This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Peter Navarro article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
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)
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)
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)
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)
NOT "a baseless conspiracy theory"is to promote the baseless conspiracy theory. It's not that difficult.
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Peter Navarro article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
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)
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)
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)
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)
NOT "a baseless conspiracy theory"is to promote the baseless conspiracy theory. It's not that difficult.
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)
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)
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)