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: no consensus defaulting to keep. I tried to put my biases aside, but didn't really need to struggle too much with it, tbh. I don't think the delete side got a consensus against retaining this item in user space (where standards are far more lax, of course). The TBAN is a non-issue, seeing as the author's last edit to the page was a day before it was recorded in the log. Any violations to it by the page's author in the course of this discussion are exempted. I realize that this is a terse close. If I see fit, I may expand my reasoning further upon request, but this is really the crux of it. El_C 14:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin?[edit]

While we allow a wide leeway for opinions in user essays, they are not a free ticket to bypass WP:MEDRS for biomedical claims, which the origin of the Covid-19 virus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. 21:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. 21:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. 21:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 21:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics deletion discussions. 08:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

--SilverMatsu (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whether/how MEDRS applies to COVID-19 origins in the mainspace is a controversy in itself, see, e.g. [1]. MEDRS is even less relavant when the page in question is merely a personal essay of mine in the userspace. Normchou ^💬 15:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You should be first to request deleting it because your essay makes a mockery of the hypothesis you seem to support. My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is any mockery, it's a mockery of those who utterly failed to grasp the real world as an independent person. Normchou ^💬 14:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  On the other hand, the comment above this one is a clear mockery of basic requirements of civility (which are not something limited to Wikipedia but also to the actual real world) and also of the fact that Wikipedia is an collaborative project which must be run in a spirit of mutual respect (see the opening paragraph of WP:NOT). Not in a spirit of casting aspersions on other editors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is what appears to be a humor essay masquerading as a serious one. Links to John Stewart diatribes, a parody of Bayesian inference... No WP:MEDRSes to speak of. Only opinion pieces and OR. It's also claiming that it's a matter of common sense that Virologists have a "COI" and we shouldn't trust scientific sources on this questions. Instead we should rely exclusively on the author's preferred sources (opinion pieces and yellow journalism), which the community has repeatedly decided are less reliable and of lower quality. And yet, this essay is a textbook example of why the very next section applies, WP:NOCOMMON. We have discussed this before, and decided as a community that this is not what wiki is supposed to be. It should follow, not lead. If the scientific sources are wrong and driving us off a cliff, we will follow, because it makes us right more often than not. It feels like every time we have a new pandemic, we must rehash and relitigate these same WP:FLAT arguments. Very similar things happened with Zika in 2015 and with Ebola in 2014. In the last two months, it is only the news coverage that has changed, not the underlying facts. Only more aspersions, speculations, and opinions, very few facts. We must use the most reliable sources available for these questions. Wikipedia is not a free forum for conspiracy-laden evidence-free speculations.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the numerous distortions in your above statement—any user can read my essay and make a judgment on whether your accusations are valid—you own reply here shows you are not treating this piece merely as a humor essay masquerading as a serious one. You realize that my common-sense argument makes sense, so you try to discredit it by raising objections to its premise. It is perfectly acceptable to have good-faith arguments regarding my essay, but trying to erase it simply because you disagree is not. Normchou ^💬

This is the most unconvincing counterargument I could imagine. I was wondering whether to !vote to delete or keep this, because as long as it's in userspace, it's not really harmful (it just shows how well the author understands the subject). After reading this, however, I'm convinced that this is not a simple case of some inability to understand the subject, but actual POV pushing in essay form. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a free forum for conspiracy-laden evidence-free speculations...thank you, I needed a good laugh this morning. Hyperion35 (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait/Keep There is an active RFC on whether the MEDRS applies to the origins of COVID-19 as mentioned by Normchou (which seems to be leaning against it). Zoozaz1 talk 17:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zoozaz1: If you look at the RfC question, it asks only whether "origins of a disease are unambiguously a bio-medical topic". This is strictly unrelated to an essay which ignores even the basics of WP:RS and makes broad-ranging WP:FLAT claims as an attempt to suggest we should ignore not only MEDRS but even WP:RS (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My focus was on MEDRS as the deletion nomination was exclusively about violating MEDRS, which is not a settled question. That being said, so what if it challenges WP:RS? It's a userspace essay. Speaking as a strong supporter of the policy, someone challenging any Wikipedia policy with the goal of making the encyclopedia better should be allowed (within reasonable boundaries, of course). Essentially no policy (outside of civility policies) should be so set in stone that there is no place for dissent/disagreement from it because ultimately, even if it might be hard to see in a particular instance, that is how our policies improve and evolve over time. Oral history projects are a great example of where our RS policy may fail.

  For this particular instance, I generally agree with DGG below. Ultimately, it either came from a lab leak or it didn't, and I believe it is wrong to shut down differing opinions on the issue. Others editors have brought up that this is advocacy; of course it is. An essay, according to Wikipedia, is an argument. Every essay advocates for something, and that's absolutely fine. My problem is when we deem one particular argument acceptable and a different, still plausible, argument unacceptable. Now of course one hypothesis is supported much more in reliable sources, but again, so what? This is not a definitively settled issue, and people should be allowed to express differing opinions on it in userspace even if those opinions depart from the majority viewpoint. Zoozaz1 talk 01:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The author's response to Shibbolethink's !vote above has convinced me that this is a WP:ADVOCACY. It's basically a POV-pusher's argument, in essay form. And the math... Dear god, no self-respecting encyclopedia should allow that travesty called math to remain anywhere within its bounds. The assumption of a conspiracy among scientists to suppress The Truth^TM is really just the icing on the cake.

As a final point, the essay suggests we use "common sense" when editing articles on Covid-19. I actually agree with that. Common sense tells us that the scientists have a firmer grasp of the realities than the press, and so far, it seems to be almost entirely the press who's pushing the lab leak theory, and those rare few scientists who have supported it have all either A) qualified their statements to the point that the press' insistence that they support the theory is questionable; B) turned out not to have relevant expertise, making their opinions no better than anyone else's or; C) already been known as conspiracy theorists within the scientific community.

With those basic facts in mind, WP:COMMONSENSE tells me that we should treat the virus origin the way the vast preponderance of scientists with relevant expertise treat it; as a highly-unlikely possibility. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep User space is user space. We also have the excellent essay WP:NOLABLEAK, which is a fine precedent, and my own essay User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely. Let them all bloom! And Bayes Theorem, which is the basis of that essay, remains perfectly valid mathematics. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete User space has some leeway, yes. However, Wikipedia is not a debating forum or an advocacy website. It's a collaborative project. Essays which attack the fundamental policies of the project by engaging in blatant WP:ADVOCACY in an attempt to discredit them, which even suggest that the whole of scientists are engaging in a conspiracy, and which make a travesty of mathematics... are, plain and simple, not acceptable, and only further the case that the author needs a break from this topic area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The content of the WP:ADVOCACY page strongly suggests that it is not meant to apply to userspace, it is meant to apply to article space. Your reference to WP:FLAT below fails for the same reason, as that applies to article space, not userspace. And criticism of Wikipedia policy is 100% permissible in userspace as long as it is done respectfully. Your arguments would create a very strong case for deletion if this were an article, but it isn't. Mlb96 (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nowhere in any of these pages does it say that the advice therein is limited to mainspace, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX certainly applies everywhere. Also, the spirit of the policy is far more important than the letter, and I'm not convinced that saying this applies only to articles is correct even if you can provide an out-of-context quote to the contrary. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't need to be explicitly stated when the implication is obvious. For example, the title of WP:FLAT is "Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat." This implies that it is meant to apply to things claimed by Wikipedia (i.e., things in article space), not by Wikipedia's users. WP:ADVOCACY talks about the goal of Wikipedia being to create "high-quality, neutral, verifiable articles," and the things that the policy is intended to prevent are "edit-warring and other disruptions." None of these apply to userspace. It should be abundantly clear that neither WP:FLAT nor WP:ADVOCACY apply to userspace, even if they do not explicitly say so. And your citation to WP:NOTSOAPBOX is puzzling, as that policy very clearly states that "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages." This essay presents the user's opinions on Wikipedia policy, at least to the extent that it would satisfy the precedent set by Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Adoring_nanny/Essays/Lab_Leak_Likely, so WP:NOTSOAPBOX does not apply. Mlb96 (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That all seems like Wikilawyering to me. "Non-disruptive statements of opinion" - this is not a "non-disruptive statement", because its clear aim is to disrupt our coverage of the topic by directly arguing against WP:PAGs. If WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NOTWEBHOST "don't apply to userspace", then we should also go and get rid of WP:U5, cause, you know, "doesn't apply to userspace". So your argument is pretty much a useless distraction. Like the lab-leak itself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is bias here, and the bias is in those proposing to remove the article. When I saw the preceding MfD, I said I had never seen such an unparalleled attempt on WP to shut off discussion of a topic . This is far worse, almost to the point of parody.. This is worse because it is an attempt to imposer sa particular narrow orthodoxy on not only what the encyclopedia can include, but on what can even be discussed here about what should be included. The deletion proposal is entirely antithetical to the very idea of science and of a NPOV encyclopedia, or of civilized discussion of any sort. The question of what we should cover can always be discussed, and any heretical views can be expressed that are not outright bigotry (and in user space, there's a very wide tolerance for even that) . The proposal to remove this essay--that is outright bigotry. It's the very essence of bigotry, a refusal to admit even the possibility that one might have been wrong, and a refusal to let anyone who disagrees with oneself expres their opinions. . Ift here ever was censorship here, this is it. If there ever was prejudice and bias and POV editing here, this it. If there ever was an attempt to make us look foolish in the eyes of the world, this is it. If there ever was an example of the harm that could be done to the encyclopedia by editors who have lost all sense of proportion, this is it. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @DGG: Have you even read the essay or are you just arguing to make a point? The essay literally begins by quoting a satirical comic show, then makes a parody attempt at Bayesian probability, before arguing that WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RS should be conveniently ignored because "scientists are an unethical bunch full of conflicts of interests" (if that isn't WP:FLAT, I don't know what is). It then complains about "unfair treatment" of editors who go out of their way to irritate fellow contributors, by making dubious essays and attempting all sorts of other, non-consensus building activities... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said I agreed with the essay, but yes, I do think that even that opinion can be expressed. And I would say that scientists who try to supress the opinion of the public about their work--even the most benighted opinion of the public about their work, are acting in defiance of the norms of their profession. Fortunately, most scientists do nothing of that sort, except that a few seem to be trying to do it on WP. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an individual's userspace. Wikipedia:Verifiability is not required in userspace.

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable."

No policy or guidelines have been presented why this page should be deleted. --Guest2625 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is WP:NOTWEBHOST" "Wikipedia pages, including those in user space, are not personal web pages. Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia."

You can't create an essay that consist of arguments as to why Hitler was a great guy (which he wasn't), why The Princess Bride is a great movie, (which it was), why we should hire you, or why the holocaust never happened. You can't use Wikipedia to host material that is pro-choice, pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gun, or your claim that the Moon landings were faked. You appear to believe that you can put anything in your userspace. No. You can't. You can only present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. This essay isn't even close. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, there is for almost all of these a connection with how we present these issues in WP. This is especially true when written in connection withs actual editing in mainspace or article talk space. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One indent level per reply, please. Would you venture to guess what the consensus would be if I were to post an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) asking whether the opinions in the above list have "a connection with how we present these issues in WP" and therefore are allowed in userspace? I have strong opinions on a number of topics which I never talk on Wikipedia other than staying away from articles where I might have trouble remaining neutral. In your opinion, would Wikipedia be good choice for a free web host to present these strong opinions to the world? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The examples you gave are fundamentally different. The moon landings being faked is supported/deemed plausible by exactly zero reliable sources and will never make it into the encyclopedia. The others are just expressing opinions on political issues which are quite irrelevant to Wikipedia (which does not give political opinions) and which therefore fails WP:NOTWEBHOST. This essay is advocating for a specific piece of information, that is at least vaguely plausible, to be included on Wikipedia and I have no problem with that at all. Zoozaz1 talk 15:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above argument (many things are not allowed in essays but this specific thing is allowed) is a perfectly reasonable argument. I may not agree but we are both arguing within existing policies. DGG's argument (that pretty much anything is allowed in an essay) is not reasonable and goes against multiple existing policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Concerns have been raised that the essay violates the policy What Wikipedia is not. Specifically,

"Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia."

Volteer1 below has addressed this concern by noting the following quote from the essay

This unique WP:COI editing issue, if unsolved, is bad for Wikipedia, which relies heavily on scientists and their publications to provide information on COVID-19.

The essay presents information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. No convincing argument has been provided for why this essay in an individual's userspace should be deleted. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guest2625: in your view this satisfies the requirement that the page should "primarily" be presenting such information? Alexbrn (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry for the confusion. The essay as a whole passes the requirement as "presenting information relevant to the work on the encyclopedia". I highlighted "primarily" as an aside that Wikipedia also has room for humorous non-work related essays. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word "primarily" is, yes, part of the policy, and you didn't answer my question. I therefore assume from your !vote you do think this user-space item is primarily presenting information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Alexbrn (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is correct. This essay is presenting information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. However, I was also stating that the policy clause even has room for essays in userspace that are not relevant to work on the encyclopedia. I am interpreting "primarily" to mean that most of an individual's userspace pages should be work-relevant; however, some userpace pages can be non-work-relevant. It would be in error if this policy was used to delete humour from wikipedia's userspace. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like either WP:WL or a misunderstanding, as if you're reinterpreting "they should be used primarily" to mean "a majority of them should be used". By your reading it would be possible to have (say) 5 pages of relevant content allowing a "free hit" page of personal blog or company advertisement. This goes against the onward text of the policy which says user pages should provide "a foundation for effective collaboration". Do you believe the page under discussion provides such a foundation? Alexbrn (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was discussing "primarily" specifically in regards to the phrase "relevant to work". Most of an individual's userpages should be work-relevant; however, some of an individual's userpages can be, for instance, humorous or light-hearted wikitrivia of little work-relevant benefit.

It would not be possible to have a "free hit" page, a personal blog page, or company advertisement. Wikipedia has policy and guidelines which do not allow these types of userpages (e.g. WP:Attack, WP:UP#GOALS, and WP:UP#PROMO, respectivley). A new concern that you raise is that the essay violates the What Wikipedia is not policy clause:

"The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration."

The essay provides a foundation for effective collaboration. If one wishes to know more about the editor's views, they have provided an essay which presents their opinion in a friendly and collaborative fashion in their userspace. If one is not interested in the editor's opinion one can also avoid reading their userspace opinion. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guest2625: There's a very large difference between legitimate criticism of policies to further improvement of them and pieces whose sole purpose is to dispute those policies to push a point of view. Wikipedia is "an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect". This essay is not a means to that end: it shows disinterest in building a "high-quality" encyclopedia, it shows disinterest in mutual respect (of other editors, of scientists, of policy), it shows disinterest in the fact that Wikipedia is not a blog, and it shows disinterest in collaboration (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). To that extant, there's no justifiable reason to keep this, unless we're also going to allow userspace to become Blogspot 2.0. And that's not going to happen. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We had essentially this exact same discussion before at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Adoring_nanny/Essays/Lab_Leak_Likely, and the general consensus was that users have very wide discretion to do what they want in their own userspace, at least as long as there is some tangential relation to Wikipedia. This essay does have a tangential relation to Wikipedia, so it should not be deleted. Mlb96 (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (1) Users opinions should not have to please others. Readers can judge for themselves the validity of this opinion. (2) MEDRS should be for issues that affect health. No one is going to get better or sicker based upon where the disease came from. (3) There are large, large number of issues that affect the likelihood of a lab leak. The number of people traveling from bat caves to Wuhan. China's various censorship, jailings and "disappearances" of critics. The reasonableness of the wet market claims. Conflicts of interest among many "scientists". The recent emails of many scientists. Attempts to mislead readers as to who was writing a journal letter. The significance of any of these. Virologists are no better at determining the significance of most of these than the next person. In some cases they are less so. The significance of these are largely matters of opinion, not mathematics. (4) This is part of a large pattern of users being reverted, censored, deleted and banned on this issue. 2601:5C4:4301:217C:50A8:1452:FBBC:C5C (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC) — 2601:5C4:4301:217C:50A8:1452:FBBC:C5C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  That's not how it goes on Wikipedia. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Guy Macon's reasoning about WP:NOTWEBHOST and You can only present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia, which singlehandedly destroys every piece of Keep reasoning written here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read it? This unique WP:COI editing issue, if unsolved, is bad for Wikipedia, which relies heavily on scientists and their publications to provide information on COVID-19. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right, let's just remove everything scientists say from all articles about science, since they have a conflict of interest. And then let's write whatever we want that has nothing to do with improving encyclopedias, and add a single sentence that does, justifying all the offtopic editorializing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RANDY ascendant!. Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said the essay is very bad, but it's not just one line that's directly related to Wikipedia: One suggestion is to use WP:COMMONSENSE when editing articles on COVID-19 origins. A related suggestion is not to exclusively rely on "peer-reviewed scientific journal articles" for sourcing purposes. Ridiculous? Yes. Off-topic? No. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that particular line just makes it clear that there are also some CIR issues here, although admittedly I have to question whether competence has ever truly been required to edit Wikipedia. Hyperion35 (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, just as we kept Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Adoring_nanny/Essays/Lab_Leak_Likely. Edit: I've struck my Keep !vote, as the pertinent issue now seems to be Normchou's topic ban, and I don't know enough about the breadth of that topic ban (or TBANS in general really) to comment on how it should apply to pre-existing userspace essays. To be clear I still don't think there's a policy based reason, (potentially) outside of their topic ban, to delete the essay. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments in the essay are very bad, but this is well within the leeway we allow in userspace. The essay doesn't violate policies like WP:NOTWEBHOST or WP:NOTADVOCACY, you are allowed to make on-topic essays in your userspace even if you argue them badly, and there is nothing even remotely tangential to medical advice readers could try and extract from it.

As an irrelevant note to people calling this a "travesty of/called mathematics", while that shouldn't really be relevant, it is not true. The math here is correct, albeit unnecessary and (probably intentionally) obfuscatory when the only purpose it serves is to cement the intuition that if "an outbreak of a novel coronavirus disease is first detected near a lab that studies novel coronaviruses", your credence that it leaked from a lab should be higher than before you knew that fact. Bayes theorem is exactly correct, and his application of it correct, the problem is just that when doing bayesian inference you can update priors off a very limited amount of information, plug in random numbers, and get out really any result that you want; this kind of thing only serves to misleadingly bolster what is a very simple and mundane point. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Guy already said it, there are blog hosting services out there and Wikipedia isn't that. —PaleoNeonate – 10:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per WP:NOTWEBHOST, user pages should present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia and I found the information presented on this page very relevant for my work here. CutePeach (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a forum. Wikipdia is not an opinion site. At least, in theory and according to the rules that seem to get ignored whenever it's popular or politically convenient to do so. Generally speaking, user essays should be allowed, but not if they violate Wikipedia's rules and especially when the entire point of an essay is to violate multiple rules and act as a soapbox for conspiracy theories. I had strong opinions about the last US elections, would I have been allowed to write an essay about it? There are plenty of politicians and government officials who I think are liars and crooks, but Wikipedia is not the place for me to write an essay about that either. I have strong feelings about the F1 race I just watched, but Wikipedia is not the place for that either (by contrast, an essay about the proper way to cover the race would be appropriate). Hyperion35 14:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not your blog. We open a can of worms by allowing heavily opinionated essays like this to squat in userspace.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is also worth pointing out that the NOLABLEAK essay, in contrast to this one, is primarily aimed at providing a repository of sources, as well as relevant PAGs, for the purposes of building better and more accurate articles on the subject, and specifically building articles in ways that fit within those various PAGs. It is an example of why user essays exist, as it assists us in building better articles. By contrast, this essay is primarily an opinion. To the extent that it says anything about building better articles, it explicitly advises against Wikipedia PAGs, in ways that would objectively make articles worse.

  And make no mistake, people WILL take essays like this and pretend that they are official PAGs, just look at the number of times that people have pretended that there is a real rule requiring three good sources to keep an article at AfD (there is no such rule, there was a user essay on the subject, one that has since been pulled back to userspace, I think). So sure, keep this essay, if you're willing to deal with dozens of people citing it as a reason to ignore PAGs when writing articles, and the inevitable drama that will follow. Sure, edit-warring by CIR editors egged on by a lowest-common-denominator user essay is exactly what I woke up this morning thinking Wikipedia was lacking! Hyperion35 (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The essay is ridiculous and only portray its creator in a negative light, but it is not a violation of any policy. It may became a violation (and probably will be deleted) if the user will be topic banned from the corresponding subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Overlooking for a moment that it is a user space, nowadays there is an overabundance of material that guides us to the hypothesis of a laboratory leak, whether they are official sources or simple logical reflections on the large and evident attempt to cover up of the matter. I am not speaking only of Chinese organs, but also of leading international figures, just look at the Andersen case: He publicly denied that the virus was engineered and after 9 hours he wrote privately to Fauci that it could have been. I don't want to push any particular theory, especially that of genetic modifications, but the circumstantial evidence is really too much and the absence of minimally decent evidence in favor of a zoonosis now weighs a ton.--Francesco espo (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC) — Francesco espo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Your argument is wrong on many aspects, including the Andersen emails (about which you're spreading misinformation, see this from Politifact). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So what? There is also an overabundance of material that guides us to the hypothesis of astrology, homeopathy, creationism and so on. The problem is that the quality of all that material is not high enough to make Wikipedia articles say, yes, homeopathy works, or yes, the lab leak is probably true. Is moving the profringe advocacy to user space the right solution? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  RandomCanadian i don't know what to do with your sources, i have experienced these events firsthand, i was there. Politifact is the same one who was able to define the lab leak theory as "pants on fire" last year, and then run miserably for cover in the last month after having demonstrated that it has implemented a disinformation campaign for over a year. Andersen publicly said that Cotton was crazy for speculating about the lab leak and after 9 hours he privately wrote to Fauci that maybe the virus could be engineered. Full stop. And please, stop tagging me as a SPA. It is rude and unprofessional. --Francesco espo (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The only thing that is rude and unprofessional is you trying to get your opinion above that of the sources. Politifact and the BBC are reliable, (see the relevant article) and they, as well as other sources, describe how those emails have been misinterpreted. You have no valid reason to dismiss them. As for the Andersen email, the sources and the scientist himself clearly describe it as a preliminary hypothesis, before proper application of the scientific method ruled it out. Now stop engaging in OR. What you or I think about it is irrelevant, and you should not use Wikipedia to spread your own opinions, especially not when you self-admittedly also run an advocacy website on the subject, giving you a clear conflict of interest. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  RandomCanadian the sources are not the word of God, they are written by humans like you and me and, as they have shown, they have not been able to understand anything about the theory of laboratory leaks for over a year. Now we're looking at their goofy U-turns. Really reliable on that one! My site is totally ad-free, I don't make any money from it, I had to build it to overcome the enormous censorship present almost everywhere in the past. At the time it could not be talked about on Facebook, partly on Twitter, obviously zero on Wikipedia, fot newspapers was all about conspiracies, and it was bad enough for those who experience science firsthand and just need some sort of investigation to reveal the truth. Can you call it COI? If one day you push like us for an investigation and find out that a zoonosis has occurred I'll be a happy boy and apologize to the other fence of thinkers, but please, let's argue and investigate, don't censor! Francesco espo (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't really matter whether the sources are factually correct or not. Reliable sources reflect the best understanding of authoritative and learned figures/bodies as of the time they were written. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that summarises secondary sources. Editors who have novel thought, research or investigation to share should do so by contacting a reliable media outlet or scholarly journal to get their work published. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That is ok in theory but in practice editors like you and RandomCanadian want to censor some sources so that Wikipedia presents only your POV. These selfish choices are not in favor of the world population who read wikipedia. Many RSs and even MEDRSs published addendums and corrections, but that doesn't effect Wikipedia editors like you, RandomCanadian and the OP of this discussion that have just made an edit to Drastic Team claiming that they are "promoting COVID-19 conspiracy theories". I hope that those closest to this discussion understand what is going on here.--Francesco espo (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Of course we have opinionated stuff in userspace, and it is about Wikipedia. Oh well, Wikipedia is a good place to look up things like nucleotides. Art LaPella (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No offence but this is surely just trolling? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's trolling, doing bayesian analysis for what would otherwise be a very simple point and plugging in random numbers is a common thing people do on the internet. See for instance "Is Bernie Sanders a Crypto-Communist? A Bayesian Analysis", argued in good faith by Bryan Caplan (which I can't link to because econlib is blacklisted). It is, unfortunately, a thing. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Random numbers" are for demonstration purposes only. People are free to use their own conditioning, plug in their own degrees of belief, and get their own results. Or they can just use common sense. Unfortunately, some Wikipedians here seem unable to do either. Normchou ^💬 04:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the numbers are made up, and people are free to inject their own beliefs, then it sounds like this essay falls under WP:NOTMADEUP. Hyperion35 (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is irrelevant to an essay in userspace because WP:NOTMADEUP is a content guideline associated with the article namespace. Also, what people think/do when reading something on WP (whether it's an article or an essay) has nothing to do with any community policy or guideline, and is none of your or my business. Normchou ^💬 06:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You keep doing that, and it is becoming a serious problem. WP:NOTMADEUP says:

"Wikipedia is not for things that you and/or your friends made up. If you have invented something in school, the lab, your garage, or the pub, and it has not yet been featured in reliable sources, do not write about it on Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website, blog or social media instead."

You are reading far too much into someone's decision to add a page to a particular category. Yes, we especially don't want things that you and/or your friends made up in articles because that is what the readers see, what is indexed by search engines, etc., but any reasonable person reading that would conclude that Wikipedia -- all of Wikipedia -- is not for things that you and/or your friends made up. Policies that are for articles only usually start with "Wikipedia articles are not for..." instead of "Wikipedia is not for...". Again, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UPNOT specifically prohibit you from hosting things that you and/or your friends made up in your user space. Get your own website, blog or social media account and post the things that you and/or your friends made up there. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re we especially don't want things: Who are "we"? Per User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles: "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." I thought everyone was here because of a clear understanding of WP's principles, but now I see what is really going on. Normchou ^💬 17:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Guy was using "we" as in "the project of wikipedia" AKA "all editors" in a casual fashion. I don't really see any reason to read a "cabal" into that. WP:TINC certainly applies.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon what would convince me of there not being a cabal here is putting COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis [2] through an AfD and not seeing all the same names show up. CutePeach (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, because specific editors are interested in a topic and happen to have somewhat similar opinions that means there is some sort of "cabal" among them? I just don't see how that makes any sort of sense. Zoozaz1 talk 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." (Benjamin Franklin) I can imagine scientists reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them, but that wouldn't require the secret communication of a cabal. Art LaPella (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the WP:NOT policy, applying in all namespaces. Specifically Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, WP:NOTOPINION, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to spread the 'original thought' of its editors, doubly so when that thought is misleading. Editors seeking to get their opinions on Wikipedia should contact a reliable source to get them published. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a free web host, particularly for screeds that argue for the undermining of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Normchou Normchou is indefinitely topic banned from COVID-19, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Note that WP:TBAN states the following: "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed"." This means that further edits to this page by the OP are not allowable. However, I don't think that alone constitutes an argument for speedy deletion, since TBANs cover future edits and not previous ones.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...Which means that I, or anyone else, could delete the content of the page and replace it with an essay based upon the material at User talk:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak. Normchou would then technically not be allowed to revert the edit. In my opinion, that would be unfair, and if I noticed such a thing I would revert the edit.

I am going to make an official decision in my role as King of Wikipedia:^{[Citation Needed]} Normchou, may offer an opinion regarding whether this page should be deleted without violating their topic ban. But only on whether the page should be deleted, not re-arguing why you think you are right. If anybody complains, tell them that I said so, preferably with a citation to a reliable source that supports my claim to the throne.   :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'd like to point out that there's precedent for banned users having troublesome COVID-19 related talk-space content removed (though I think these were instances of total bans, not topic). A list of pro-lab-leak links comes to mind as the most notable example. I would agree it should not be an automatic/default blanking of talk-space content, but it should be taken into account if the content is problematic. Given the explicit linkage to the topic user was banned for (it's not a general 'use common sense' essay, it's a 'COVID-19 lab leak because common sense' essay), and that the essay was written after the ArbCom case was filed, I think this is justifies labeling the content as inherently problematic enough to delete. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I count 10 deletes and 11 keeps so far, though that might change now that there is a TBAN. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the WP:VOTE count is noteworthy, my understanding is it shouldn't be the primary determining factor in the decision. Policy arguments can (should?) outweigh votes. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right, Thus my "for what it is worth" comment. I expect the closer to come to a conclusion about whether and how WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UPNOT, WP:MEDRS, and WP:NOCOMMON apply. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Leaving aside the somewhat unfocused discussion above, the relevant site policy applying to this material is WP:USERPAGE, which states in part that userspace pages may not contain "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)."
  It's arguably legitimate for Normchou to express his opinions, however misguided or statistically unsound, about the origin of Covid-19. But the page in question goes further, and vilifies virologists by implying a conspiracy on their parts to suppress investigation into the lab-leak hypothesis. The essay would probably pass muster (as misguided but allowable) if the "conflict of interest" section were removed, or edited to be less blatantly conspiracist.
  Separately, as a practical matter, Normchou has been topic-banned from pages related to Covid-19 indefinitely via WP:AE. His topic ban renders him unable to edit the page, and it should probably be removed on that basis alone. MastCell ^Talk 18:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I do not think this is a Wikipedia:Attack page. Should it be deleted because of the topic ban? I am not sure because the topic ban does not apply retroactively. But in any case, why would anyone care (or should care) about his essay? Just let it be. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just seems weird, and untenable, to leave a page in Normchou's userspace that he is forbidden to edit because of his topic ban. MastCell ^Talk 19:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, yes, maybe, but it does not bother me, and it would not bother me at all even if I were a virologist. My very best wishes (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You make a compelling point for keeping the essay text up (I can't think of a counter-argument that doesn't end up with troubling consequences for otherwise benign orphaned pages). Perhaps the conversation might be better shifted to the WP:LABLEAK redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 19#Wikipedia:LABLEAK. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The essay clearly includes material related to editing Wikipedia. Also, WP:WORTH says that "Writings that contradict policy are somewhat tolerated within the User namespace.", which tacitly imply that essays in user space do not necessarily need to adhere to policy. I can see this essay as a useful step towards a reform to the use of reliable sources when a particular scientist is suspected of conflict of interest. This is the case with the review (a MEDRS) written by Shi Zheng-Li on COVID-19 origin in which she exonerates her lab of all responsibility. If we were to strictly follow WP:MEDRS, if the journal considered that her declaring no COI when publishing that review was Ok, we are not qualified to override their decision, and should also believe there is no COI. However, by common sense, we have chosen to be cautious citing that paper. With the case of Peter Dazsak possible COI, we also lack the tools to do anything but trust that RS are wiser than we are in dealing with his statements being non-COI. Perhaps, this essay will lead to a discussion in which editors can reduce the weight given to scientists currently under investigation of COI charges (that seems to be happening with Daszak this week, with the Lancet editorial that asked him to declare againg possible competing interest to a previous letter, or him being recused from a team investigating the origin). If we supress this essay we would hurt the inputs that would ultimately be used in those future discussions, even if the community is to decide that our current policies are fine, the preemptive censorship of ideas is against the collaborative spirit of the Wikipedia project, in my opinion. Forich (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Material related to editing Wikipedia should be broadly related - not just related to a user's displeasure with a consensus, lack thereof, etc. While Wikipedia should be tolerant of viewpoints and not sanction users over the views they hold, that does not mean that a user is free to use their userspace to merely act as a blog to discuss their viewpoints. Merely including a few points that are somewhat related to editing Wikipedia does not make an essay appropriate. Furthermore, when a user has now on two occasions shown that they are not able to edit constructively in a topic area, it seems that any keep rationale based on the fact that it's "related to editing Wikipedia" falls flat - if someone can't edit constructively (and in this case has been topic banned a second time), they shouldn't be permitted to use their userspace to attempt to bring people along with their unconstructive editing style. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not even close to a hard decision. Normchou being indefinitely topic-banned from COVID-19 topics alone should be sufficient, without even touching violation of the MEDRS guidelines and the misuse of Wikipedia as a substitute blog. As well, the Warriors Fighting For Free Speech, For Freedom are in the wrong place. --Calton | Talk 07:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We should not be a webhost for personal conspiracy theories, doubly-so for now-banned users. ValarianB (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ValarianB: I don't think Normchou is banned? Is there some back story I am missing? PackMecEng (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Normchou Terjen (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah got ya, I see now. Thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Jon Steward is not an expert on the topic, for starters. In general, this page is not relevant to the encyclopedia and would be best housed on the user's personal blog. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment This page mentions Bayes' theorem, but what is the probability that a coronavirus will occur in nature and cause a pandemic?--SilverMatsu (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps happening again and again.

Many coronaviruses cause disease in animals. Seven are known to cause disease in humans, and all seven appear to have animal origins. Four of the seven (229E, OC43, NL63, and HKU1) cause 15-30% of cases of the common cold, and occasionally cause bronchiolitis and pneumonia, which can be fatal in the elderly and those with suppressed immune systems.

Three of the seven human known coronaviruses cause severe -- sometimes fatal -- respiratory infections. They are:

• SARS-CoV-2 (late 2019)
• MERS-CoV (2012)
• SARS-CoV (2002)

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this, coronaviruses appear to be highly promiscuous zoonoses. SARS-CoV-2, for example, has features that have often been characterized as suboptimal for infecting humans, but "good enough" for infecting a wide variety of mammals (including, obviously, humans). It's sort of like how in sports, you might have a guy who can play one position and play it very well, and you might have another guy who can play multiple different positions, but he's not the best guy for any of them. The second guy often has a long career across a wide number of teams because they can slot him in just about anywhere that they need an extra player. Coronaviruses are like that, they're the "utility infielder" of viruses. They're not as specialized as viruses that infect only certain specific species, but their ability to cross species barriers makes them exceptional candidates for emerging zoonotic diseases, and zoonotic diseases tend to be deadly because we have no existing immunity, and also because viruses that cross species barriers tend to behave in unpredictable ways (for example, Ebola probably doesn't cause acute hemorragic fever and death in its natural host population, although we haven't definitively located it yet).

Coronaviruses and influenzaviruses are the two main groups of zoonoses that epidemiologists and public health workers have been worrying about, and those worries have been here for several decades now, it's why people panicked about SARS, MERS, Bird Flu, and Swine Flu, all in the past 20 years. Basically, according to the experts, a deadly worldwide respiratory zoonotic virus pandemic has always been a matter of "when" not "if". Also, these things don't have any sort of "double jeopardy" rule, and this current pandemic does not mean that we "reset" and get another century until the next one. If the next coronavirus outbreak is sufficiently different from SARS-COV-2 to get past our vaccines, or if there's a new and incredibly dangerous variant of influenza, we could easily find ourselves doing this all over again in another decade or two if we are not vigilant. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. This time it was natural vs. lab, so I should have said it on "the earth". And I overlooked thinking about "when". And I don't sure if this essay (A simple calculation) takes these conditions into account.--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, does this discussion need to be listed in the Mathematics deletion discussions ? --SilverMatsu (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently, the essay needs to be related to working with wikipedia, and this essay isn't related to it.--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The two main arguments for deletion both fail to pass muster:
  1. WP:NOTWEBHOST—the essay does in fact primarily present information relevant to work on WP.
  2. WP:MEDRS—It is not at all obvious, and there is no consensus[3], for the claim that MEDRS applies to the origins of COVID-19. Stonkaments (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of those arguments is convincing to me either, but they're also sort of beside the point. The material fails WP:UP#NOT, specifically by vilifying groups of people (in this case, virologists and scientists). More to the point, since Normchou was topic-banned for disruptive editing around Covid-19, I don't see how keeping an inflammatory set of his assertions on the topic in his userspace is helpful to the project in any way. And since he's not allowed to edit the page anymore, anyone else can come in, change the page, and Normchou wouldn't be able to do anything about it. All in all, this seems like an untenable situation on a practical, common-sense level. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Raising the issue of potential biases and conflicts of interest among virologists is not vilifying them, especially considering many reliable sources have highlighted these same potential biases and conflicts of interest[4][5][6][7]. As for keeping a user's subpage that discusses a topic from which the editor has been topic-banned, I agree that it's a little weird, but that doesn't strike me as a satisfactory reason to delete it. Stonkaments (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Stonkaments sums it up well, but also because we kept the other essay. People can make arguments we disagree with, and I personally believe Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHOUGHTPOLICE. Levivich 19:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - same as User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely, which was also kept at MfD. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; how many times must we have the exact same argument? Which circle of Hell are we trapped in? Suffer not the misinformatsiya and disinformatsiya to live... in all seriousness, I can't imagine meaningfully distinguishing between "essays" (essays we agree with) and "screeds" (essays we disagree with) -- at that point, why don't we just abolish userspace entirely, or make every userspace page go through an AfC process where the Council of Proper Thought needs to sign off on it? Boy, that'd be fun!!! In the meantime, getting into arguments with people about politics and then prowling around their userspace to find things you can nominate for deletion seems to be pretty bad form. jp×g 18:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't much understand it, but it's not harmful (some people act like even talking about some aspect of the lab leak theory without immediately calling it a conspiracy theory will cause their mom's teeth to fall out and their house to burn down). --Animalparty! (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:USERESSAY - According to Wikipedia policy, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." These are similar to essays placed in the Wikipedia namespace; however, they are often authored/edited by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia or its processes (e.g., User:Jehochman/Responding to rudeness). It can be contradictory, it's strictly a personal POV. Relative to POLEMICS - nothing. It's an essay in user space - a topic ban cannot be retroactive as was already pointed out above - he just can't edit it or talk about it while under the t-ban. Lab leak? Circumstances of the debate have changed according to NBC. Even when there's no smoking gun (yet), we handle it just like we did with the Russia collusion theories, we included them all and we cite the sources. The lab leak theory is a notable and relevant topic that has gotten worldwide attention. Atsme 💬 📧 00:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the TBAN is indefinite[8]. So unless Normchou successfully appeals, he can never edit this user essay or its talk page.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Largely because of the rather convincing arguments presetned by Stonkaments & JPxG. The argument presented at the top is of course no applicable, MedRS does not cover this. I am also not seeing any inappropriate use of user space here or use of it to attack people. Just a user essay. While rather unfortunate that the creator was infinitely topic banned from covid, as well all know indefinite is not the same as infinite and that is not a legit reason to delete. So baring any policy based arguments, of which I see shockingly few, I see no reason to delete. PackMecEng (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST, as far as I can see this is basically just an excuse to ramble on about nothing for a few paragraphs, and is only masquerading as related to the project. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - At face value, it's indistinguishable from pseudoscience. It doesn't matter whether some parts of it might be true, it's still pseudoscience. The use of Bayesianism is a specific form of modern pseudoscience associated with Internet "rationalism". Wikipedia's purpose is not served by hosting pseudoscientific essays. Grayfell (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Grayfell: I'm not sure what you mean here. Bayes' theorem is very well-known among mathematicians and programmers (who use it often; Bayesian Network Classifiers (Friedman 1997) has over 6,000 citations). If you think that Normchou has applied it in a stupid or incorrect way here, that's fine (I am not an expert in statistics and can't vouch for their reasoning), but to be casually anti-science in this way makes no sense to me. jp×g 04:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no anti-science in Grayfell's comment. It's just that certain legitimate scientific and technical concepts are widely appropriated by pseudoscience proponents.

So if you see someone talking about...

• Lines of energy / energy fields
• The second law of thermodynamics
• Quantum mechanics
• One-time-pad
• Blockchain
• Computer model
• Bayesian probability
• "Supporting the body's natural ability to..."

...they may be a sceintist or engineer talking about the real thing, but the odds are that they are someone spewing out incredible amounts of bullshit with a sciency topping. Which this essay's use of the phrase "Bayesian" clearly is. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bayes' theorem is not in itself a valid argument for or against anything. It's just a formula which takes some input probabilities and calculates other probabilities based on them. The input probabilities are things which are usually easier to calculate/estimate than the output probabilities. It is very much subject to the garbage in, garbage out principle: if the input probabilities are very wrong then the answer will also be very wrong. Here there is no basis whatsoever for the input numbers, as Normchou made them up, so the outputs are also just Normchou's personal opinion. However presenting them in a sciency way with lots of equations makes it look a lot more convincing than one person's personal opinion, in a way which can be easily exploited by pseudoscience proponents. Hut 8.5 12:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, this is what I was trying to get at. Bayes' theorem is a mathematical toolbox, and like any tool it can be used or abused for different purposes. These tools are widely abused to make something seem more scientific than it actually is. This essay is another example of that abuse. That's why I described it as pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While I don't really agree with the argument I think discussion in userspace is ok Tim333 (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UP#POLEMIC. This essay has very little relevance to Wikipedia at all, it's just an attempt by the author to advocate their own opinion on a topic which has nothing to do with Wikipedia but which they'd like to see in Wikipedia articles. If that is an acceptable use of userspace then there's nothing to stop people writing essays advocating their opinion on any topic whatsoever, since Wikipedia's aim is to cover the whole of human knowledge. Furthermore the logic used in the essay is completely antithetical to that actually used by Wikipedia, since it starts with some original research based on numbers the author made up before moving on to arguing that Wikipedia should disregard the scientific consensus on scientific topics (contradicting WP:UNDUE / WP:FRINGE). Hut 8.5 15:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I do have to disagree with the idea suggested below that the essay should be kept because it's "contextualised in terms of editing Wikipedia". This essay is only relevant to Wikipedia in that it advocates giving greater weight to the author's POV in Wikipedia. If that's enough then userspace essays can be used to advocate almost anything. A creationist could write a userspace essay advocating creationism and justify it by saying they want to see more creationism in scientific articles. A supporter of a politician could write an essay about why that politician is so great and justify it by saying that Wikipedia's coverage of that politician should be more positive. Hut 8.5 16:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This relates to my comment below, so I will reply here. The comment was in reference to why NOTESSAY does not apply (not as part of a keep !vote) since it explicitly excludes essays in userspace. Polyamorph (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Normchou can perfectly use his space as draft/sandbox or to manifest his POV. Essay is succinct, it does not take a lot of space. Topic contained is pending scientific concensus and still hotly debated and cannot be labeled ad fringe. Sgnpkd (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three points: First, Normchou currently topic banned from Covid-19. This essay was written as an extension of the kind of behavior that lead to a topic ban. Even if Normchou changes his POV, he cannot update his essay, nor can he even correct any errors. Therefore this isn't even an accurate manifestation of his POV.

Second, using pseudoscience to come to conclusions is still pseudoscience, even if those conclusions may, eventually, turn out to be correct. In this sense it is WP:FRINGE, and fringe content interferes with Wikipedia's goals as a fact-based encyclopedia.

Third, since Wikipedia is not a webhost, nor a platform for original research, nor a social networking platform, this essay is not in line with Wikipedia's goals or policies and doesn't improve the project, nor does it even directly discuss how anyone would improve the project. Grayfell (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is the wrong place to host essays that are not themselves about Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing in this essay is relevant to working on the encyclopedia and therefore it fails WP:WEBHOST. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Possible webhost violations, and the user is tbanned from the essay topic dudhhr_Contribs 00:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These sorts of personal opinion essays don't belong on Wikipedia. This is just the sort of thing that resulted in their topic ban in this very area. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:UPGOOD, personal essay in userspace that holds zero weight in any discussion. People are allowed to express opinions, even if they are wrong! In some sense at least this lays bear the users' bias.Polyamorph (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Being in user space does not give carte blanche to write whatever one wishes. See WP:UP#GOALS: "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)". This essay ticks of, at the absolute very least, the first two of those... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course it doesn't, especially in the case of harmful/abusive content. But this is a users' opinion related to wikipedia content. Users are entitled to free expression, even if it is a minority viewpoint. Polyamorph (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Because it is in userspace.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTWEBHOST....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  NOTESSAY explicitly exempts essays in userspace. Polyamorph (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Never let page content get in the way of a good shortcut. Levivich 05:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it says (Personal essays on Wikipedia-related topics are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki.) I don't really think this fulfils that criterion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The essay is contextualised in terms of editing Wikipedia. You might not like what it says, but NOTESSAY certainly does not prohibit it. Polyamorph (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If the other lab leak essays are editing-related, then so is this one. If an argument that something is WP:FRINGE is editing-related, than the counterargument that it's not FRINGE is also editing related. If "no lab leak" is editing-related, then so is "yes lab leak." (Same for flat earth, fake moon landing, whatever.) It doesn't matter how good/bad the argument/counterargument is. We can regulate topics but we can't regulate viewpoints on those topics. (Which is why we shouldn't have essays about why topics are or are not fringe. But in my view we've made that sickbed and now must lie in it.) Levivich 12:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  They're slightly distinct in my eyes. One has 50 references to high quality sources on a specific matter hotly debated on talk pages for over a year and provides a comprehensive summation of arguments. For the most part, it does not make any original claims, and most claims are cited to a source. Hence it has a project-improvement purpose. The other is the author doing their own novel Bayesian analysis on probabilities they made up, and also citing themselves (As Normchou pointed out in January 2021), and the only thing actually cited to a reliable source is one short sentence about a BLP having a COI.

  It is not that inherently any essay that argues for a lab leak is contrary to policy, but this specific one happens to be. And somehow most essays created to argue this specific viewpoint happen to be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The essays are very distinct in my eyes and I agree with your analysis of this one. What I disagree with is deciding whether a userspace essay should be deleted based on the quality of the argument it makes. I think when it comes to userspace essays, we should be content-neutral, we shouldn't delete an essay because we disagree with or aren't persuaded by or don't approve of or don't like its message. If a topic is related to Wikipedia, then all views on that topic should be allowed in userspace essays, regardless of how well sourced or well argued the view is. Otherwise we are engaging in censorship: allowing people to write essays about a topic but only if we agree with/are persuaded by/approve of/like it. That the "foo" essay makes a good argument and the "not foo" essay makes a bad argument is not a good reason to delete "not foo." It's a good reason to ignore it, but not deleting it. I actually think deleting this page is more harmful to the project than the page itself. The precedent of censorship is harmful in my view, but the essay is harmless (particularly because it makes such a poor argument). Levivich 14:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I do believe that PR's whole point was not about the quality of the argument, but about the very obvious focus of it. WP:NOLABLEAK is focused on editing Wikipedia. This essay is focused on arguing in favor of the lab leak. It doesn't provide any resources for editors and doesn't cover common arguments on WP about the subject. It just argues (incredibly badly) that the lab leak is likely. Even if it were incredibly compelling, instead of incredibly bad, it would still not be about editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I gave this one a lot of thought. I nearly wound up on the keep side of this, erring on the side of not policing userspace except when egregious, but after reviewing the content and rereading our guideline on the subject, I find it hard to come down anywhere but delete. Here's why: WP:UP#GOALS outlines how we don't permit Writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. From the outset, it's hard to see this essay as "closely related" to Wikipedia's goals regardless of the rest, in that it's largely a plea to use common sense about a subject irrespective of those pesky Wikipedia policies. But I'm specifically looking at the line Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.) - If this were a careful outline of an argument to include material on the lab leak theory, citing sources that have been deemed undue, etc. that would be one thing, but it combines a dismissal of basic policy with original research (a mathematical exercise based on made up numbers, for example) such that it has "virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project". The subject may be why this is attracting a lot of attention, but the subject is ultimately not relevant here. It might as well be some fan theory about Game of Thrones based on common sense, with fabricated probabilities, and "so that's why Wikipedia should consider fandom.com a reliable source" tacked onto the end. (Not to trivialize what is ultimately an important subject by comparisons to fiction -- I'm making a point that the subject is secondary in [at least my] decision to come down on the side of delete.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A related AfD was created for COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. Cunard (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - User Essays are an important part of Wikipedia. Unfortunately Normchou has been the subject of targeted and specific editing attacks by other users who adamantly dismiss the various lab leak theories, despite the WP community having already discussed these at length and reached consensus they are valid for inclusion in mainspace. The grounds proposed to delete this user essay is that it doesn't adhere to WP:MEDRS, but no reasoned argument with any justification or evidence has even been made as to why it *should* adhere to WP:MEDRS(!),.. and as other editors have pointed out there is ongoing debate with regards to the extent in which WP:MEDRS should apply to mainspace. I can therefore only come to the conclusion this is yet another targeted editing attack against the user by other editors pushing their POV, and I am committed to fighting WP:CPUSH regardless what editing space it exists in! Aeonx (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe that this essay now qualifies as "closely related to Wikipedia's goals" per WP:UP. As the SNOWing AfD demonstrates, the lab leak hypothesis is no longer considered WP:FRINGE but is rather held by a significant minority; productive debate is healthy regardless of what side you fall on. He ultimately advocates for a change in Wikipedia policy, which is very relevant regardless of how likely said change is to be implemented, so the essay is not simple political advocacy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the author himself is topic-banned from his own essay, he cannot contribute to any productive debate. He cannot discuss any changes to the essay, either. Since the essay is in user-space, nobody else will be able to edit it, as any changes would misrepresent the author's intent.

Whether or not some versions of the lab leak hypothosis are fringe, the essay's methods are fringe. Therefor, the essay's version of the hypothosis is fringe. Likewsie, using fringe methods to support a non-fringe conclusions is still fringe, and this is precisely why pseudoscience interferes with Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopedia. Further, this is a problem which cannot be proprly resolved, since, again, the author is topic banned. Grayfell (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider the fact that the author is topic-banned, but ultimately, I just don't see the benefit of suppressing one particular viewpoint from public view. The application of Bayes is mathematically correct, and I don't think the author ever tried to argue that the probability of a lab leak is actually 50%, but rather that a going from a uniform likelihood to a biased likelihood will change the posterior distribution even as the prior distribution is held constant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, because this is NOT an American Wikipedia. Honestly, many of us in the rest of the world don't give a damn about the idiotic US political games and their sandpit fight about whether the virus has been made in China or not, which is just another unimportant matter cleverly pumped up in order to polarise the US electorate alongside party lines. I personally believe that the esssay's premises are incorrect, the reasoning wrong; and the conclusions, unwarranted, but for heaven's sake it's not Orwell's world here, to discuss implausible theories is no crime against democracy nor against humanity folks! Yes this is userspace and yes, this essay does not cross the boundaries of the sort of content we allow in userspace. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kashmiri: Would it affect your vote if you knew that the user is topic banned from COVID-19, broadly construed, and therefore cannot edit their own essay? If you don't think it matters, I understand and that is of course completely up to you. But I just wanted to make sure you were aware, because you did not address it in your comment.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It wouldn't affect my vote in the slightest. We don't delete editors' previous contributions if they get a topic ban.

  Just to offer additional perspective – where I live (Europe) neither politicians nor ordinary people give a damn about the source of SARS-CoV-2 virus. It may have well originated in Europe, Africa, Australia, outer space, wherever. It's a non-issue here, just like nobody cares about the exact origin of HIV, bird flu, African swine fever, and so on. Would anyone care if an editor wrote an essay that argued (with sources) that African swine fever actually originated in Australia? I guess nobody except a few Australians.

  Similarly, I am all in favour to remove US politics from the COVID-19 pandemic on Wikipedia wherever possible. While the essay is not free from politics, neither are those (mostly US editors, I venture to guess) who push for its deletion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your perspective, though, respectfully, I am not sure you are completely right that Europeans/Australians don't care about the virus' origin, or that this is just a US-politics issue. Some prominent examples include international (Spanish, Italian, French, Indian, New Zealander) members of DRASTIC,^[1][2][3] and politicians from G7 countries.^[4][5] The scientists involved in the investigations also come from a wide variety of countries.^[6][7][8] Indeed, the editors involved from all perspectives in these articles come from a variety of countries. Many are not native english speakers (though of course their contributions are still appreciated). It's definitely not just a US politics issue... It may have started that way, and been fueled heavily by political operatives like Steve Bannon, but I don't think that's what the current state of affairs is all about.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

^ "Indian 'seeker' among sleuths who raised heat on lab theory". Hindustan Times. 5 June 2021. Retrieved 25 July 2021. ^ Colomé, Jordi Pérez (18 June 2021). "The online detectives sowing doubts about the origins of the pandemic". EL PAÍS. Retrieved 25 July 2021. ^ "The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19's Origins". Vanity Fair. 3 June 2021. Retrieved 25 July 2021. ^ "Germany adds to growing pressure on China over coronavirus origin". South China Morning Post. 21 April 2020. Retrieved 25 July 2021. ^ "Payne wants transparent probe into coronavirus origins independent of WHO". www.abc.net.au. 19 April 2020. Retrieved 25 July 2021. ^ Fay Cortez, Michelle. "The Last—And Only—Foreign Scientist in the Wuhan Lab Speaks Out". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved 25 July 2021. ^ Page, Jeremy; Hinshaw, Drew (27 May 2021). "Time Is Running Out in Covid-19 Origins Inquiry, Say WHO-Led Team Members". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 25 July 2021. ^ "TWiV 760: SARS-CoV-2 origins with Peter Daszak, Thea Kølsen Fischer, Marion Koopmans". 27 May 2021. Retrieved 25 July 2021.

• Yes, this is also a valid research question. Much like the origins of other viruses. But I hope you will agree that the current discussion, including this AfD, is not fuelled purely by academic interest. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is mostly a US politics issue, tbh. It rarely appears in non-US newspapers, and usually with low prominence. Look at Google Trends for keywords and most the hits are from within the US, with one spike from China. Other countries are practically 0 for search interest. No other countries are dedicating intelligence efforts to this. For the most part, it's just the US that cares, and probably just for the usual reasons. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Google trends is a flawed tool in assessing interest from worldwide audiences, especially in the global south and Asia. In China, for instance, Baidu is much more popular [9]. In Russia, Yandex is more popular [10]. In South Korea, Naver is more popular [11]. I would not dispute that this is a more popular topic in the United States vs elsewhere, but I would dispute that it is not really a topic of discussion elsewhere.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Which means that outside of he US, the default idea - zoonosis - rules. The pro-lab-leak camp is a US-specific thing. Like creationism. So, "this is US-specific" is not a valid reason to keep pro-lab-leak essays. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hob Gadling: Sorry, I don't think there are "camps" outside the US. There are simply various opinions among academics, although the zoonotic hypothesis appears to be the leading one, the only one widely accepted. You know, still, no two scientists agree with each other :D

  @ProcrastinatingReader: yep! — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Your grammar suggests that you are contradicting me, but how is I don't think there are "camps" outside the US not a confirmation of The pro-lab-leak camp is a US-specific thing? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My greatest sympathy goes out to the admin who is eventually going to have to close this mess.--WaltCip-(talk) 01:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It very much doesn't live up to the cost-benefit principle. It's an MfD of a page of very little import and minimal visibility. The time wasted in debating it, the closes, and the time spent by whoever closes this last, doesn't compare to the disruption created by the page at all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:USERESSAY mentions that user essays are "about Wikipedia or its processes", which is not what this essay is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.