Talk:Nicholas Wade#RfC about suggested statement

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)

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)

{{ping|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 {{tq|the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear}}. Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)