User talk:2804:7F4:323D:855B:C9C:99B7:1F2B:491A

Insulting, baseless, and strange accusations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP, your comments that:

1. a book written by famous science journalist David Quammen is "part of [virologist] Peter Daszak's positive engagement strategy," [1] and that
2. the same book is "written with the goal of recovering the reputation of disgraced scientists," [2]

Are baseless, strange, and include insults and attacks on both Quammen and Daszak. Please stop: this is not helpful, and contrary to this encyclopedia's policies. -Darouet (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

What is contrary to the policies is adding contested, unreliable and non neutral material to a BLP in wikivoice. You asked for our opinion on using the book as a source, I replied with my opinion, you needed clarification and I gave you all of it in my recent reply (in both the origins of cov talk page and the BLP). I have properly sourced all of my statements in both cases. Instead of waiting for my reply, you pushed undue and ill-sourced content into a BLP. Please revert and wait for further discussion. 2804:7F4:323D:8BA8:4FD:30CD:F191:517B (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

IP, the allegations you've levied in your statements 1 and 2 above are serious, and also somewhat bizarre: that a book written by Quammen is part of a strategy by Daszak and others who are "disgraced" (your words) and who see to recover their reputations (also your words).

In reply, you have given and other editors a link to a blog post where Daszak is interviewed by a filmmaker and Sufi teacher [3], and another link that I refuse to click because I'm afraid it will give my computer a virus: https://d3e0luujhwn38u.cloudfront.net/resized/b0-RR0dtE50nUPhHIbQgj2c5hO9yJvrKz9oc7sUsMd8/s:1200/plain/s3://typefully-user-uploads/img/original/35799/d044febb-cf81-42a9-8870-a077c3b313fc.png

Needless to say, these don't support your allegations.

In your subsequent comments, you are telling other editors what they should or shouldn't write on the talk pages [4]: Please stick to answering for the contents of your own posts. This is insulting.

Your rhetoric is also somewhat hostile towards scientists and wikipedia editors and that makes it difficult for other editors to engage with you, and for you to productively contribute to scientific articles. Examples of this rhetoric include:

1. Your comment as noted above that David Quammen's book is a PR tactic by Peter Daszak, [5]
2. Your comment as noted above that Quammen's book is "written with the goal of recovering the reputation of disgraced scientists," [6]
3. Your comment that Quammen's book is COId, biased content as a way to sustain a narrative aligned with his POVs (sic) and that other editors are pushing an agenda [7]
4. Your comment that It’s been honestly hard to AGF here [8], and
5. Your comment that I am also aware of the urges to bend [Wikipedia policy] as an attempt to filter out content that doesn’t align with particular POVs. [9]

As you note yourself [10], you don't accept the conclusions of the papers that have for the scientific community, mostly answered the question of the Origin of SARS-CoV-2. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Please, try to focus on the contents of my justification to you and not on my tone. We are supposed to be evaluating the reliability and suitability of a source; instead, you decide to turn it into an evaluation of my conduct which makes it seem like you lack arguments to address the question at hand.

In any case, my tone is justified because of your lack of respect: two editors had given conflicting opinions about your suggestion of a source, and in spite of this you decided to unilaterally include it in another article, where it was even less appropriate, only to be able to reinstate a POV statement that had been removed because it was unsourced. Do you really believe that was the respectful, collegial way to proceed?

Next, I try to reply to the other remarks and accusations you’ve made:

1. that a book written by Quammen is part of a strategy by Daszak and others who are "disgraced" (your words) and who see to recover their reputations (also your words): the link you think is a virus is a screenshot of a calendar entry obtained via FOIA, written by Daszak in 2022, where he lists under “Positive engagement strategy” the book that you were suggesting to adopt as a reference. Therefore, these are not my own allegations, neither is saying that Daszak is disgraced, given the US government decision, under Biden, to suspend his funding due to irregular reporting of his use of public funds and criticism of the management of the risks in his research. This is a very big deal for scientists and I don’t believe the term “disgraced” is excessive.
2. In reply, you have given and other editors a link to a blog post where Daszak is interviewed by a filmmaker and Sufi teacher, and another link that I refuse to click because I'm afraid it will give my computer a virus: […] Needless to say, these don't support your allegations.: I gave you three (not two) links and the corresponding quotes to support my point. First, I linked to a critical analysis of Quammen’s book and I carefully quoted excerpts of that analysis indicating clear evidences of COI, lack of neutrality, close relationship between the author and Daszak, and bias in the material. Then, I linked to a post where not Daszak, but Quammen, is interviewed and I quoted Quammen saying that Daszak is his friend, in consonance with the first link, in order to argue that there exists a COI for the use of that book in the Origins article and, more importantly, in the Daszak article. Finally, I linked to the screenshot I mentioned above. All of my statements were properly sourced and nothing was my own opinion or invention, as you are trying to claim. My conclusion for not using the book as a reference was consistent with all of the presented evidence: the book, under the guise of doing a detailed documenting of the Origins of COVID, is actually a PR stunt aimed at defending Daszak from the accusations he has been facing. So it is simply not an adequate reference, neither for the Origins of COVID nor for Dazsak’s BLP. Please, try to read my argumentation carefully before saying that my references don’t support my allegations.
3. In your subsequent comments, you are telling other editors what they should or shouldn't write on the talk pages “Please stick to answering for the contents of your own posts”. This is insulting.: No, I am simply saying that no editor is entitled to come to a talk page and affirm categorically that I accused anyone of anything, when I didn’t do so. Anyone is free to say whatever they want, but they are not allowed to say anything on my behalf. He could have simply asked me if that was an accusation, or claimed that it sounds like one, but no, he simply said I was “basically accusing” you. So, once again, my response and tone were duly warranted.
4. Your rhetoric is also somewhat hostile towards scientists and wikipedia editors and that makes it difficult for other editors to engage with you, and for you to productively contribute to scientific articles.: I am a scientist myself, I am not hostile towards science but I am hostile towards its incorrect, political use by people trying to push unsupported and unproven facts as settled truth. Most disagreements I have had with other editors did not lead to hostility, but then again they were not ignoring my opinion and acting as if it didn’t exist (like you previously did).
5. Your comment as noted above that David Quammen's book is a PR tactic by Peter Daszak,, Your comment as noted above that Quammen's book is "written with the goal of recovering the reputation of disgraced scientists," and Your comment that Quammen's book is “COId, biased content as a way to sustain a narrative aligned with his POVs”: All replied to above and supported by reliable references. None of this was invented by me and I clearly indicated that in my reply to you (which it seems you haven’t read with a lot of enthusiasm).
6. and that other editors are pushing an agenda and Your comment that “I am also aware of the urges to bend [Wikipedia policy] as an attempt to filter out content that doesn’t align with particular POVs”.: Yes, editors have been pushing a pro-science view on these COVID origins related pages, but ironically this pro-science view is very much against science, because so far none of the natural zoonosis conclusions have been final or broadly accepted by the scientific community. In fact, as time passes, they become less and less accepted, and still editors push to mainspace views that are simply incompatible with reality under the pretense that they are science torchbearers and that giving credit to a lab leak is simply a support for conspiracies. Such editors are much more hostile than I ever was, and that is very disappointing given that both natural zoonosis and lab leak lack evidence or any convincing indication, as stated by the Académie de Médecine. Still, the Académie believes the lab leak is supported well-enough by arguments and facts, but this is not going to mainspace. This is what is very bad, editorially, for Wikipedia—not my tone when addressing an editor that asks for opinion, ignores my opinion when given (instead of at least discussing it) and does whatever change he feels like doing as if my opinion did not exist.
7. Your comment that “It’s been honestly hard to AGF here”: I was referring to an editor who was refusing, for days, to participate in talk page discussions with several other editors (not only me) that disagreed with his edits, and who at the same time kept reverting other edits in mainspace (corresponding to the talk page in question) and adding content to the same talk page where the discussion he had been avoiding was taking place. My reaction was warranted, and I removed myself from that discussion because it was difficult to continue assuming good faith under disruptive behavior like that.
8. As you note yourself, you don't accept the conclusions of the papers that have for the scientific community, mostly answered the question of the Origin of SARS-CoV-2: Please, have a read at what the Académie de Médecine had to say about such papers. Also, try to look up the credentials of the serious epidemiologists, virologists and scientists involved in its elaboration. Again, you can try to focus on me as much as you want, but do you want to imply that such scientists are anti-science and fringe-pushers like you just tried to do to me in this final remark? 2804:18:966:196A:F485:10CF:AAC2:DBB0 (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

IP, a fundamental problem, and your comments suggest you're aware of this, is that you're trying to shift Wikipedia's editorial position on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 away from academic consensus and towards a minority viewpoint that is, in published academic literature, fringe. So you describe the work of a famous science journalist writing on the topic as nothing more than a PR stunt, and describe Peter Daszak, whose decades of work in this area helped form this consensus, as disgraced. I understand that you believe your viewpoint on each of these points - the origins of the virus, Quammen, and Daszak - are justified.

My response is simple: Wikipedia's editorial position has been determined now countless times on the relevant talk pages and more importantly in published work from the academic community. It is ironic at best and grossly unfair at worst that you seek to remove a statement on Daszak's biography here noting that he has been the subject of criticism, accusation, and threats, written by a well known journalist of the topic, while you simultaneously criticize Daszak and level accusations at him.

Wikipedians don't have endless time to respond to editors who seek to shift the encyclopedia away from contemporary scholarship and consensus. And the reason I posted here in the first place is that you levied serious allegations against a journalist and scientist which you can only support with links to online sources that don't meet basic WP:RS criteria. I will repeat what I stated at the outset: please do not do that, it is contrary to Wikipedia policy and that is as it should be. -Darouet (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concerns to keep the articles reflecting the current mainstream scientific point. However, Daszak’s work as a scientist and his recent controversies are not considered scientific topics; it’s plain and simple BLP, there is no peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal saying “he is innocent” or “he has been unfairly attacked”, etc. Don’t you agree with me? So let’s separate things: one is keeping the current mainstream view of the origins of the virus intact, which I agree with you we should do. Whenever I have argued for inclusion of information or references, it was never with the intent of making Wikipedia state, in Wikivoice, fringe or minority views. Now, another completely different issue is addressing a BLP in a neutral, impartial manner. You, @Darouet, have reinserted in the subject’s BLP the following statement: Daszak became a frequent victim of criticism, accusations, and threats, obscuring research into the Origin of SARS-CoV-2. This statement, in Wikivoice, uses the book by Quammen as reference. This well-known journalist is an old, self-declared, close friend of Dazsak’s and one of the references I linked to, which is reliable and cites the book itself, brings attention to that. Still, you have included it in the BLP after I had voiced concern, before I presented a justification, and after a similar statement had been removed from that page because it was unsourced and POV. Do you see what the problem is here? Do you think it’s fair to state something about a subject of a BLP, which was written by a close friend (who obviously wants to defend him), in wikivoice? I find that is what is very, very much against policy and I don’t understand why I have to insist so much on something so basic. You are free to continue ignoring the fact that Quammen is not a reliable source for this BLP, but do not try to imply that my request for neutrality is against policy, because it is not. I am once again giving this a chance and trying to discuss, but I will not tolerate you associating this particular request I have made with going against Wikipedia’s policies. I look forward to hearing what you have to say about this. 2804:18:1903:9E0A:CC69:D79E:E567:F04C (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Nobody has declared Quammen and Daszak to be "close friends," except yourself. They both state they are friends, and Quammen says he's known Daszak a long time. Quammen says he is also friends with people who disagree with Daszak and the scientific consensus, like Matt Ridley. The scientific community is small. You haven't explained how any of this makes Quammen's cut-and-dry statement that Daszak has been the subject of "criticism, accusations, and threats" inaccurate or suspect. Do you honestly contest that Daszak has been the subject of criticisms, accusations, and threats? Are there sources that say he hasn't been? -Darouet (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Let us not change the subject here: we are talking about using a reference by Quammen to write a comment about Daszak, in wikivoice, in his BLP. Ridley is irrelevant here and Quammen’s book is pointed out as being biased for Daszak as I showed you above. This and the fact that they are friends, which was self-declared by Quammen, should be enough under WP:BIASED (When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; [bold is mine]) to remove that source (and content, if no other source is found) from the BLP. Finally, in Wikipedia and especially in BLPs what matters is not the truth (that we may or may not agree on) or what has not been sourced; it’s what has been appropriately sourced that matters. So your last two questions also miss the point. Unfortunately, as seen in the Origins talk page, the editorial consensus, although silent, agrees with you using such reference in the BLP. So unless other concerns are raised and that consensus changes, I am accepting it and moving on.

P.S.: I do not contest Daszak has been subject to all that which you mention; I do contest that whatever attacks he suffered obscur[ed] research into the Origin of SARS-CoV-2. If anything, it was proven after his DEFUSE proposal was leaked that he tried to withhold evidence from the scientific community and public opinion. Specifically, a goal of his proposal was, together with the WIV, to do the insertion of a furin cleavage site into coronaviruses, which coincidentally doesn’t happen to any other known sarbecoviruses except SARS-CoV-2. Instead of calling the lab leak a conspiracy in his Proximal Origins paper, and being so vocal in discrediting scientists that wanted to investigate that theory, shouldn’t he have first disclosed that he had proposed a grant to create viruses so similar to what SARS-CoV-2 came to later be, before his proposal got leaked? Also, do you think Biden debarred him and suspended his funding proposals because he was simply feeling like it? Please, let us treat due facts with proper seriousness. 2804:18:190A:C2E3:FC71:8CC3:F1E:C65D (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---