questions which you should think of before replying:

  1. What is the hypothesis being advanced by Wade in his paper?
  2. How have sources from people with qualifications in the relevant field opined on this hypothesis (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NOTNEWS)?

  Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  That is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. Stonkaments (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah sure. Your argument is again as relevant as Purple cows in Arkansas. I just asked questions, and you've been provided sources (multiple times in the previous thread), which you chose to ignore. That is not Misplaced Pages's problem, so not something that I can fix. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  Perdón? The line of reasoning evidenced by your questions—making connections that are not made by any sources—is a textbook violation of WP:SYNTH, which is indeed Misplaced Pages's problem. The majority of editors in the BLPN discussion agreed this is a problem as well. Stonkaments (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  Go take a look at WP:FLAT. You have been provided with multiple sources which directly criticise Wade's point of view. You have been provided with such sources which directly mention him. You have been provided with multiple explainers on the policy on dealing with conspiracy theories and hypotheses which are plausible but not currently accepted by the mainstream of the relevant academic discipline (Wade's is firmly in the first group, but even if it somehow is in the second, that doesn't change anything to how we should cover it). You can do whatever you want about that: it is not Misplaced Pages's problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd like to add that this is a connection that numerous sources explicitly make, and the pretense that Wade's allegations are somehow distinct from all the other, almost identical allegations which are called conspiracy theories is just that; a pretense.

Also, theres Foreign Policy debunking Wade's claims, including calling them "just speculation", Mashable directly stating that Wade's pushing the lab leak theory A virology podcast literally laughing and joking about how crappy Wade's claims are, A respected biochemist's blog directly calling Wade's work a "conspiracy theory" (Stonk, before you start whining about blogs, remember that WP:PARITY is a thing), Medika debunking Wade's claims, and a fact check of Tucker Carlson in which Carlson cited Wade for claims about gain-of-function research, for which there's "no evidence". And those are just from the first page of a google search I did the other day. Masem was absolutely right: These claims deserve to be debunked right here where they're covered, and I intend to do just that as soon as I find time to do a write-up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• The comparison to WP:FLAT fails for a few different reasons. 1) This is a BLP issue, and consensus at the BLP noticeboard said it needs to be addressed. 2) The article doesn't say anything in support of Wade's claims, so the "reversed burden of proof" argument makes no sense. The burden of proof indeed lies on editors seeking to characterize Wade's article as misinformation. Stonkaments (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  You've been provided with sources. I don't know why you keep acting like they don't exist, so yes, your argument is a reversal of the burden of proof, since you have not provided any acceptable sources which speak of Wade's claim in anything but a critical fashion. When you have new sources, feel free to come back. Otherwise stop beating the poor dead horse. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  Of course, well-sourced criticism of Wade's article would clearly be appropriate to include, as MPants has said they intend to do. But that's different than simply giving it (via piped link) the blanket label "misinformation". Stonkaments (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Wade may be entirely or partly wrong, but being wrong is not a conspiracy, and having views that are not the majority is not problematic. I think we can all agree that the lab leak hypothesis is real and is being taken seriously (more so than when it was first proposed), although its veracity remains to be determined. Certain elements are more grounded than others, and a decent article would clearly state which claims are speculation, which claims are conspiratorial and which claims Wade is directly responsible for (regardless of who has seized on his writing for political purposes). Both of you are ignoring my plea to look to how reliable sources actually characterize Wade's article, so here's a summary based on some Googling.

• Ariel Fernandez , in ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters, concludes "Clues from molecular biology uphold the artificial origin of SARS-CoV-2, reinforcing the recent investigation by journalist Nicholas Wade."
• Axios "Former New York Times science journalist Nicholas Wade raised more questions recently with a long article noting, among other things, the paucity of any clear evidence of a zoological spillover more than 16 months after the pandemic began."
• David Frum in The Atlantic: " accused not only the Chinese state but also the U.S. scientific community of complicity in a cover-up."
• FactCheck.org: "Wade wrote about “two main theories” of SARS-Co-V-2’s origin: “One is that it jumped naturally from wildlife to people. The other is that the virus was under study in a lab, from which it escaped.” Wade asserted that the “clues point in a specific direction” — a lab-leak. But he said at the outset: “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."
• Columbia Journalism Review: Wade wrote "that, as things stand, “proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence,” and Donald G. McNeil, Jr.... wrote on Medium essentially backing Wade up. "
• Ethan Siegel in Forbes appears to be the most damming (although the article is highly opinionated): Siegal writes Wade was promoting "that it was genetically engineered with the purpose of infecting humans, that it was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and that' where it came from", and notes broader conspiracy elements that include China /WIV genetically engineered the virus to specifically wreak havoc on human populations.
• A feature in Foreign Policy while dismissing the lab leak hypothesis (Wade would probably argue that dismissal itself is premature), states "The theories put forward by Baker, Wade, and others are enormously complicated, and they do latch on to elements of truth." (the article also appears to conflate "lab leak hypothesis" with conspiracy theory, which is not logical).

Mpants, you bring up several blogs and podcasts, and an article by "SCIENCE DUUUDE" , which are of dubious reliability and strongly opinionated. Again, being wrong is not a conspiracy. Making accusations is not a conspiracy. My reading is that most of the descriptions of Wade's essay are neutral (i.e. merely stating it as Wade's view on an aspect of lab leak hypothesis) while a minority link it to larger conspiracies and social movements, and a smaller minority explicitly accuse Wade of promoting conspiracy theories. In time, hopefully more clarity will be shed on the origins of COVID, and nuances of Wade's essay might be better described in the meantime. But going by the preponderance of coverage in secondary sources I think it is premature and unwarranted to claim or infer that Wade's writing is conspiratorial. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Your sources are also of dubious reliability. Wade may be right that biosafety standards in labs need more oversight or something like that. Doesn't give a figment of truth to his wild claims of conspiracy amongst scientists and his promotion of a position which has been ruled out by relevant experts. "ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters" is not a virology journal, and I have no clue why someone writing about molecular biology would be writing in a journal about chemistry (also, "letters" in this case is likely indicative that this is an opinion piece). Compare with the excellent, review papers listed at WP:NOLABLEAK (Frutos et al. is quite thorough - quote: "There is consensus within the scientific community to consider that SARS-CoV-2 has not been engineered and is a naturally occurring virus.") and also the widely cited analysis in Nat Med by Andersen et al. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: How do WP:NEWSORG or WP:SCHOLARSHIP preclude any of my sources? All have clearly defined editorial structure, identified authors, and journalistic credibility. This article is not the place to determine whether any theory is correct. There is no policy or guideline that mandates all sources in a biographical article must come only from peer-reviewed articles in hard science journals. Also, you are using terms like "wild conspiracy" based apparently on your own reading of the article. I am basing my reasoning on the preponderance of coverage in reliable sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian Here you go again. The Frutos paper only cites the March 2020 letter in Lancet for the scientific consensus claim, without providing other references. The claim is secondary rather than the conclusion of a comprehensive review, instead part of an argument saying there was "no voluntary release" because it's "impossible to voluntarily release an engineered virus which does not exist". It's time to drop the stick. Terjen (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you might want to consider why a paper published in March of this year would cite a year old consensus and still make it through peer-review. I'll give you a hint; it's because the consensus hasn't changed since then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, for starters, Wade literally alleges a conspiracy theory. This is not subject to debate. Quote: "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."

COming from someone who damn well knows that science doesn't work that way, that's a conspiracy theory. Full stop. And we have sources referring to it as that. This is not a debate, if you deny that Wade's article was advancing a conspiracy theory, then you're denying reality.

Note that I brought up 1 blog and 1 podcast; get your facts straight. And per WP:PARITY and WP:SELFPUB, they're all reliable, because they're all published by subject-matter experts. Also, nobody's "ignored your plea," not only have we already done that in this section which you apparently refuse to read (along with Wade's article, apparently), but I just did it again, a few comments above. Oh, and look; you responded to that comment. So you damn well knew I'd been engaging with sourcing before you accused me of not doing so.

So let's look at your bullet points.

• Ariel Fernandez is not a credible source. He edits his own WP article, he's had multiple works of his challenged after publication (by the journals) and at least one refused publication, and another fully retracted. So yeah, I'm not surprised he'd say something which is contradicted by the majority of subject-matter experts. Especially considering that he's not a subject-matter expert. He's a drug chemist, not a virologist or epidemiologist. He's got less clue what he's talking about here than I do.
• Axios is not saying anything shocking here. No-one in their right mind expected to have more evidence of zoonosis at this point. It takes years or decades to determine the origin of a virus.
• The Atlantic piece was already used, but was removed by the same folks you've inspired with your refusal to read this discussion and repetition of their arguments. See WP:DISRUPT for an idea about why this isn't appreciated by those of us who actually care about improving the article.
• I don't know why you quoted the factcheck.org article, I already summed it up.
• That CJR bit doesn't actually say anything; it's just mentioning Wade's bit in passing. I'll quote the opening sentence of that paragraph, though: "What changed? There’s still no direct evidence to validate the lab-leak theory." I'll also note that they make it clear they consider Wade to be advancing the lab leak theory.
• The Forbes bit was rejected long ago, because it's basically self-pub and Siegel is not an expert.
• Wow, that's a blatant example of cherry picking from the Foreign Policy piece, which goes on to say "Beyond those crumbs of truth, however, everything is just speculation." Also, the does not, in any way "conflate 'lab leak hypothesis' with conspiracy theory", it calls Wade's assertion that there's an effort to suppress research into the origins a conspiracy theory.

So that's that. Also, Science Duuuuude has been a syndicated science reporter for several years. Using a pen name doesn't make someone unreliable. He's certainly more reliable than Ariel Fernandez, lol.

Oh, and you left out Science Based Medicine, possibly the most respected site for medical skepticism out there. They also directly call this a conspiracy theory and debunk Wade's various claims.

Now, this has been argued to death, and I'm done handing sticks to people who won't let the poor horse be buried in peace, so this is my last response humoring you. This issue has been settled already, and re-litigating it now is nothing but a waste of editors' time and energy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation link again

By my count five editors in this discussion have supported the link to misinformation, vs. another five who have opposed it, making it a clear case of no consensus. This insistence that there is any sort of consensus, or that the debate is "settled" and editors are beating a dead horse, is wrong and disruptive. Note that WP:NOCONSENSUS says: "...a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it." The link to misinformation should be removed. Stonkaments (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

By my count...

Consensus on Misplaced Pages isn't achieved by counting noses, it's achieved by strength of arguments, and, you, my friend, don't have that. And if you're just doing math, add my vote to linking to "providing misinformation". --Calton | Talk 12:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Consensus is not a vote count, so you ought to bring better arguments, or start an actual RFC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Seems fine to me to link to the misinformation article. If it's not misinformation, that should be dealt with at the misinformation article. Using a Wikilink isn't normally controversial. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  The misinformation article discusses specific instances of misinformation surrounding the lab leak hypothesis. Notice that lab leak hypothesis redirects to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, not COVID-19 misinformation. Stonkaments (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  You mean misinformation like the allegation that scientists would be punished for researching a possible lab leak? Because that's in the Wade article.

  Or his claims about the furin cleavage site being proof that the virus was engineered, which was just categorically false? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  I mean misinformation like when reliable sources use the word "misinformation" (WP:V), which you haven't provided for Wade's article. Stonkaments (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  This has already been proven beyond any reasonable standard, so I'm not going to argue about it with you anymore. Note that, even by your simplistic standard, there are now 7 editors who support this link, and only 5 who oppose it. And, as RC pointed out; you've got no arguments that haven't been thoroughly refuted already. So we're done here, there's no consensus to change it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  Its worth noting that several editors at WP:BLPN also pushed back on linking to the misinformation article. I see no reason why we shouldnt simply link to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 as that is the subject of Wade's article. This is, quite frankly, not an unreasonable request when numerous editors have expressed concerns about this link, even if there isnt a strict majority of editors who agree. Bonewah (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  The editors who "pushed back" were all editors from this discussion except Kyohyi, who very strangely claimed that BLP standards apply to Wade's article (as opposed to Wade himself), followed that up by claiming that we shouldn't write about Wade's article here, then settled on asserting that we should write about this content in the misinformation article it's linked to, while admitting that the linking is "vague" and applies only a "broad brush label".

Alexbrn strongly supported this link, and Masem argued quite eloquently that we should expand the language describing how wrong Wade is while keeping the link, while AGFing that you guys are arguing in good faith because the current coverage isn't clear enough for you all to understand how obvious it is that Wade's article is misinformation. I'd note that Masem pushed back against Kyohyi's claims, as well.

I mean, your whole argument relies on WP:Wikilawyering that we must assume Wade is being accurate and honest in that article, we must assume that Wade's assertion that the virus leaked from the lab is not the same "lab leak" theory covered at the misinfo article, and that we must assume that the numerous sources which exist and which have been discussed in this very section don't exist because they're not used in the article. It's a completely illogical and unjustifiable argument, and it's made in support of making one of our articles less accurate.

Stonkaments has already been page blocked over this, so I'm going to leave you with a longer version of the same message I left them with: Your arguments have been systematically addressed and refuted by the majority of editors in this discussion (including the BLPN thread). You have not introduced any new arguments since the BLPN discussion. You have never once provided any evidence to support your claim that Wade's article is not misinformation.

Meanwhile, those of us supporting this link have presented dozens of sources showing that Wade's claims are false, including more than one which directly states that Wade was pushing conspiracy theories and at least one which mentions Wade's article in the context of "Covid-19 misinformation". We have addressed each of your arguments and refuted them, and we have continued to add new evidence as this discussion progressed.

I'm through discussing this with you, or with anyone else. The next comment I see here, from anyone furthering this argument (even if it's just someone replying to me with "+1, this is exactly how I feel"), I'm going to ask an uninvolved admin to review and close this discussion. Whether they want to formalize the very obvious consensus that this link is appropriate is up to them, but the horse is little more than a greasy smear on the grass at this point, while the supply of sticks seems inexhaustible. We have long since achieved a consensus, and the fact that you don't like that consensus is your problem, not ours. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

You have no special power to declare a discussion over. If you want to call an uninvolved admin, go for it, but im not going to be silenced on a talk page just because you want it. As near as i can tell, the whole notion that Wade's article = misinformation is original research by you guys. Just coming up with sources that site problems with Wade's article and then labeling that article as 'misinformation' is improper for the same reason that finding sources which site problems with De revolutionibus orbium coelestium and then calling that book as 'misinformation' is improper. As ive said before, this is not the place to adjucate these claims, but ive given up on that, just like ive given up on getting editors to adhere to Undue's requirement that we be fair and proportional. What i havent given up on is the notion of compromise, as in, maybe linking Wade's article about the a lab leak hypothesis to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 isnt so different from linking the general article about the lab leak hypothesis to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Or at least, maybe its not so wrong as to fight about it. Or you can call an admin, frankly, i dont care. Bonewah (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that my reading of the RSes linked support calling Wade's article "misinformation" in this context. I think it's actually a pretty clear consensus. Someone can start an RfC if they want, but I don't think the outcome will be against the misinformation wikify. Not based on what happened at BLPN.--Shibbolethink 23:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Drmies has asked for this thread to be closed. I've seen these alternatives: (a) link to COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab origin (inserted and re-inserted by MPants at work + NightHeron + Generalrelative + RandomCanadian + MjolnirPants + Drmies + Chalst), (b) link to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Laboratory incident? (edited by Stonkaments), (c ) no link (suggested by me), (d) link Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#COVID-19_pandemic (suggested by Terjen in the WP:BLPN discussion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Important to consider which of these options is most in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Terjen (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Specific claims in the article

Both sides of this argument should focus on what Wade actually claimed in his Medium piece. Right now there is nothing in the paragraph that mentions the specific claims. A subsequent paragraph can critique or support his claims and the two different links to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 or COVID-19 misinformation can be debated there. Thriley (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Which of Wade's claims do you feel we should mention specifically? Im not categorically opposed to the idea, but im wary of potential OR issues. Bonewah (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

All of his claims. There should be a summary of the piece and his major claims. I think there are enough reliable sources to make a summary. The summary paragraph should be as accurate, with emphasis on the points he emphasized. A subsequent paragraph can critique/support his various points. Thriley (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• There might be enough coverage of this piece to make its own article. See the sources mentioned in the section above. If so, then a run-down of his claims (and, per WP:FRINGE, the debunkings of those claims, and per WP:NPOV, the credulity of non-experts towards them) would be warranted. If we're going to cover it here, however, we should make a new subsection, as AnimalParty did for the A Troublesome Inheritence bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no real confidence that a separate article wont just turn into a POV fork, given the eagerness of editors to 'debunk' Wade's claims whether the rules allow for it or not. But, frankly, im just here because this is a biography and, therefore, requires special attention. As far as im concerned, make a new article, link to it here and cut down whats here to a simple, neutral sentence or two and ill happily leave you to it. Your not the only one who tires of all this. Bonewah (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Nobody's eager to debunk Wade's claims. Mostly because it's already been done for us by high quality sources. And if you're tired of of your refusal to accept a clear consensus, then there's a simple solution for that, isn't there? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate Bonewah‘s contribution. It seems that some editors are very eager to “debunk” Wade’s claims without actually describing what the claims actually are. Misplaced Pages is an excellent place for countering misinformation and bad science, but I don’t think the paragraph as it currently stands does a very good job at that. It feels quite lopsided and doesn’t inform the reader about the overall situation. I think it would be a great thing if the editors that have been in conflict could try to write an accurate summary of Wade’s claims and then a second paragraph that gets into the controversy/science of each particular claim. Thriley (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages might be an excellent place for countering bad science, but Wade's *biography* is not. We have a whole page on covid's origins and, if thats not enough, we are free to make one on this particular article. I see no reason why we should turn this biography into a WP:coatrack. Trust me, anyone coming to this article can click on a link just fine. Bonewah (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Thriley as I just pointed out: There's no-one here attempting to debunk Wade's claims, because reliable sources have already done that. The text in the article about this has grown over time as new sources have come in, and originally simply stated that Wade published a piece whose claims were at odds with the scientific consensus. If you believe this needs a point-by-point debunking, well, there's nothing stopping you from writing that. I personally am just fine with it the way it stands, though it appears that Shibbolethink might be gearing up to expand our coverage of it with their recent edits.

However, if you want that discussion to be exhaustive (to note each point Wade makes, and the response from experts), then that would absolutely need its own article. Which, again, seems likely to pass WP:GNG to me. However, I've got multiple other projects to work on, and I simply don't have time to compile all the sources, go through them all and do it. If you want it done, you should start working on it yourself. I'll help where I'm able, as will others, I'm sure. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Nah, I just felt it was important to have a bit about the BAS piece in the lead. I really have no interest in doing anything else, I think the article is good as is. Personally I think an entirely separate article about Wade's claims would be UNDUE, because secondary sources rarely mention each and every thing Wade wrote in there. And I think the necessity of putting it all in Wade's voice and countering it with proper context from scientists etc in WP:RSes means that the article would end up really convoluted. I think the maxim "viewers can click a link" applies. If they want to read Wade's article, they can. If they want to read something that debunks his article, I believe we have that in the refs too.--Shibbolethink 20:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Currently the article links Wade’s claims directly to COVID-19 misinformation without stating what those claims are. I don’t think that is acceptable. I think about three sentences on Wade’s claims would be best to be encyclopedic. Thriley (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Nope, not litigating this again. I don't really care if you think it's acceptable or not; there's a firm consensus to keep that link, so unless you want to do the work of expanding this yourself (and you think you can build a consensus to keep that expansion in the article, which is unlikely), you're shit out of luck. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not propose removing the link. I proposed expansion. Please don’t be rude to me. I do all my editing in good faith. Thriley (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

We cannot add his fringe claims without also adding mainstream sources refuting them. See WP:FRINGE. But adding all that has not gained consensus, and you will not achieve consensus by repeating that you want it and repeating that you think it would be best. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not advocating for not refuting any fringe claims. I am advocating for an expansion of the section. Thriley (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, it seems I have to do this. I repeat what I just said in boldface: that has not gained consensus, and you will not achieve consensus by repeating that you want it and repeating that you think it would be best.. Did I make myself clear now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, one moment, I noticed that I have probably not. So, once more: saying, "I am advocating for an expansion of the section" is not advocating for anything. Repeating your position over and over again is not advocating. Of course, repeating myself is what I am doing now, but that is because you have not been listening and this seems to be the right way to communicate with you because it is the way you communicate.

We all know what your position is. We have known it from the start because you have written it down - see above, 15:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC). Your position has not gained any traction, and repeating it will not help.

Yes, I know what you want to say now. You want to say that you want an expansion of the section. Don't say it. We already know. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Rapid-fire edits not an improvement

The rapid-fire edits by AnimalParty include changes that lack consensus (ranging from "English" instead of "British" to a WP:FALSEBALANCE edit giving psychologists and economists equal prominence to geneticists in response to Wade's book). The immediate re-insertion of material I reverted violates WP:ONUS and WP:EW. All of these edits should be reverted and brought to the talk-page. NightHeron (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted that series of edits, but restored the latest edit by Shibbolethink. The edits I reverted should be discussed on the talk-page before restoring them. NightHeron (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am seeking to expand this article to reflect events that happened earlier than 2014 or May 2021, and to include other significant views per WP:NPOV. I welcome others' help in this task. User:NightHeron, do you object to this? I'm using English because that's what is used in Gale Contemporary Authors, and I'm under the impression that people are generally referred to as English or Welsh or Scottish rather than British. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Let's see what other editors think. There's no hurry. I particularly disagree with the false balance. The opinions of people without any expertise in the subject should not be used to counterbalance the statements by the scientists whose work Wade's claims were supposedly based upon. NightHeron (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Where you see false balance, I see seeking to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The topic in this case is Nicholas Wade who is a science writer and journalist, who has been significantly covreed by scholars and commoners alike. The topic is not genetics, nor human evolution, nor the history of science, nor virology. Thus, proportionate coverage of views from all relevant reliable sources is on the table. A scientific theory of genetics can should largely be shaped by the views of geneticists, but a popular science book about genetics and human evolution can be also be critiqued by historians, historians of science, psychologists, etc. I think there is too much coverage of one book here already, which makes it dangerously close to a WP:COATRACK. And yes it was largely disliked by scientists, but that doesn't mean short mention of the existence of some praise is forbidden, especially when it doesn't at all tip the balance of opinion. Troublesome Inheritance aside, why object to the mention that one book has received an award? Isn't that part of why he has a Misplaced Pages article? Should we discount the Pulitzer Prize for Guns, Germs, and Steel, or neglect to mention it on Jared Diamond's because the Pulitzer committee don't have enough anthropology PhDs for our liking? If you only allow critical sources that pass a purity test, or reject plain statements of facts, then you're violating WP:NPOV. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

No, WP:FRINGE and WP:SOURCETYPES both strongly favour scholarly sources WITHIN THE RELEVANT FIELD. Wade is making claims about genetics, hence the relevant field is genetics, not economics or psychology. There was an RfC on how to describe this (it's not even archived yet) - and the outcome of that was rather clear. Please get aware of that before running around all over the place. The "bull in a chinashop" metaphor immediately comes to mind. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The source used to support the new statements () is also blindingly clear about the topic:

So is Wade right? Are there human races? Is the variation seen between different cultures and locations best explained by genetic differences between human populations? And have anthropologists been turning a blind eye to the evidence in front of them? There is no shortage of scientific information, and it gives a clear answer: no.

Using just the few paragraphs from the source which talk about this, but not also including a more stinging, thorough critique of Wade would seem to be at best selective and at worst misleading usage of the source to me... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Problems with added external links

The first two are essentially search results (long compendia of articles in the NY Times or of TV appearances), in violation of WP:ELNO item 9; the third violated WP:ELMO item 1. These are not the types of external links that are normally included in a BLP. NightHeron (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Let's look some similar BLPs of other notable science writers: Carl Zimmer - 6 links, including official website, one of his blogs, C-Span appearances, and appearances on vlogs; David Quammen - 8 links including C-Span (video), and numerous links to NPR interviews; Darren Naish - 1 link; Matt Ridley - 13 links, including video, blogs, individual bits of writing, etc., Ed Yong- 4 links. I am not aware of Wade having an official website, therefore a small number of links is useful to help unbiased readers gain better understanding of the topic, following the spirit of MOS:FURTHER: An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject (recognizing, for the pedants, that Further reading is technically different from External links). But let's not Wiki-lawyer over content guidelines. It should be common sense that an article about a writer would have a discreet link to demonstrate the writing itself. I feel a single link to his 18 appearances on Charlie Rose gives readers an opportunity to see him speak, regardless of whether they agree with his views or not. From a journalistic and history of science perspective, another useful link would be his Oral History Collection at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, which felt it was significant to compile and categorize his reflections on science journalism, interviewing James D. Watson, etc. I honestly don't care at all about IMDB, but it is a widely used template. I believe 3 links with high educational value is not at all excessive, and would be appropriate even if this article was FA-class. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit, a good example article to follow is Wade’s New York Times colleague Nicholas Kristof. Kristoff has links to his NY Times and New York Review of Books writings, and his C-SPAN appearances. Thriley (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a difference between a well-known mainstream writer and someone whose notability comes in large part from advocacy of fringe views. However, I don't think the external links are an important issue, so unless other editors come into the discussion, as far as I'm concerned you can put back the first two external links (but definitely the IMDb one doesn't belong). NightHeron (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Wade is a well known mainstream writer, as his employment by The NY Times and his many appearances on Charlie Rose demonstrate. Thriley (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to add to be clear. Wade is a well known mainstream writer who has expressed some controversial opinions. He exists within the mainstream science journalism establishment. Thriley (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

He's absolutely not a part of mainstream science journalism, as evidenced by the fact that his most noteworthy achievements in the last decade has been convincing scientists to roundly denounce his writing multiple times. I mean, the suggestion otherwise is laughably ridiculous. He certainly used to be a pillar of mainstream science journalism, however.

Nonetheless, I'm perfectly fine with these links. They're not hurting anything, and it can be of interest to the reader to find those things. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess by “mainstream”, I meant “establishment”. If he were not part of “mainstream” science journalism, there would have been no overwhelming response by scientists to his writing. He’s not writing pamphlets on Miracle Mineral Supplement and distributing them for free on a street corner. Thriley (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring over source-supported category

There's a very high quality RS directly calling Wade's writing conspiracy theories. Furthermore, there are countless very high quality RSes calling the same theories espoused by others (and those theories espoused by all who espouse them, including Wade) conspiracy theories. Without evidence of RS pushback against this claim, the edit warring is nothing more than WP:CRYBLP and needs to stop. There's no policy justification for this, absent any sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

From the article text: Some experts have supported taking the lab leak possibility seriously, while the majority consider it very unlikely, calling it "speculative and unsupported". Others noted the explosive and implausible nature of Wade's allegations about virologists conspiring to avoid blame for causing the pandemic, with Science-Based Medicine among those calling Wade's argument a conspiracy theory. In other words, there is not consensus (and the article is not saying) he is a "conspiracy theorist". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I also note that at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_3#Category:COVID-19_conspiracy_theorists several other editors suggest that the way that category is being used is resulting in BLP violations. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink on July 3 added the category, 力 reverted Shibbolethink's edit, MjolnirPants reverted 力's edit, Thriley reverted MjolnirPants's edit, MjolnirPants reverted Thriley's edit -- the second revert by MjolnirPants within one day -- along with an accusation of edit warring, 力 reverted MjolnirPants. WP:CRYBLP is an essay, WP:BLPCAT and WP:UNDEL are policies, 力 and Thriley are in the right. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what the point of noting that WP:CRYBLP is an essay is, but nothing other than FUD is apparent.

And again, without source pushback; this is categorically not a BLP vio, otherwise the category itself would be a BLP vio, which it very clearly isn't. So, I'm still waiting for some sources arguing that Wade's assertions aren't conspiracy theories. I'd dearly love to see someone put forth the argument that Wade's assertions are true or even reasonable, also. I could use a good laugh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The WP:OPINIONCAT guideline is also relevant here: Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals"). Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic (see Category:Activists). The existence of an RS calling Wade a conspiracy theorist is not enough for this categorisation - reliable sources may, after all, be biased - we need that his promotion of some thesis is inherently notable and that it is NPOV that the thesis consitutes a conspiracy theory. I think this is a standard that, say, Jair Bolsonaro meets but Wade does not. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

His promotion of the theory is in the article already, which begs the question of why you needed to point out that his promotion must be notable. Also note that his last appearance in the news cycle was for promoting a bunch of racist conspiracy theories by misrepresenting science. Sure seems like a defining characteristic to me. And since, apparently this needs to be spelled out: belief in and advocacy for conspiracy theories goes well beyond a "personal opinion". OPINIONCAT absolutely does not apply. And I'm still waiting on some sources that show this is even contentious. Nobody's presented even one, yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't call Wade a conspiracy theorist in wikivoice; instead the claim is attributed. For the reasons given at WP:BLPCAT, the bar for inclusion in categories is higher than wikivoice claims: just in case you have not read the policy page, that is because unlike claims given normally in an article, category inclusions cannot be sourced. That Wade has been pushing a theory with racist implications does not mean that the rules don't apply to his article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• In my view, the most pertinent guidelines are WP:DEFINING, WP:COPDEF and WP:NONDEFINING. Yes, some reliable but opinionated sources verifiably label Wade as a conspiracy theorist. More sources discuss how the lab leak hypothesis was initially too quickly dismissed amidst a charged cultural-political landscape, muddying the definition of what constitutes COVID-19 conspiracy theories, misinformation, and disinformation. At the heart of the issue is whether Wade is commonly and consistently labeled as a conspiracy theorist by reliable sources, so much so that it becomes a defining trait and not just one of many verifiable but non-defining traits. I think the category itself will likely be deleted, since it's often subjective and unlikely to be defining for most people. But even if it remains, I think the fog of war has not yet settled around the "definingness" of the label with respect to Wade. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles