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. |
Article policies
|
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 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 C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Disputed edits
[edit]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)
COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis
[edit]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)
Sources
[edit]@Generalrelative:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Wade&diff=prev&oldid=1274646982 These sources dont mention the subject of this article, Nicholas Wade, in any way. They should therefore be removed from the article, see WP:COATRACK. --FMSky (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I hear your concern, but this language is –– as I mentioned in my edit summary –– the result of a lengthy and laborious consensus-building process. It is in fact a compromise between editors who've disagreed quite strenuously, and Wade has acknowledged that his view is contrary to the mainstream. See e.g. this discussion and this one too. Consensus can change, but that needs to happen before we change the text. The main argument for keeping this text hinges on the requirement stated in the WP:FRINGE guideline that
the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear
. Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)