- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely
At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Wikipedia:LABLEAKLIKELY the following comment was made by User:Alexbrn:
- Not suitable for this redirect, as it's a personal essay performing no WP:PAG-aligned function that could further the Project, but instead promotes conspiracist ideas and bashes Wikipedia ("Wikipedia can't be trusted on controversial topics") in rather a silly way. For these reasons the essay itself should probably be deleted too per WP:NOTWEBHOST, but that's a different discussion. [1]
I am in agreement with this. There is a place on Wikipedia for competing essays ( WP:DTR and WP:TR are good examples of this) but is case where one of the competing essays is in general agreement with our articles and with WP:RS while the other promotes WP:FRINGE theories and is a variation on WP:POVFORK the essay that promotes the fringe theory should be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as proponent. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Per my previous comment at FTN, this is WP:NOT material ( WP:FREE although an essay is also relevant) and also meets WP:FRINGE, WP:POLEMIC, WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:POVFORK (my beliefs are true and WP is wrong so are reliable sources that it reflects)... — Paleo Neonate – 19:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Certainly looks like WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE, and maybe even WP:NOTHERE content. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete — WP:FRINGE. HotdogPi 21:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep.
User:Adoring_nanny/Essays/Lab_Leak_Likely#Reality_vs._Wikipedia and
User:Adoring_nanny/Essays/Lab_Leak_Likely#Conclusion are comment on Wikipedia, and this justifies the essay. The preceding content is
WP:SYNTH, but that is allowed in userspace, and definitely in an essay where it doesn’t pretend to not be WP:SYNTH. Overall I do not agree with the essay. Eg
Wikipedia can't be trusted on controversial topics
means that Wikipedia doesn’t make controversial topics non-controversial. But it is not an offensive opinion, and deleting opinions you don’t like does more harm than good. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC) - Delete, in the end. We have lots of essays on fringe nonsense, but this fringe nonsense is promoted by a lot of racists, and we don't need that. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep -- author of the essay here. Per WP:USERESSAY -- Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. and also per WP:UPYES: comments on Wikipedia matters is listed as a valid use of user space. So the fact that the essay contradicts consensus is not a reason to delete. And ultimately, the essay is a commentary on WP:PAG. If WP:V produces predictably wrong answers in certain cases, that is obviously an important question for the Wikipedia community. Lastly, deleting this essay while keeping WP:NOLABLEAK would be fundamentally unfair. Adoring nanny ( talk) 01:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If need be, the essay WP:NOLABLEAK can be discussed separately at its own MfD. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per SmokeyJoe, and per "it's a semi-coherent user essay". I do not support uneven enforcement of deleting semi-coherent user essays. Either we nuke useressayspace or we don't; this is fine when we have it. If anything, the "don't try to make a big deal out of this" conclusion sounds like a pretty good thing to link to people who might otherwise push this POV. Vaticidal prophet 02:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per SmokeyJoe, per Vaticidalprophet, and per WP:USERESSAY (which is a clarification of policy). These efforts to errase, block, and ban opposing points of view are just a bit disturbing. — Ched ( talk) 02:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. An essay in someone's userspace being wrong is not, as far as I know, grounds for deletion. Is there an addendum to
WP:IDONTLIKEIT I haven't seen that says "this suddenly becomes a great argument if it's a politics thing you disagree with"? Is there a parallel MfD for
User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak (a long polemic essay about the exact same politics thing) I'm unaware of?
jp×
g 02:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- That would be a kind of
WP:GEVAL approach to policy. Essays which help build a framework for collaborative editing in line with the
WP:PAGs are useful. Ones which work in the opposite direction based on mistaken notions of the Project's purpose, are not. The first type are well kept, the second type better removed.
Alexbrn (
talk) 06:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- In order to solve a problem, one first has to identify it. Adoring nanny ( talk) 09:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Policy links above are not IDONTLIKEIT, also relevant would be NOTPROMOTION, the encyclopedia has a purpose and this includes informing while avoiding the promotion of misinformation, conspiracy theories and political propaganda. While an essay always begins small, they also are expected to have a useful purpose and I see no valid reason to refer to it anywhere on the project during discussions unless it was reflecting the existing consensus that unless evidence of a leak is found, it only remains motivated speculation, except for legitimate investigations that can keep doing their work... — Paleo Neonate – 10:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- That would be a kind of
WP:GEVAL approach to policy. Essays which help build a framework for collaborative editing in line with the
WP:PAGs are useful. Ones which work in the opposite direction based on mistaken notions of the Project's purpose, are not. The first type are well kept, the second type better removed.
Alexbrn (
talk) 06:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:POLEMIC, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTWEBHOST. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- On the fence - I think people should have a good amount of leeway when it comes to what's in their userspace. The question is whether it's unrelated to Wikipedia. I see that there is some material along the lines of "Truth, not verifiability" but it seems tacked on to a WP:NOTCOVIDTRUTHBLOG. It's not a detailed examination of policy, but one of the most well-known arguments about Wikipedia (that our insistence on verifiability means we don't get the full picture until reliable sources do), reframed with a "don't rely on Wikipedia; use your logic, sheeple!" bent and applied to One I Know Is Really Really Probably True. In other words, it's not providing any novel commentary on wikipolicy; it's just a complaint that an article doesn't reflect a fringe theory. The issue it identifies (sometimes reliable sources get it wrong) is one that countless people have identified before. If you want to gripe about WP:V, there are tons of resources to find times mainstream sources or even scholarly/scientific sources have gotten things wrong. It's great fodder for anyone trying to convince someone of their pet conspiracy theory. Cross-reference those with Wikipedia diffs and you have a relevant essay criticizing our policy (granted, not a particularly persuasive one, but one that's unambiguously relevant to Wikipedia). But this isn't that. Despite all of this, right now I think I err on the side of keeping here, because I'm not sure how to articulate what separates this essay from some others apart from its WP:FRINGE nature -- and I don't think we want to get into enforcing WP:FRINGE to userspace writing. It absolutely should not have a projectspace redirect, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The Essay explicitely says that Wikipedia will not include the lab leak theory without evidence, and seems to support that outcome, although a bit cynically. Therefore, it is not defiant of the status quo. Opinions should only be banned from this space when referring to morally wrong topics (holocaust denialism, satanism, genocide apologetics, etc), and the lab leak does not belong to that category of extreme views, therefore the essay is inocuous. The only question remaining is how useful it ia for the current editing debate, on which I view it as setting the example for warring editors to desist their push POVs and accepting diplomatic Wiki-Tables: "it is what it is". Forich ( talk) 16:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- In my view, the best way to counter potentially dangerous opinions (in this case, opinions that could indirectly inflame racist sentiments) is with more information, not less. Perhaps we can convince the author of the essay to include a disclaimer in which they disavow racism with links to the official position on the lab leak being extremely unlikely and unfalsifiable. If we shut down opinion essays here in Wikipedia it can blow up in our faces, with the censored editors opening blogs and blowing steam elsewhere, it is best to inmediately "tame the beast" with arguments and evidence than with silence, in my opinion. Forich ( talk) 21:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sure that lots of things are "used to push" a wide variety of other things (for example, having an article on Joseph Stalin could be "used to push" the idea that men with moustaches are untrustworthy). I am not sure how somebody having, allegedly, said something dumb on "social media" [sic] is relevant to a deletion discussion for a userspace essay on Wikipedia. jp× g 00:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The user who authored this page seems to be
WP:NOTHERE. Does anyone else notice this?
jps (
talk) 18:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- In the author of the essay's own words:
- So it appears that we can look forward to multiple essays that take the position that reliable sources are wrong (with the implication that the opinions of the essay author are right). --
Guy Macon (
talk) 22:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- The above stated purpose has a fatal flaw. If indeed one wanted to "build up a record of making correct predictions that fly in the face of WP:RS" the way to do that would be to look for examples where the RS were wrong. For example, was our article on
Richard Jewell wrong at first and if so was the error based upon RS? Were our articles on
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and
Tamerlan Tsarnaev wrong at first? Instead the author of this essay assumes that they have the magical ability to identify the
WP:TRUTH when all of the evidence points the other way. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 13:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Finding past errors wouldn't be predictions. Finding the problems in real time, rather than in retrospect, provides much better evidence of a problem.
Adoring nanny (
talk) 01:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nonsense. If an article says X on Wikipedia in the year 2000, based upon reliable sources X, then in 2010 Wikipedia changes to saying Y based upon new sources, that would be the exact same argument you are making but without the requirement of you owning an accurate crystal ball. Again I say, I don't believe you. I do not for a minute believe that your purpose is in any way related to showing that Wikipedia's reliance on reliable sources is flawed. It seems obvious to me that your sole purpose is to push the discredited lab leak theory and that you tacked on the criticism of Wikipedia because you know that pretty much every scientist who has studied this says that the lab leak theory is inconsistent with the genetics of the virus. You can prove me wrong by picking another topic where you think that your crystal ball is more accurate than reliable sources and writing an essay on that instead. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Finding past errors wouldn't be predictions. Finding the problems in real time, rather than in retrospect, provides much better evidence of a problem.
Adoring nanny (
talk) 01:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- The above stated purpose has a fatal flaw. If indeed one wanted to "build up a record of making correct predictions that fly in the face of WP:RS" the way to do that would be to look for examples where the RS were wrong. For example, was our article on
Richard Jewell wrong at first and if so was the error based upon RS? Were our articles on
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and
Tamerlan Tsarnaev wrong at first? Instead the author of this essay assumes that they have the magical ability to identify the
WP:TRUTH when all of the evidence points the other way. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 13:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:POLEMIC. Essentially a WP:POVFORK of COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story that promotes a fringe/conspiracy viewpoint, infers that consensus reality is wrong, and "powerful interests" are controlling Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ LuckyLouie: There are three bulletpoints in the section of WP:UP that your link refers to: "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities", "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws", and "users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason". I am not sure which of these you're saying is present in this page, and I don't see them in the page. Could you elaborate? jp× g 23:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities". Let's see:
the Government of China
...China has something to hide
...National Institutes of Health, which funded research that may have caused the pandemic
...virologists (who) don't want to be seen as being at fault
... This stuff is more appropriate on InfoWars than on Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities". Let's see:
- Keep. Policing other editor's userspace is more akin to bullying than any useful addition to Wikipedia. Even if the essay in question is in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST or whatever, the only people who are going to even see it are those who go out of their way to find it. Bonewah ( talk) 20:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, not only for policy reasons mentioned above, but its implicitly Sinophobic nature in pinning the blame for the virus on China, which ties into a larger trend of anti-Chinese sentiment in the wake of the pandemic. If this is supposed to serve purely as a recently relevant example that illustrates this editor's true point (ie. the nature of the relationship between "truth and logic", RS and WP policy), I'm sure this editor can find a similar one that is not tied to violent, racist attacks. If it's more than that, then this is just a SYNTH/OR "breeder" this has no place on Wikipedia. EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 12:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm unaware of a policy against writing things about the Chinese government that could be construed as negative. This would make it quite difficult to write articles such as
Uyghur genocide – which, I'm given to understand, is a topic tied to both violence and racism. I am not sure how this relates to Chinese people (I was born in the United States and live there now, but I sure as hell don't agree with everything the last few presidents have said and done).
jp×
g 18:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- You have argued this point multiple times now on this page yet it baffles me every time. Firstly, "could be construed"? Really? You are going to argue that unwittingly causing one of the worlds greatest pandemics since a century could be considered a negative thing? Your core arguments here comprise mostly of faulty comparisons and analogies because there really isn't any substantial defense of this essay that doesn't boil down to wildly pointing at somewhat relevant topics and saying "why doesn't this happen to them?" or "if so, what about this then?". And yes, in fact, I personally think there's serious factual problems with the Uyghur "genocide" article, but I don't believe this page is an essay about the Uyghurs in any degree, so I fail to see what you establish by bringing it up - and I don't believe many Asian people in the global North have been attacked due to these allegations, as opposed to the ones presented here. Your snarky style of argumentation that sets out to ridicule each person you're responding to makes it tiresome to read and to reply to, so I'm going to stop there. If you don't see how this "theory" presented here ties into a larger Sinophobic narrative re. the "Chinese virus", then I simply cannot help you. There's a trove of policies - in addition to what I said - that make this essay unfit for Wikipedia; that you simply ignore this fact and claim WP:IDONTLIKEIT - simply ridiculous and I have no willpower left to engage in this charade. EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 19:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm unaware of a policy against writing things about the Chinese government that could be construed as negative. This would make it quite difficult to write articles such as
Uyghur genocide – which, I'm given to understand, is a topic tied to both violence and racism. I am not sure how this relates to Chinese people (I was born in the United States and live there now, but I sure as hell don't agree with everything the last few presidents have said and done).
jp×
g 18:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There are reliable sources recently discussing the possibility of a lab leak, e.g. in Washington Post, wired science, business today etc. Although it is being tied to US politics it is really a separate issue. The lab leak theory was already being widely reported by the end of January 2020 long before the Trump administration said anything about it. It is far from being fringe because there is not yet a full mainstream explanation for the source of the virus. Even sources that defend the Chinese only say it is unlikely, not impossible. It is not for Wikipedia to decide what the true origin of the virus was, but viable options should be reported as they appear in reliable sources. I dont think that racism against Chinese is an issue given that it is US funding of research programs in China that is now the bigger subject of concern. Wikipedia should not suppress discussions because of fears that some idiots might react the wrong way. If it is reported with the right caveats, due weight and balance there is no reason why that should be the case. Although the WHO played down the lab leak theory their chief has also said that the probe was not extensive enough and that all further investigations are possible. An open letter from 24 scientists from around the world has asked for a more comprehensive investigation. Please dont ask me for the sources, just google it. Personally I am open-minded about the origins of covid-19, not that my opinion matters, but Wikipedia needs to report this instead of labelling it as simply a Trumpian conspiracy theory on talk pages. It is much wider than that. Weburbia ( talk) 12:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
"given that it is US funding of research programs in China"
. Reality check: [3] [4] [5] - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)- I challenge the above claim that "There are reliable sources recently discussing the possibility of a lab leak". Those are not reliable for biomedical claims. We have
WP:MEDRS for a reason. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 13:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree that
WP:MEDRS is required for the topic of the origin of COVID-19. In
WP:BMI none of the categories that would class a subject as biomedical apply. I would agrue that the history category applies which is explcitly excluded. Therefore other sources including reliable media sources can be used.
Weburbia (
talk) 20:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- This has been discussed repeatedly. You are not the first person to make this claim, but the consensus has been pretty clear that the origin of a virus is inherently biomedical, as it falls under epidemiology, virology, etc. The exception for historical cases has to do with documenting historical terminology, historical beliefs about the causes of medical conditions (eg epilepsy caused by demonic posession or witchcraft), and historical but deprecated treatments. Hyperion35 ( talk) 21:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree that
WP:MEDRS is required for the topic of the origin of COVID-19. In
WP:BMI none of the categories that would class a subject as biomedical apply. I would agrue that the history category applies which is explcitly excluded. Therefore other sources including reliable media sources can be used.
Weburbia (
talk) 20:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete We should not host essays promoting WP:FRINGE claims, especially in areas that pertain to medicine, for much the same reason we have policies like WP:MEDRS. As to the claim above mine that reliable sources are taking this conspiracy theory serious: I don't see any reliable sources cited. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Related: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Origins of SARS-CoV-2. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete It's a slab of content unsuitable for the encyclopedia, pretty expressly intended to undermine the basic principles of the encyclopedia. The only thing that saves it from being a blatant BLP violation is a protective layer of vagueness, like making accusations about
virologists
without saying who these unnamedvirologists
might be. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC) - Keep though I may vote to delete the project-space shortcut. It is criticism of how the lab-leak theory is covered. The title may be an editorial opinion that editors disagree with, or simply an exaggeration for literary effect. The content making factual claims is sourced. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST, as it's content that's blatantly obviously not suitable for the encyclopedia. The opposite page makes sense, because it's chronicling material that may be suitable for inclusion, but this material is not only unencyclopedic, it's a hoax. Nyttend backup ( talk) 12:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep this is essentially arguing that Wikipedia is biased because we defer to mainstream sources. Does anyone dispute that? While I disagree with what the essay claims is the case with regard to the origins of COVID, it is a commentary on Wikipedia, and I don't see a good reason to delete it from userspace.
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 22:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree if the author converted it to an essay that talks about Wikipedia bias and mentions the Wuhan misinformation as an example, but the actual essay is an an essay that promotes the Wuhan misinformation and mentions Wikipedia bias in passing. It's a form of
WP:COATRACK. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 00:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's a good way to put it. Commentary about Wikipedia is suitable as a user essay, but this isn't commentary about Wikipedia.
Nyttend backup (
talk) 14:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. The essay presents: 1. given circumstantial evidence, it's likely COVID came from a lab in China. 2. Wikipedia does not publish this in articles. 3. Wikipedia cannot be trusted on controversial topics.
- That is very clearly a commentary on Wikipedia. You could replace point 1 with any other conspiracy theory and the essay would hold. This just happens to be using the lab leak conspiracy theory. Elli ( talk | contribs) 04:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's a good way to put it. Commentary about Wikipedia is suitable as a user essay, but this isn't commentary about Wikipedia.
Nyttend backup (
talk) 14:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree if the author converted it to an essay that talks about Wikipedia bias and mentions the Wuhan misinformation as an example, but the actual essay is an an essay that promotes the Wuhan misinformation and mentions Wikipedia bias in passing. It's a form of
WP:COATRACK. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 00:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and ignore. It's not web-hosting since the relation to Wikipedia is clear, nor is it a polemic since it's not attacking other editors. It is railing against Wikipedia itself, but there's no rule against that and if there were we'd need to delete a hell of a lot more of these. Anyway clearly not a WP:UP vio. It's a stupid essay, but it's in userspace which has a ton of stupid essays (actually projectspace has a ton of stupid essays too, but I'll save that rant for later), we are safely ignoring those essays, and this one can be safely ignored too. Regards, 31.41.45.190 ( talk) 15:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep even if the essay is wrong on COVID, it's good to permit discussion, outside of mainspace, of controversial theories. We aim to be WP:NOTCENSORED and deleting this essay would give the wrong impression. Also I'm not convinced that MEDRS applies to the origins of Covid, as the origins of the disease are not directly related to its treatment. User:GKFX talk 21:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I am genuinely torn on this one, as there are compelling arguments in both directions. The so-called "lab leak" hypothesis is unsupported by any MEDRS, which almost unanimously state that it is not completely impossible, just highly unlikely, lacking any evidence to support it and with other evidence pointing in a different direction. We have had continuous traffic of editors coming to multiple COVID-19 related pages trying to push this hypothesis, especially each time a non-MEDRS media source publishes another "hear both sides" or "calls for more investigation" piece. At times this has resulted in edit-warring, and it has also resulted in a lot of discussion on the talk page. The problem is that per MEDRS we cannot and should not include the "lab leak" as a plausible explanation, but we have a number of editors who genuinely seem to believe that a lab leak is more likely than the scientific consensus, and their belief is creating a serious CIR issue. The last thing that we need is this essay encouraging a Dunning-Kruger crusade.
At the same time, userspace is userspace. We have all sorts of snarky essays encouraging people to break the rules. We have some excellent essays giving alternative interpretations of rules that are in some cases superior to the official rules (I'm thinking specifically of VaticidalProphet's excellent essay on BLP1E). We also have some truly execrable essays that have encouraged uncivil behavior and actively promoted violating Wikipedia policies, like that "Three Sources" essay that regularly gets trotted out at AfD. I have also been tempted to write userspace essays suggesting that Wikipedia is handling certain issues the wrong way. So I do think that we need to give more leeway to userspace and drafts.
That is why I am uncomfortable voting either way, but because these votes are about the arguments, rather than vote count, I wanted to present both arguments for consideration. I would probably vote Keep for any other userspace essay, but this specific essay is actively causing problems, or at least exacerbating existing problems on some very important pages. Hyperion35 ( talk) 20:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The argument that this essay attempts to make is so utterly flawed that I actually laughed while reading it, but at the end of the day, it's in userspace. If this person wants to make a complete fool of themselves in their userspace, they should be allowed to do that.
Mlb96 (
talk) 04:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Mlb96. Your comment is rude. You should edit it and soften it to comply with WP:NPA. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 04:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep While the essay is imperfect, Adoring nanny is to be commended for producing a work of scholarship & integrity that stands well above much other content on this subject. To clarify, this AfD nom is clearly in good faith, and I remain of the opinion that we should be wary of supporting the lableak theory in mainspace. While various journalists and professsors are increasingly questioning if the "lableak virtually impossible" story realy helps reduce anti Asian sentimement, these folks are missing the geostrategic elements. Essentially, the hope is China can continue to cooperate with most of RoW on important issues like climate etc. The possible flipping of the dominate story on Covid origin remains an important card in case things deteriorate towards cold war.
- One of the many ways this essay is superior to its counterpart is it doesnt try to claim MEDS sources are more reliable than government ones for such matters. Virtually any serious person (I mean c-suit level) knows that the sources MEDS prefers like systematic reviews are unreliable for such claims. (See for example The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses by one the world's most respected scholars on public health, John Ioannidis )
- It's incorrect to claim no scientist takes the lableak seriously, see for example this paper by several leading virologists and other scientists, published in Science one of the world's top accademic journals. Anyhow, even if folk remain passionate about supporting the natural origin theory, which I agree makes sense for mainspace, we can afford to be tolerant of user space essays. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 22:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- See discussion at
Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Science opinion letter. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 23:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting, good to see the expected strong policy based arguments not to give credibility to lableak in mainspace. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 00:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- See discussion at
Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Science opinion letter. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 23:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Sure, this is definitely WP:FRINGE material, but at the end of the day, this is still in userspace. ThatIPEditor Talk · Contribs 06:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely
At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Wikipedia:LABLEAKLIKELY the following comment was made by User:Alexbrn:
- Not suitable for this redirect, as it's a personal essay performing no WP:PAG-aligned function that could further the Project, but instead promotes conspiracist ideas and bashes Wikipedia ("Wikipedia can't be trusted on controversial topics") in rather a silly way. For these reasons the essay itself should probably be deleted too per WP:NOTWEBHOST, but that's a different discussion. [1]
I am in agreement with this. There is a place on Wikipedia for competing essays ( WP:DTR and WP:TR are good examples of this) but is case where one of the competing essays is in general agreement with our articles and with WP:RS while the other promotes WP:FRINGE theories and is a variation on WP:POVFORK the essay that promotes the fringe theory should be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as proponent. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Per my previous comment at FTN, this is WP:NOT material ( WP:FREE although an essay is also relevant) and also meets WP:FRINGE, WP:POLEMIC, WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:POVFORK (my beliefs are true and WP is wrong so are reliable sources that it reflects)... — Paleo Neonate – 19:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Certainly looks like WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE, and maybe even WP:NOTHERE content. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete — WP:FRINGE. HotdogPi 21:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep.
User:Adoring_nanny/Essays/Lab_Leak_Likely#Reality_vs._Wikipedia and
User:Adoring_nanny/Essays/Lab_Leak_Likely#Conclusion are comment on Wikipedia, and this justifies the essay. The preceding content is
WP:SYNTH, but that is allowed in userspace, and definitely in an essay where it doesn’t pretend to not be WP:SYNTH. Overall I do not agree with the essay. Eg
Wikipedia can't be trusted on controversial topics
means that Wikipedia doesn’t make controversial topics non-controversial. But it is not an offensive opinion, and deleting opinions you don’t like does more harm than good. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC) - Delete, in the end. We have lots of essays on fringe nonsense, but this fringe nonsense is promoted by a lot of racists, and we don't need that. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep -- author of the essay here. Per WP:USERESSAY -- Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. and also per WP:UPYES: comments on Wikipedia matters is listed as a valid use of user space. So the fact that the essay contradicts consensus is not a reason to delete. And ultimately, the essay is a commentary on WP:PAG. If WP:V produces predictably wrong answers in certain cases, that is obviously an important question for the Wikipedia community. Lastly, deleting this essay while keeping WP:NOLABLEAK would be fundamentally unfair. Adoring nanny ( talk) 01:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If need be, the essay WP:NOLABLEAK can be discussed separately at its own MfD. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per SmokeyJoe, and per "it's a semi-coherent user essay". I do not support uneven enforcement of deleting semi-coherent user essays. Either we nuke useressayspace or we don't; this is fine when we have it. If anything, the "don't try to make a big deal out of this" conclusion sounds like a pretty good thing to link to people who might otherwise push this POV. Vaticidal prophet 02:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per SmokeyJoe, per Vaticidalprophet, and per WP:USERESSAY (which is a clarification of policy). These efforts to errase, block, and ban opposing points of view are just a bit disturbing. — Ched ( talk) 02:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. An essay in someone's userspace being wrong is not, as far as I know, grounds for deletion. Is there an addendum to
WP:IDONTLIKEIT I haven't seen that says "this suddenly becomes a great argument if it's a politics thing you disagree with"? Is there a parallel MfD for
User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak (a long polemic essay about the exact same politics thing) I'm unaware of?
jp×
g 02:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- That would be a kind of
WP:GEVAL approach to policy. Essays which help build a framework for collaborative editing in line with the
WP:PAGs are useful. Ones which work in the opposite direction based on mistaken notions of the Project's purpose, are not. The first type are well kept, the second type better removed.
Alexbrn (
talk) 06:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- In order to solve a problem, one first has to identify it. Adoring nanny ( talk) 09:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Policy links above are not IDONTLIKEIT, also relevant would be NOTPROMOTION, the encyclopedia has a purpose and this includes informing while avoiding the promotion of misinformation, conspiracy theories and political propaganda. While an essay always begins small, they also are expected to have a useful purpose and I see no valid reason to refer to it anywhere on the project during discussions unless it was reflecting the existing consensus that unless evidence of a leak is found, it only remains motivated speculation, except for legitimate investigations that can keep doing their work... — Paleo Neonate – 10:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- That would be a kind of
WP:GEVAL approach to policy. Essays which help build a framework for collaborative editing in line with the
WP:PAGs are useful. Ones which work in the opposite direction based on mistaken notions of the Project's purpose, are not. The first type are well kept, the second type better removed.
Alexbrn (
talk) 06:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:POLEMIC, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTWEBHOST. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- On the fence - I think people should have a good amount of leeway when it comes to what's in their userspace. The question is whether it's unrelated to Wikipedia. I see that there is some material along the lines of "Truth, not verifiability" but it seems tacked on to a WP:NOTCOVIDTRUTHBLOG. It's not a detailed examination of policy, but one of the most well-known arguments about Wikipedia (that our insistence on verifiability means we don't get the full picture until reliable sources do), reframed with a "don't rely on Wikipedia; use your logic, sheeple!" bent and applied to One I Know Is Really Really Probably True. In other words, it's not providing any novel commentary on wikipolicy; it's just a complaint that an article doesn't reflect a fringe theory. The issue it identifies (sometimes reliable sources get it wrong) is one that countless people have identified before. If you want to gripe about WP:V, there are tons of resources to find times mainstream sources or even scholarly/scientific sources have gotten things wrong. It's great fodder for anyone trying to convince someone of their pet conspiracy theory. Cross-reference those with Wikipedia diffs and you have a relevant essay criticizing our policy (granted, not a particularly persuasive one, but one that's unambiguously relevant to Wikipedia). But this isn't that. Despite all of this, right now I think I err on the side of keeping here, because I'm not sure how to articulate what separates this essay from some others apart from its WP:FRINGE nature -- and I don't think we want to get into enforcing WP:FRINGE to userspace writing. It absolutely should not have a projectspace redirect, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The Essay explicitely says that Wikipedia will not include the lab leak theory without evidence, and seems to support that outcome, although a bit cynically. Therefore, it is not defiant of the status quo. Opinions should only be banned from this space when referring to morally wrong topics (holocaust denialism, satanism, genocide apologetics, etc), and the lab leak does not belong to that category of extreme views, therefore the essay is inocuous. The only question remaining is how useful it ia for the current editing debate, on which I view it as setting the example for warring editors to desist their push POVs and accepting diplomatic Wiki-Tables: "it is what it is". Forich ( talk) 16:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- In my view, the best way to counter potentially dangerous opinions (in this case, opinions that could indirectly inflame racist sentiments) is with more information, not less. Perhaps we can convince the author of the essay to include a disclaimer in which they disavow racism with links to the official position on the lab leak being extremely unlikely and unfalsifiable. If we shut down opinion essays here in Wikipedia it can blow up in our faces, with the censored editors opening blogs and blowing steam elsewhere, it is best to inmediately "tame the beast" with arguments and evidence than with silence, in my opinion. Forich ( talk) 21:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sure that lots of things are "used to push" a wide variety of other things (for example, having an article on Joseph Stalin could be "used to push" the idea that men with moustaches are untrustworthy). I am not sure how somebody having, allegedly, said something dumb on "social media" [sic] is relevant to a deletion discussion for a userspace essay on Wikipedia. jp× g 00:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The user who authored this page seems to be
WP:NOTHERE. Does anyone else notice this?
jps (
talk) 18:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- In the author of the essay's own words:
- So it appears that we can look forward to multiple essays that take the position that reliable sources are wrong (with the implication that the opinions of the essay author are right). --
Guy Macon (
talk) 22:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- The above stated purpose has a fatal flaw. If indeed one wanted to "build up a record of making correct predictions that fly in the face of WP:RS" the way to do that would be to look for examples where the RS were wrong. For example, was our article on
Richard Jewell wrong at first and if so was the error based upon RS? Were our articles on
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and
Tamerlan Tsarnaev wrong at first? Instead the author of this essay assumes that they have the magical ability to identify the
WP:TRUTH when all of the evidence points the other way. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 13:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Finding past errors wouldn't be predictions. Finding the problems in real time, rather than in retrospect, provides much better evidence of a problem.
Adoring nanny (
talk) 01:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nonsense. If an article says X on Wikipedia in the year 2000, based upon reliable sources X, then in 2010 Wikipedia changes to saying Y based upon new sources, that would be the exact same argument you are making but without the requirement of you owning an accurate crystal ball. Again I say, I don't believe you. I do not for a minute believe that your purpose is in any way related to showing that Wikipedia's reliance on reliable sources is flawed. It seems obvious to me that your sole purpose is to push the discredited lab leak theory and that you tacked on the criticism of Wikipedia because you know that pretty much every scientist who has studied this says that the lab leak theory is inconsistent with the genetics of the virus. You can prove me wrong by picking another topic where you think that your crystal ball is more accurate than reliable sources and writing an essay on that instead. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Finding past errors wouldn't be predictions. Finding the problems in real time, rather than in retrospect, provides much better evidence of a problem.
Adoring nanny (
talk) 01:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- The above stated purpose has a fatal flaw. If indeed one wanted to "build up a record of making correct predictions that fly in the face of WP:RS" the way to do that would be to look for examples where the RS were wrong. For example, was our article on
Richard Jewell wrong at first and if so was the error based upon RS? Were our articles on
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and
Tamerlan Tsarnaev wrong at first? Instead the author of this essay assumes that they have the magical ability to identify the
WP:TRUTH when all of the evidence points the other way. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 13:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:POLEMIC. Essentially a WP:POVFORK of COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story that promotes a fringe/conspiracy viewpoint, infers that consensus reality is wrong, and "powerful interests" are controlling Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ LuckyLouie: There are three bulletpoints in the section of WP:UP that your link refers to: "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities", "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws", and "users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason". I am not sure which of these you're saying is present in this page, and I don't see them in the page. Could you elaborate? jp× g 23:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities". Let's see:
the Government of China
...China has something to hide
...National Institutes of Health, which funded research that may have caused the pandemic
...virologists (who) don't want to be seen as being at fault
... This stuff is more appropriate on InfoWars than on Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities". Let's see:
- Keep. Policing other editor's userspace is more akin to bullying than any useful addition to Wikipedia. Even if the essay in question is in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST or whatever, the only people who are going to even see it are those who go out of their way to find it. Bonewah ( talk) 20:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, not only for policy reasons mentioned above, but its implicitly Sinophobic nature in pinning the blame for the virus on China, which ties into a larger trend of anti-Chinese sentiment in the wake of the pandemic. If this is supposed to serve purely as a recently relevant example that illustrates this editor's true point (ie. the nature of the relationship between "truth and logic", RS and WP policy), I'm sure this editor can find a similar one that is not tied to violent, racist attacks. If it's more than that, then this is just a SYNTH/OR "breeder" this has no place on Wikipedia. EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 12:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm unaware of a policy against writing things about the Chinese government that could be construed as negative. This would make it quite difficult to write articles such as
Uyghur genocide – which, I'm given to understand, is a topic tied to both violence and racism. I am not sure how this relates to Chinese people (I was born in the United States and live there now, but I sure as hell don't agree with everything the last few presidents have said and done).
jp×
g 18:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- You have argued this point multiple times now on this page yet it baffles me every time. Firstly, "could be construed"? Really? You are going to argue that unwittingly causing one of the worlds greatest pandemics since a century could be considered a negative thing? Your core arguments here comprise mostly of faulty comparisons and analogies because there really isn't any substantial defense of this essay that doesn't boil down to wildly pointing at somewhat relevant topics and saying "why doesn't this happen to them?" or "if so, what about this then?". And yes, in fact, I personally think there's serious factual problems with the Uyghur "genocide" article, but I don't believe this page is an essay about the Uyghurs in any degree, so I fail to see what you establish by bringing it up - and I don't believe many Asian people in the global North have been attacked due to these allegations, as opposed to the ones presented here. Your snarky style of argumentation that sets out to ridicule each person you're responding to makes it tiresome to read and to reply to, so I'm going to stop there. If you don't see how this "theory" presented here ties into a larger Sinophobic narrative re. the "Chinese virus", then I simply cannot help you. There's a trove of policies - in addition to what I said - that make this essay unfit for Wikipedia; that you simply ignore this fact and claim WP:IDONTLIKEIT - simply ridiculous and I have no willpower left to engage in this charade. EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 19:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm unaware of a policy against writing things about the Chinese government that could be construed as negative. This would make it quite difficult to write articles such as
Uyghur genocide – which, I'm given to understand, is a topic tied to both violence and racism. I am not sure how this relates to Chinese people (I was born in the United States and live there now, but I sure as hell don't agree with everything the last few presidents have said and done).
jp×
g 18:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There are reliable sources recently discussing the possibility of a lab leak, e.g. in Washington Post, wired science, business today etc. Although it is being tied to US politics it is really a separate issue. The lab leak theory was already being widely reported by the end of January 2020 long before the Trump administration said anything about it. It is far from being fringe because there is not yet a full mainstream explanation for the source of the virus. Even sources that defend the Chinese only say it is unlikely, not impossible. It is not for Wikipedia to decide what the true origin of the virus was, but viable options should be reported as they appear in reliable sources. I dont think that racism against Chinese is an issue given that it is US funding of research programs in China that is now the bigger subject of concern. Wikipedia should not suppress discussions because of fears that some idiots might react the wrong way. If it is reported with the right caveats, due weight and balance there is no reason why that should be the case. Although the WHO played down the lab leak theory their chief has also said that the probe was not extensive enough and that all further investigations are possible. An open letter from 24 scientists from around the world has asked for a more comprehensive investigation. Please dont ask me for the sources, just google it. Personally I am open-minded about the origins of covid-19, not that my opinion matters, but Wikipedia needs to report this instead of labelling it as simply a Trumpian conspiracy theory on talk pages. It is much wider than that. Weburbia ( talk) 12:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
"given that it is US funding of research programs in China"
. Reality check: [3] [4] [5] - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)- I challenge the above claim that "There are reliable sources recently discussing the possibility of a lab leak". Those are not reliable for biomedical claims. We have
WP:MEDRS for a reason. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 13:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree that
WP:MEDRS is required for the topic of the origin of COVID-19. In
WP:BMI none of the categories that would class a subject as biomedical apply. I would agrue that the history category applies which is explcitly excluded. Therefore other sources including reliable media sources can be used.
Weburbia (
talk) 20:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- This has been discussed repeatedly. You are not the first person to make this claim, but the consensus has been pretty clear that the origin of a virus is inherently biomedical, as it falls under epidemiology, virology, etc. The exception for historical cases has to do with documenting historical terminology, historical beliefs about the causes of medical conditions (eg epilepsy caused by demonic posession or witchcraft), and historical but deprecated treatments. Hyperion35 ( talk) 21:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree that
WP:MEDRS is required for the topic of the origin of COVID-19. In
WP:BMI none of the categories that would class a subject as biomedical apply. I would agrue that the history category applies which is explcitly excluded. Therefore other sources including reliable media sources can be used.
Weburbia (
talk) 20:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete We should not host essays promoting WP:FRINGE claims, especially in areas that pertain to medicine, for much the same reason we have policies like WP:MEDRS. As to the claim above mine that reliable sources are taking this conspiracy theory serious: I don't see any reliable sources cited. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Related: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Origins of SARS-CoV-2. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete It's a slab of content unsuitable for the encyclopedia, pretty expressly intended to undermine the basic principles of the encyclopedia. The only thing that saves it from being a blatant BLP violation is a protective layer of vagueness, like making accusations about
virologists
without saying who these unnamedvirologists
might be. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC) - Keep though I may vote to delete the project-space shortcut. It is criticism of how the lab-leak theory is covered. The title may be an editorial opinion that editors disagree with, or simply an exaggeration for literary effect. The content making factual claims is sourced. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST, as it's content that's blatantly obviously not suitable for the encyclopedia. The opposite page makes sense, because it's chronicling material that may be suitable for inclusion, but this material is not only unencyclopedic, it's a hoax. Nyttend backup ( talk) 12:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep this is essentially arguing that Wikipedia is biased because we defer to mainstream sources. Does anyone dispute that? While I disagree with what the essay claims is the case with regard to the origins of COVID, it is a commentary on Wikipedia, and I don't see a good reason to delete it from userspace.
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 22:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree if the author converted it to an essay that talks about Wikipedia bias and mentions the Wuhan misinformation as an example, but the actual essay is an an essay that promotes the Wuhan misinformation and mentions Wikipedia bias in passing. It's a form of
WP:COATRACK. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 00:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's a good way to put it. Commentary about Wikipedia is suitable as a user essay, but this isn't commentary about Wikipedia.
Nyttend backup (
talk) 14:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. The essay presents: 1. given circumstantial evidence, it's likely COVID came from a lab in China. 2. Wikipedia does not publish this in articles. 3. Wikipedia cannot be trusted on controversial topics.
- That is very clearly a commentary on Wikipedia. You could replace point 1 with any other conspiracy theory and the essay would hold. This just happens to be using the lab leak conspiracy theory. Elli ( talk | contribs) 04:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's a good way to put it. Commentary about Wikipedia is suitable as a user essay, but this isn't commentary about Wikipedia.
Nyttend backup (
talk) 14:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree if the author converted it to an essay that talks about Wikipedia bias and mentions the Wuhan misinformation as an example, but the actual essay is an an essay that promotes the Wuhan misinformation and mentions Wikipedia bias in passing. It's a form of
WP:COATRACK. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 00:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and ignore. It's not web-hosting since the relation to Wikipedia is clear, nor is it a polemic since it's not attacking other editors. It is railing against Wikipedia itself, but there's no rule against that and if there were we'd need to delete a hell of a lot more of these. Anyway clearly not a WP:UP vio. It's a stupid essay, but it's in userspace which has a ton of stupid essays (actually projectspace has a ton of stupid essays too, but I'll save that rant for later), we are safely ignoring those essays, and this one can be safely ignored too. Regards, 31.41.45.190 ( talk) 15:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep even if the essay is wrong on COVID, it's good to permit discussion, outside of mainspace, of controversial theories. We aim to be WP:NOTCENSORED and deleting this essay would give the wrong impression. Also I'm not convinced that MEDRS applies to the origins of Covid, as the origins of the disease are not directly related to its treatment. User:GKFX talk 21:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I am genuinely torn on this one, as there are compelling arguments in both directions. The so-called "lab leak" hypothesis is unsupported by any MEDRS, which almost unanimously state that it is not completely impossible, just highly unlikely, lacking any evidence to support it and with other evidence pointing in a different direction. We have had continuous traffic of editors coming to multiple COVID-19 related pages trying to push this hypothesis, especially each time a non-MEDRS media source publishes another "hear both sides" or "calls for more investigation" piece. At times this has resulted in edit-warring, and it has also resulted in a lot of discussion on the talk page. The problem is that per MEDRS we cannot and should not include the "lab leak" as a plausible explanation, but we have a number of editors who genuinely seem to believe that a lab leak is more likely than the scientific consensus, and their belief is creating a serious CIR issue. The last thing that we need is this essay encouraging a Dunning-Kruger crusade.
At the same time, userspace is userspace. We have all sorts of snarky essays encouraging people to break the rules. We have some excellent essays giving alternative interpretations of rules that are in some cases superior to the official rules (I'm thinking specifically of VaticidalProphet's excellent essay on BLP1E). We also have some truly execrable essays that have encouraged uncivil behavior and actively promoted violating Wikipedia policies, like that "Three Sources" essay that regularly gets trotted out at AfD. I have also been tempted to write userspace essays suggesting that Wikipedia is handling certain issues the wrong way. So I do think that we need to give more leeway to userspace and drafts.
That is why I am uncomfortable voting either way, but because these votes are about the arguments, rather than vote count, I wanted to present both arguments for consideration. I would probably vote Keep for any other userspace essay, but this specific essay is actively causing problems, or at least exacerbating existing problems on some very important pages. Hyperion35 ( talk) 20:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The argument that this essay attempts to make is so utterly flawed that I actually laughed while reading it, but at the end of the day, it's in userspace. If this person wants to make a complete fool of themselves in their userspace, they should be allowed to do that.
Mlb96 (
talk) 04:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Mlb96. Your comment is rude. You should edit it and soften it to comply with WP:NPA. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 04:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep While the essay is imperfect, Adoring nanny is to be commended for producing a work of scholarship & integrity that stands well above much other content on this subject. To clarify, this AfD nom is clearly in good faith, and I remain of the opinion that we should be wary of supporting the lableak theory in mainspace. While various journalists and professsors are increasingly questioning if the "lableak virtually impossible" story realy helps reduce anti Asian sentimement, these folks are missing the geostrategic elements. Essentially, the hope is China can continue to cooperate with most of RoW on important issues like climate etc. The possible flipping of the dominate story on Covid origin remains an important card in case things deteriorate towards cold war.
- One of the many ways this essay is superior to its counterpart is it doesnt try to claim MEDS sources are more reliable than government ones for such matters. Virtually any serious person (I mean c-suit level) knows that the sources MEDS prefers like systematic reviews are unreliable for such claims. (See for example The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses by one the world's most respected scholars on public health, John Ioannidis )
- It's incorrect to claim no scientist takes the lableak seriously, see for example this paper by several leading virologists and other scientists, published in Science one of the world's top accademic journals. Anyhow, even if folk remain passionate about supporting the natural origin theory, which I agree makes sense for mainspace, we can afford to be tolerant of user space essays. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 22:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- See discussion at
Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Science opinion letter. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 23:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting, good to see the expected strong policy based arguments not to give credibility to lableak in mainspace. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 00:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- See discussion at
Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Science opinion letter. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 23:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Sure, this is definitely WP:FRINGE material, but at the end of the day, this is still in userspace. ThatIPEditor Talk · Contribs 06:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.