Talk:Nicholas Wade/Archive 2

Origin of Covid
Wade has been outspoken in his belief in the lab leak theory as the origin of COVID-19:. I think this deserves a mention, especially as mainstream news sources have been discussing it in recent weeks. Thriley (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Has this gotten any coverage in secondary sources? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are three I found after a quick search: Thriley (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good job. I'll support a couple of sentences about this if you want to write it up. Or I can do a write-up, if you like. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is another source from Vanity Fair that mentions Wade's article on covid-19. It may be a suitable source as well. Gardenofaleph (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that the article was republished here, to avoid WP:SELFPUB issues. I'd suggest being cautious regarding NPOV/BLP, sticking to the bare facts about his statements rather than whether he's right or not in his opinion/perspective. See as an example: Robert R. Redfield. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to WP:NPOV the statement you're citing by the Trump Administration official Robert Redfield speculating about the origin of COVID-19 should not have been mentioned in his BLP without pointing out that his opinion is at variance with medical consensus. That BLP needs to be edited accordingly in order to comply with NPOV. NightHeron (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Whenever a notable figure makes a claim that diverges from the consensus of experts, regardless of the expertise of the individual themselves, we should note this disagreement. That is at the heart of WP:FRINGE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've corrected that little bit with one sentence describing the claim reported there as, essentially, pure bollocks (it does say "after being manipulated", with the term "manipulated" being, at best, really obtuse as to what kind of "manipulation" is being referred to). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of SYNTH is wrong, in this case. SYNTH would apply if the statements were not directly related (for example "X says A, Y says B, therefore C"). But in this case, we have one person who promotes a fringe claim, and we need to balance it with the actual science per WP:NPOV. Most sources refuting this claim do not mention any proponent by name. Basically we have "A promotes fringe viewpoint X. Relevant sources say that X is bollocks." We have a duty to our readers to identify such cases and inform them that the subject's statements are incorrect or at least unsupported. Also, I don't know if the text in the article is a direct quote or just a very awkward wording, but "manipulated" is an ambiguous term (does it refer to deliberate [genetic] manipulation ("the control of someone or something in order to get an advantage, often unfairly or dishonestly" ), or to simply routine manipulation of samples by lab workers ("using something, often with a lot of skill"? Not that it changes anything for the claims being unsubstantiated, but it should be clear what fringe theory Redfield is actually promoting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, Just chiming in to support the statement that SYNTH doesn't work that way.
 * "Public figure X said Y. Y is demonstrably false. " is not synthesis. It is juxtaposition. See WP:SYNTHNOT. Will happily explain further at Talk:Robert R. Redfield if necessary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Public figure X said Y. Y is demonstrably false. " is not synthesis. It is juxtaposition. See WP:SYNTHNOT. Will happily explain further at Talk:Robert R. Redfield if necessary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Great care must be taken to not to pummel him. Many mainstream scientists believe a lab leak is still a possibility. Thriley (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, no care must be taken. We are under no obligation whatsoever to not "pummel" someone. The only thing we must take great care to do is reflect what the sources say. If the sources pummel him, then we shall get in a few vicarious licks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In fairness, Thriley is correct that care must be taken, but he was mistaken in how to apply that care. We have an obligation per BLP to accurately state or summarize Wade's claims, and we have an obligation per NPOV, FRINGE, and other policies to accurately state that he is at odds with the current scientific consensus.  Consider Andrew Wakefield as an example. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's actually an example of what I meant. That article pulls no punches with reference to Wakefield's fraud (almost the entire lede and more than half the body are about it), and that's because the editors there followed the sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with comparing Wikipedia's treatment of Wakefield with its proposed or actual treatment of Wade is that Wakefield was investigated and found to have committed actual fraud, along with a host of other misdeeds, whereas Wade is simply expressing views somewhat outside the mainstream. Bonewah (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point of the reference (not a comparison). Wade is not being directly compared to Wakefield, nor are their articles being directly compared. Instead, what is happening is that Wakefield's article has been presented as an example (not a comparison) of an article that dutifully follows the sources, and I have chimed in to point out that it does so even though the sources are merciless, as an illustration of my overall point that as long as we follow the sources in how and what we write such a section, will will never violate NPOV or BLP.
 * In any case, I've added a sentence based on the Atlantic source. I met WP:FRINGE standards by describing the conspiracy theory as just that, but if that's too controversial, we can change that wording to more explicitly describe the theory, then add another sentence pointing out that it's unsupported by evidence, though I'd note the the latter puts more weight on the skeptical side than this method. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I added a bit more specifics on the nature of Wade's allegations (against not just the media but the scientific community too). Generalrelative (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you, that's actually much better than my initial edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You guys have distorted FRINGE to the point of absurdity, but im fairly sure saying that one more time isnt going to change any minds. Bonewah (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing this very civil and useful comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

And so, to be clear, the thinking is that Wade's article about the origins of Covid is important enough to mention in his biography, but... not important enough to actually link to? Or is this a similar situation as above, that somehow Fringe and/or Undue allows you to not link to Wade's article while talking about it? Bonewah (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. That's not how you outdent. I fixed it for you. You can see how it's done now. If you weren't trying to outdent, then go ahead and revert that part, but please explain what "<-" meant.
 * 2. Nobody at all has opposed linking to Wade's article. Not in this entire thread. I've got no idea where you're getting that notion from, beyond a possible battleground view of this discussion.
 * 3. So go add his article as a source! It's a better use of your time than just complaining about the rest of us while doing nothing yourself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as you complained mightily when i made one update, which i invited people to revert if need be, and you and your ilk argued extensively above the exact logic i described, i felt that maybe the best bet was to moot the idea on talk first. Bonewah (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And also to be clear, you think "In May of 2021, Wade published an article which advanced a popular conspiracy theory about the origins of COVID-19, and accused the US scientific community and media of being complicit in a cover-up." is an accurate, unbiased description of Wade's article? No NPOV problems there, in your eyes? Bonewah (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks good to me. I've added another source which is quite informative: . I recommend it to anyone who's legitimately open to being persuaded by evidence on the matter. Generalrelative (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Here I am, the next morning, still trying to figure out which part of that could be construed as non-neutral.
 * The claims that the conspiracy theory is popular?
 * The claim that it's a conspiracy theory?
 * The claim that Wade wrote and published the article?
 * The claim that he accused scientists and the media of being complicit?
 * I mean, each and every one of those is so well-sourced/self-evident that us not stating them as facts in wikivoice would be a serious NPOV vio. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I seem to recall and explaining why it was not just a bad edit, but a bad idea to begin with, but by all means, continue whining about it.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Bonewah, I too think the recent edits in this area are bad. I wonder how many others do. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Relevant to this discussion: an RFC covering what policies are applicable to Covid origins information. Bonewah (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Oooh, more vague complaints! How helpful! There's a bulleted list above of the assertions in this edit. Please state clearly which elements you think are false, and provide reliable sources that state clearly that they are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, I don't see how this could be controversial. However, seeing as it is, I've removed it. We can hold another RfC, I suppose, once the current one is closed. This is definitely not how Wikipedia editing is supposed to work, but I suppose Wade has become some kind of nexus for culture war issues and (pseudo)science so here we are. Generalrelative (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I reverted you because the complaints here don't have any basis in policy. I mean, there's literally no substance to them. No-one has asserted that there's anything false or misleading about any specific part of this, only complained that the edits were "bad".
 * If a rational critique emerges, then yeah, we should discuss that. But the WP:IDONTLIKEIT commentary here is entirely irrelevant on it's own. We should never make changes to an article based on an editor's personal preference. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, that makes sense. Generalrelative (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about WP:BRD? You boldly added this change.  Other editors feel it should be reverted.  And we now discuss. Bonewah (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the edits in question, why dont we start by picking a better source than an editorial screed? The Washington Post's article Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible] describes Wade's Article thusly: May 5: Former New York Times science reporter Nicholas Wade, writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, reviews the evidence and makes a strong case for the lab-leak theory. He focuses in particular on the furin cleavage site, which increases viral infectivity for human cells. His analysis yields this quote from David Baltimore, a virologist and former president of the California Institute of Technology: “When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus. These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2.”. Thats a lot closer to Neutral than anything in that Atlantic article. Bonewah (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The cited source is about this subject, whereas the one you proposed mentions it in passing (and, itself, argues the same assertions Wade did). Furthermore: Wade's opinion which you seem to want to quote (once again, I've fixed that error for you) is directly contradicted by multiple actual scientists, something which seems to be becoming a running gag. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The cited source is an editorial, the Washington Post article is not. Further, the Post article does not mention Wade's article 'in passing' but as one item of many in a timeline. Bonewah (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Further, the Post article does not mention Wade's article 'in passing' but as one item of many in a timeline. If you can't understand what's wrong with this statement on your own, I won't be able to explain it to you. The "opinion screed" complaint is pountless: The facts cited to the piece in the Atlantic are not in dispute. If you really want to simply swap out the sources that badly, you go right ahead, and I'll ignore the fact that it's a passing mention. Just don't include Wade's quote. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a moment to read the Washington Post timeline Bonewah had linked and it changed my perspective on the issue. Given the subject-matter experts pushing back against the idea that the lab-leak hypothesis should be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory", I no longer think that this is the right way to describe it here. It seems to be the case that this hypothesis has rapidly gone from truly being FRINGE to being considered at least plausible by a wide variety of subject-matter experts, and the timeline helpfully illustrates how. (I personally had been confused because the genetic evidence does seems to rule out a "weaponized" origin, but apparently that is not necessary for a version of the lab leak hypothesis to be true.) I understand that this is a fluid situation affecting numerous articles across Wikipedia, and that discussions are ongoing on a number of forums, but in this instance I think it's best that we remove the phrase "conspiracy theory". I still think that Wade is a charlatan, but a broken clock is right twice a day. Generalrelative (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to be the case that this hypothesis has rapidly gone from truly being FRINGE to being considered at least plausible by a wide variety of subject-matter experts, and the timeline helpfully illustrates how. That is the narrative that is being pushed by proponents right now, but it runs up against several facts:
 * It's still a remote possibility, only less remote now than it seemed previous.
 * Genomic analysis contradicts it. The virus clearly evolved on it's own.
 * The amount of misinformation out there makes the reach of this theory among experts difficult to accurately gauge, but makes it clear that the actual prominence is less than what is generally portrayed.
 * One thing we can know about how widespread this belief is among experts is that it's not very widespread, at all. At least not now.
 * Even if it becomes clear that the virus "leaked" from the lab, that does not imply that the virus was being deliberately studied at the lab.
 * As for how we should handle it: we should absolutely not be making large changes in how we portray this conspiracy theory based on news headlines less than a week old. News outlets produce and sell stories, meaning they are driven to sensationalize in the short term. If, in the coming weeks it becomes clear that the expert consensus is shifting, then we should absolutely begin to change how we portray it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Last i checked, the Washington Post is generally considered a reliable source. Why shouldnt we use it as a source when we describe Wade's Covid article and its impact? Bonewah (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I literally never even implied we shouldn't. In fact, I invited you to swap sources, above. I have never said anything that could reasonably be construed as opposing the use of that article as a source. In fact, the only things I have asserted here are:
 * 1. We should follow our sources to avoid NPOV and BLP problems.
 * 2. The edit as it stands is neutral and factual.
 * 3. Your complaints have been uncivil and not policy based. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The way we describe Wade's article is radically different than how we the Washington Post describes it. As i said above, our description is not neutral and is at odds with what you agree is a reliable source on this subject. Bonewah (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , The way we describe Wade's article is radically different than how we describe it. You should really start using the preview button, because this is literally nonsensical.
 * our description is not neutral and is at odds with what you agree is a reliable source on this subject. No, it is not. A conspiracy theory may turn out to be true: that doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In any case, the language has now been changed by a very reasonable third party: Can we agree that this is an acceptable WP:COMPROMISE? That would be a huge step forward for this talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, im not in love with the part about accusing people of a cover up, but i not going to fight it right now. I do have an issue with using the Atlantic opinion article as a source, however.  I propose we replace that with the Washington Post article cited above.  Seems everyone agrees that is a reliable source. Bonewah (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's where the WP:COMPROMISE part comes in. After all, Frum's piece is not merely presenting opinion but also reporting on the political context and concrete facts such as the way in which Wade's article was represented on Fox News. Like it or not, this issue is highly politicized, and we should at least give our readers a window into that context. Nothing's stopping you from adding the WaPo piece in addition however. Generalrelative (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not particularly happy with it, either, which is how I know it's the best kind of compromise. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Go team WP:CONSENSUS. Generalrelative (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue may be politically charged, but we should not be. Thats what NPOV is all about. David Frum is not a reliable source on anything save David Frum's opinion,  and, as such, is inappropriate for a biography. Bonewah (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a policy or guideline which indicates that opinion pieces published in reliable sources like The Atlantic are inappropriate for BLPs? I had a look and did not see anything. Generalrelative (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , There is no such policy, and the claims here that the source is used for are uncontentious and easily verified in the primary source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, so much for team WP:CONSENSUS. reliable sources makes the distinction: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact ... Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."  It even has a handy shortcut: wp:RSEDITORIAL. The Washington Post article is news reporting, the Atlantic op-ed opinion content. We are not making a statement attributed to Frum, we are making statements of fact and so opinion content is inappropriate. Bonewah (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , If you don't have any suggestions for changes to the article, you've got absolutely no business on this page.
 * You really seem to view Generalrelative and I as the enemy, to be opposed at every turn, but that's really not the case. I'd rather you take a deep breath and realize that we need to work together than get blocked, but you really seem determined to justify the latter route, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I offered a very specific change, removal of the unnecessary citation to an editorial per wp:RSEDITORIAL. Bonewah (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is, I think, an acceptable source that covers some of the criticism of Wade's article (better than Frum's piece actually): . From a cursory look, The Wire (India) appears to be reliable, and the article is straightforward science journalism. I would be happy to replace the Frum piece with this one. Generalrelative (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not fully married to the Frum article, but I do think it establishes due weight for mentioning it. I'd add this new source in addition to the Frum piece, though I agree than straightforward criticism of the original Wade article would be better sourced to this new one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, You're proposing that we remove a reliable source from a notable commentator for reasons which you've so far refused to articulate beyond quoting a policy that explicitly permits uses like this?
 * Look, I made showing why this source should remain. If this article gets more attention, we're going to want to be able to expand on it. And that's easiest to do when we're working from existing sources.
 * If that's not enough, consider the very first question I asked in this section: Is this WP:DUE? Well, an article in The Atlantic that devotes significant coverage to this article makes that case a lot better than a WaPo article that mentions it buried in a huge list. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Frum editorial is not a reliable source, per wp:RSEDITORIAL. As stated above, op-eds are not reliable for statements of fact. Frum is not an expert in this field nor the author of the work in question (Wade's article) nor is he referenced in the article. Therefore, citing his opinion adds no real value to this article. Bonewah (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Your repetition of a false statement will not make it true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that was the wrong diff link. You probable meant to use this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you, yes I did. I'll correct that now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I made no false statement. wp:RSEDITORIAL says what it says, editorials are inappropriate citations for statements of fact. Bonewah (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the policy you quoted does not say that. It says they are "rarely" useable for claims of fact, and I have, quite literally, already explained that utterly uncontroversial facts like "Wade wrote an article" are exactly the sorts of things they're useable for.
 * I also, quite clearly, showed you what sort of attributed content we could add, in an edit I only self-reverted to save you from edit warring over. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Wade wrote an article" can be sourced to the article itself. The issue for inclusion is of course the requirement for secondary sources reporting on that article for us to establish whether it is significant enough. That also appears to be a clear "yes". Therefore the only remaining issue is how precisely we need to word it. The usual way to deal with fringe theories is to mention, succinctly, their principal claims, and then balance it with appropriate material to show that it is FRINGE and to satisfy NPOV (i.e. basically we need to take the model of WikiProject Skepticism/Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition and reduce it down to one sentence or two). So "Wade wrote an article about X where he claimed Y. Y is inaccurate/misleading/[appropriate adjective], per Z [reputable academic source(s)]." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And as i said, Frum is not a subject matter expert, so his opinions are inappropriate here. wp:RSEDITORIAL plainly applies here, the 'utterly uncontroversial facts like "Wade wrote an article"' are adequately sourced to both the article he wrote and the Wire article recommended by . The requirement for secondary sources reporting on that article is satisfied by both the Washington Post and the Wire citation. Bonewah (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't need the WaPo and Wire, when we have academic sources (preferred per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP) along with other newspapers (which are in agreement with the academic sources) which already address the main claims of the Wade article. Currently the text in the article does not satisfy NPOV and FRINGE, because it does not give any useful context about these claims to our readers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In what way would you propose we change the article then? Bonewah (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See the last edit. I've added a short sentence describing the current situation based mostly on high quality scientific journals, along with a newspaper which summarises this in layman's terms. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, i offered a more succinct edit that still references the current mainstream views on the virus. Bonewah (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually like that edit quite a bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , By that standard, Wade himself is not a subject matter expert. This issue has become politicized, in case you hadn't noticed, and I think David Frum qualifies as a notable opinion on politicized issues. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He doesnt have to be, because we are not citing him as an authority on anything. There mere fact that the issue has become politicized does not mean that we should citing editorials. Donald Trump is also a notable opinion on politicized issues, but that does not mean we should quote him here either. Bonewah (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I really don't know why I bother when it's this obvious that you aren't reading anything I write, any of the relevant policies, or paying any attention to what's been happening elsewise.
 * I'm happy enough with the way it looks now, so go ahead and get the last word in. We both know you want to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your attitude is unhelpful. We could cite opinions, if they are really notable and/or if we had nothing better to cite. In this case, we have both academic journals and newspapers pieces which provide, respectively, scientific and political summaries of a sufficiently high quality that we don't need to go for opinion pieces or editorials. That the issue is politicised (and has also heightened existing bigotry) is blindingly obvious. We can cite, for example, at least half a dozen articles for that (though likely not here, since it would be off-topic to simply giving a short and simple rebuttal to Wade): . But we don't need editorials (which are really at the low end of the spectrum of reliable sources) when we have better, do we? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , read this thread. Read through the 3 days of empty complaining Bonewah engaged in. Read the way I had to poke and prod to get them to contribute anything helpful for three fucking days. Then, go back and read through the RfC. Read the distortions of policy Bonewah has engaged in, read the hyperbolic hand-wringing, read through the WP:pointy edits to the main article
 * Read the way I complimented their last edit. If you still can't understand why I'm a little burned out at this point, then kindly keep your damn opinion about it to yourself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  11:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit adding "obfuscated due to political agendas"

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


 * I reverted your edit because the reference to "obfuscat[ion] due to political agendas" is unclear, and it would be WP:UNDUE to go into enough detail to explain the strange-sounding conspiracy theory. The reader is left to wonder: Does Wade claim that the majority of the world's epidemiologists are dupes of the Chinese Communist Party, or what?
 * Thanks for coming to the talk-page rather than continuing to edit-war about this. NightHeron (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course. Can you think of an alternate wording that would be more clear? Maybe something like: Wade argues that... (A) "the origins of COVID-19 have been obfuscated by governments and scientists with potential [or alleged] conflicts of interest"; or (B) "investigations into the origins of COVID-19 have suffered from a lack of transparency and potential conflicts of interest." As noted above, I think this is one of the main arguments that Wade makes in the article, so it should get mentioned in some way. Stonkaments (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That says that Wade is advancing a sweeping conspiracy theory about a large number of scientists and government health authorities. That's an extaordinary claim on his part, and we can't just mention the claim without putting it in context, per WP:FRINGE. As I said, a detailed, balanced treatment of the full range of Wade's speculations would be WP:UNDUE. NightHeron (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you view "a lack of transparency and potential conflicts of interest" to be an extraordinary claim and a sweeping conspiracy theory? I really don't see it that way. Furthermore, Wade's claims in this regard are discussed ("It accused not only the Chinese state but also the U.S. scientific community of complicity in a cover-up") and echoed ("...what my various hypotheses share in common is the suspicion that those covering the story let questions about how the story would be understood get in the way of finding out what the story was. Rather than be driven by the desire to know the truth, and to speak that truth to power (whether that power was in Washington or Wuhan), I fear a brake was applied to serve some ill-defined social interest") in reliable secondary sources.
 * Numerous other reliable sources have criticized the lack of transparency and potential conflicts of interest as well. I honestly don't understand how this could be considered a fringe opinion. And it's not like we're making the claim in wikivoice; it's being clearly attributed to Wade himself. Stonkaments (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim that an entire scientific community reached a consensus on an issue because of nefarious motives is obviously an extraordinary claim. Speaking of political agendas, this is all occurring in a "new Cold War" context in which much of the US-based media are looking for opportunities to demonize the Chinese government. NightHeron (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources for the political agenda of US media? Consider contributing to the discussion at Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 Terjen (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: The claim that an entire scientific community reached a consensus on an issue is in itself an extraordinary claim, nefarious motives or not. Terjen (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not what Wade says though; you're arguing against a strawman. Wade doesn't make any claims about the entire scientific community having nefarious motives. Wade highlights the specific conflicts of interest of Peter Daszak and the Chinese government, and how Chinese authorities have not been transparent in the investigations. These issues are very well-documented in numerous other reliable sources. Wade also discusses the subtle pressures faced by members of the scientific community that may disincentivize them from speaking out in dissent of the consensus view (especially when a particular view has been prematurely labeled a conspiracy theory). This argument is more speculative, but has clear support in other reliable sources on the topic (calls for "dispassionate science-based discourse" in the Science article ; a New York article talks of "conflicts of interest by researchers and administrators", and "very intense, very subtle pressures" on scientists not to speak out on laboratory biohazards) In addition, the reliable sources previously linked that covered Wade's article have generally presented his claims in a sympathetic light.
 * All of this to say, Wade's argument is neither extraordinary nor a sweeping conspiracy theory, and reliable sources indicate that it is significant enough that it should be included per WP:DUE. Stonkaments (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just look at the quotes from Wade that you provided. In reference to any virologist who challenges the community's declared view he says that Careers can be destroyed for stepping out of line. He depicts the scientific community of virologists as dominated by a bunch of unethical people with a political agenda and conflicts of interest who intimidate anyone who might be thinking of disagreeing. That's a pretty extraordinary claim. It fits in well with the anti-scientific attitudes that are unfortunately quite prevalent in the US these days. NightHeron (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly concur. The argument that Wade is not claiming there is some sort of conspiracy at foot is completely spurious and indefensible from a reading of Wade's article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)