Talk:Peter Navarro

Active discussion is being deleted (archived) - Part 2

Why is the editor deleting an active discussion? I do not understand. The editor did NOT discuss before deleting an active discussion. Does the editor need help understanding the discussion rules. Why did the editor not seek consensus? Karagory (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

These are years old discussion sections being archived by the bot. They are not remotely active discussions. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

These are active discussions using previous thoughts and opinions. The editor specifically told the auto-bot to remove the thoughts and opinions. Why did the editor take it upon him/herself to delete material that the editor knew was under active discussion without seeking consensus? Why does the editor not try and seek consensus NOW, BEFORE deleting material? Karagory (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

They have been inactive for YEARS. MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I am adding updated references as they occur. How is that not helpful? What is the editor doing besides disparaging my attempt to make a more up to date article? I not not understand the editor's actions and negativity. Karagory (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

For anyone else who might be monitoring this, I have raised the issue at WP:ANI#Long term talk page disruption by User:Karagory - MrOllie (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Deletion

An editor just deleted an RS-supported mention of his notable attorney being his attorney. Apparently due to the editor's private personal view that that is not of interest.

It's widely covered by RSs. RSs deem it notable. The lawyer is notable. The RSs trump any person who is simply making a bland assertion in the face of that. It should be re-added. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:840F:B200:4CE4:7AE9 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for posting trivia. A RS happening to mention or quote a lawyer is not the same thing as 'RSs deem it notable'. We don't include every factoid that can be sourced just because it can be sourced. MrOllie (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, it's not for posting trivia. But trivia is "he came to the courthouse wearing a blue blazer." Not, "he is being represented by the following Wikipedia-notable attorney." That's not close to a reasonable assertion. Hopefully someone else will weigh in here. Or let's invite admins or others to take a look. Calling this a factoid is not close to real-world. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:840F:B200:4CE4:7AE9 (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone's attorney is not notable in and of itself. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of attorneys he could have selected. His attorney is not part of his notability, and that's usually the case. If his attorney was possibly implicated in a related crime (such as Trump's attorney Michael Cohen), that might be worth mentioning. But that's not the case here. As for "inviting admins", opinions of administrators on Wikipedia don't carry any more weight than yours or mine. Unless there's vandalism involved (clearly not the case), you're spinning your wheels inviting admins. Not to mention raising problems of WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:CANVASSING. Sundayclose (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Fauci used taxpayer money to finance a Chinese laboratory where [SARS-CoV-2] was [perhaps] developed is NOT "a baseless conspiracy theory" per reliable sources these days.

Re: "During a Fox News appearance in March 2021, Navarro echoed a baseless conspiracy theory that Fauci was the “father” of the virus and had used taxpayer money to finance a Chinese laboratory where it was supposedly developed."

That Fauci used taxpayer money to finance a Chinese laboratory where [SARS-CoV-2] was [perhaps] developed is NOT "a baseless conspiracy theory" per reliable sources these days.

Change to "During a Fox News appearance in March 2021, Navarro echoed claims that Fauci was the “father” of the virus and had used taxpayer money to finance a Chinese laboratory where it was supposedly developed."? RudolfoMD (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No, we're not going to promote conspiracy theories here. MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You're begging the question. We shouldn't keep our readers ignorant of the facts. Be civil. We now know that Fauci himself wrote, on 2/1/2020, "scientists in Wuhan University are known to have been working on gain-of-function experiments to determine that molecular mechanisms associated with bat viruses adapting to human infection, and the outbreak originated in Wuhan". Your revert is unjustified. --RudolfoMD (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting that COVID-19 was 'developed' deliberately is in fact a baseless conspiracy theory. Don't promote conspiracy theory nonsense on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This is your second warning to be civil. You're begging the question, again. Don't promote conspiracy theory nonsense on Wikipedia. RudolfoMD (talk) 04:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Aping competent people does not make you appear competent. Being confident does not make your claims believable. Using the names of fallacies does not make those fallacies applicable. You should read WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE, WP:YWAB and WP:LUNATICS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Someone who has repeatedly borderline lied with baseless allegations about what I've said is not competent. Please stop replying if it's not to address the facts. This is what I actually wrote and is a fact none of the above makes any attempt to dispute, let alone refute:

> Fauci used taxpayer money to finance a Chinese laboratory where [SARS-CoV-2] was [perhaps] developed is NOT "a baseless conspiracy theory" per reliable sources these days.*

Instead there is all this inappropriate begging the question harassment nonsense.

Stop. Putting. Words. In. My. Mouth. Knock it off, y'all.

You tried to put conspiracy theories and "deliberately" in my mouth. Stop.

*TO be clear: This changed recently, because of newly available evidence!

Is https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/FILE_7353.pdf most appropriate or are its sources, or the news coverage of it, most appropriate?

RudolfoMD (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Saying that a baseless conspiracy theory is NOT "a baseless conspiracy theory" is to promote the baseless conspiracy theory. It's not that difficult.

There is a lot of unreliable sources out there, and you fell for one of them. Republican senators? Give me a break. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The PDF states in relevant part: 《

On February 1, 2020, Dr. Fauci sent an email, which the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic recently released, acknowledging concerns that COVID-19 may have been genetically engineered because gain-of-function research was taking place in Wuhan before the pandemic. In the email, Dr. Fauci wrote, “scientists in Wuhan University are known to have been working on gain-of-function experiments to determine that molecular mechanisms associated with bat viruses adapting to human infection, and the outbreak originated in Wuhan.”3

Further, gain-of-function research in Wuhan was funded by the agency Dr. Fauci led. A paper entitled “Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus” described in-depth the research carried out at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and funded through NIAID Award R01AI110964. Dr. Zheng-Li Shi details the research in which the spike genes from two uncharacterized bat SARS-related coronavirus strains, Rs4231 and Rs7327, were combined with the genomic backbone of another SARSrelated coronavirus to create novel chimeric SARS-related viruses that showed cytopathic effects in primate epithelial cells and replication in human epithelial cells. These experiments combined genetic information from different SARS-related coronaviruses and combined them to create novel, artificial viruses able to infect human cells. This research, funded under NIAID Award R01AI110964, meets the definition of gain-of-function research.

In a report published on June 14, 2023, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Wuhan University received NIH funding.4 The report noted that NIH funded the WIV’s project “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence”5 which included “genetic experiments to combine naturally occurring bat coronaviruses with SARS and MERS viruses, resulting in hybridized coronavirus strains.”6 Additionally, GAO determined NIH funded the Wuhan University’s collaboration with WIV on viral detection in the Yunnan province.7》

(citations in original)

This certainly does NOT prove that

Fauci used taxpayer money to finance a Chinese laboratory where [SARS-CoV-2] was [perhaps] developed.

But that's NOT what I'm claiming. I do claim it is evidence that that theory is NOT "a baseless conspiracy theory" per reliable sources these days. Are neither the letter, its sources, nor a bunch of news coverage of it just that?

--RudolfoMD (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Rand Paul is not a reliable source for much of anything, including this. [1]. There is no basis to promote this conspiracy theory on this article. MrOllie (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: Navarro's ethnic heritage. Is he of at least partly Hispanic ancestry? How could we claim this article to be encyclopedic if such basic information is omitted? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Navarro's conviction

He is described as a "convicted felon." His conviction is for a misdemeanor, contempt of Congress. 70.79.141.252 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, and reverted the addition. TJRC (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)