Talk:Nicholas Wade

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nicholas Wade article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

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

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

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Buckinghamshire (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

RE: "While some experts have supported taking the lab leak possibility seriously, the majority consider it very unlikely, calling it "speculative and unsupported".

Consider dropping this quote since Wade writes that a lab leak by an accident could have happened, and an accident cannot be a conspiracy. Plus, given the US Intelligence Community report and the work of Matt Ridley and Alania Chan suggests there is a lot of room for debate based on science, timeliness and evidence collected. 173.72.254.24 (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is correct as written. The claimed conspiracy would not have been the leak, but rather the alleged cover-up afterwards. NightHeron (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the congressional hearings, email leaks, and wide spread reporting about Fauci's premature publication of journal articles in the Lancet and Nature that concluded that the lab leak hypothesis was extremely unlikely when many on his own team believed it should be taken seriously, to describe the lab leak or the cover-up as a conspiracy theory seems misleading. 97.120.181.231 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians' shenanigans are not relevant for evaluation of scientific theories. See Indiana Pi Bill. --Hob Gadling (talk)

That statement is not correct as written, although perhaps it can be repaired. It contains a quote and and WP:RS/QUOTE says "... it is important to make clear the actual source of the text ...", but the statement doesn't make that clear. The actual source is Kristian Andersen according to politico.com, talking about the leak. So the repair job could be: ... very unlikely, with Kristian Andersen calling the lab leak theory "speculative and unsupported". Alternatives? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure attribution is necessary. There are additional sources which essentially say the same thing, see WP:NOLABLEAK. Those are all mostly secondary, peer-reviewed papers in reputable journals, and they say the same thing as Andersen. Attributing might give the false impression that the theory being "speculative and unsupported" is just one scientist's opinion, when there are in fact plenty of others writing (and getting reviewed and accepted by their peers) the same thing. However, there's nothing that prevents avoiding the quote entirely and rewording, which would resolve the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"speculative and unsupported" is actually also the view of the scientific body writ large, per our best sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You think they used those words? Where? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most relevant bits are quoted at WP:NOLABLEAK, but you're free to go dig through the sources yourself and see the whole context behind. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the WP:NOLABLEAK essay contained the words, it wouldn't trump a guideline. And it's not my job to dig up support for a dubious claim. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Update: RandomCanadian rewrote to avoid the quote, so this argument no longer matters. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer the case that the lab leak theory is merely speculative. It is leading theory of the department of energy and the FBI. 97.120.181.231 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What those people think is not relevant for evaluation of scientific theories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The scientists at the department of energy are well regarded scientists. What is your basis for thinking it is not the leading theory of scientists? The former head of the CDC -- a scientist -- believes it and now scientists consider it at least as likely as any other. The Sunday Times's article quotes many scientists. 69.121.121.167 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you used the word "scientists" five times. Now I am convinced.

No, of course I am not. That is very naive reasoning. You need to check WP:RS to find out what Wikipedia accepts as reliable sources. Also, you need to learn that reliability of a sources depends on the subject. Also, you need to learn that the overwhelming majority of scientists are experts in one tiny field and completely ignorant laypeople in all the rest of science. There is no connection between energy and viruses, and there is no way of checking the reason why some secret service person has a certain opinion. Secrecy is inimical to science.

Please take note that this is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes see also WP:RS/AC. We would want well-regarded secondary review articles that are peer-reviewed by experts and published in topic-relevant expert-edited scientific journals. And we definitely do not have that for the view espoused by the IP. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So are we still sticking with this language? Really? 72.94.251.88 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP 2601:18A:C500:330:0:0:0:0/64 is invited to discuss their preferred content here rather than edit warring. Generalrelative (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statements '... in which he argued that the possibility that the novel coronavirus was bioengineered and had leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, couldn’t be dismissed.' and 'Wade's argument is at odds with the prevailing view among scientists that the virus most likely has a zoonotic origin.' are inconsistent.

The conclusion that something 'can't be dismissed' and the conclusion something counter is 'most likely' are not 'at odds' as it's entirely possible to simultaneously conclude both, so this needs rewording in some way.

Nightheron assures me that there is consensus on this particular wording, though at present I can't find it. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:F086:443D:3F49:9BCC (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]