Talk:Scientific Advisory Group for Origins of Novel Pathogens

Created Talk-page

Created the talk-page for the "Scientific Advisory Group for Origins of Novel Pathogens" article - Stay safe and healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Since half of the article was suddenly dedicated to the disputed claims of a person and that it's outside of their BLP, that those claims lacked context, I have removed it for now. This article isn't supposed to become a WP:POVFORK... The premise for these accusations is the idea that the the pandemic would have originated from a lab leak, something that is far from the scientific consensus. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/health/coronavirus-origins-alina-chan.html "The hypothesis, widely disputed by other scientists ..." Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of speculation, especially without putting it in context. —PaleoNeonate – 05:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding: I'm being generous to just remove it, because the context would include information on why she's not considered credible and that some even consider her a conspiracy theorist (the NYT source is enough to do it and there are more). —PaleoNeonate – 06:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• PaleoNeonate what is your policy based reasoning for removing criticism of SAGO? Logically, findings follow investigations (and not visa virsa), and the WHO and SAGO haven’t completed their investigations into the origins of the virus,and the WHO DG has said future investigations (unlike past investigations) must consider all hypotheses (including a lab leak). Please restore the criticism section as per WP:DUE.Francesco espo (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  WP:GEVAL and WP:NPOVFACT: "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia.", "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Wikipedia is not to promote minority views that attempt to discredit official major bodies especially those who's statements meet WP:MEDRS. The creator's intent was also clear considering this discussion. Also somewhat relevant is WP:NOTNEWS: the popular press is very different to an encyclopedia, journalism is commonly presented as a false balance of point of views. There's unfortunately also an incentive for scandal and clickbait. Moreover, journalists are not virologists, biologists, etc. This is also why when MEDRS exist on a topic, it should naturally take precedence. Without this, an explosion of scandals and fad diet promotion, dubious medical treatments, would all take over WP. In this particular case, it would be very different if the WHO issued retractions or erratas, rather than trying to dismiss them using fabricated public scandal or a few people's opinions that sometimes made the news. —PaleoNeonate – 22:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing this page with the WHO-convened study page I created. This page is about a WHO advisory committee that Alina Chan and Larry Gostin made critical comments about in WP:RS, and the relevant policy here is WP:DUE. WP:GEVAL and WP:NPOVFACT are not the relevant policies here and neither is WP:MEDRS, as Chan and Gostin's critique don't touch on WP:BMI. I'm pinging Barkeep49 to provide policy guidance, as he did on Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization. LondonIP (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• I would have to agree that creating an article which is more than 1/2 criticism in the body is a blatant WP:POVFORK. The proportion of content in the article should reflect (roughly) the proportion available in scholarly literature and high quality journalism. This article, if it were to simply have such criticism without context, background, or mainstream opinion, would be nothing more than a place for lab leak proponents to intellectually self-gratify. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

If this article is a "blatant" WP:POVFORK, then you may wish to nominate it for a merge or deleton. We have plenty of articles that are more than 1/2 criticism, as WP:DUE says we must represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. There is no specification for what kind of reliable sources are required, though I agree scholarly literature and high-quality journalism would be preferred, if available. LondonIP (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If this article is a "blatant" WP:POVFORK, then you may wish to nominate it for a merge or deleton

I will happily do the preferred thing you do not list, which is help edit this article to a consensus of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, etc. AfD/RfM would be inappropriate as I agree that SAGO is a notable entity. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

SAGO Preliminary Report

SAGO published their preliminary report, it can be found here. In my opinion it is ripe with new information, synthesis on old information, and most importantly, a fresh take on the general aspects of what should constitute an origins investigation. If I find the time this month, I'll propose edits myself based on this source. --Forich (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)