Talk:Gain-of-function research

Considering ongoing debates and recent event related to GoF research and COVID-19 origin, maybe we should reconsider calling this link "conspiracy theory" in article. This term may no longer fit given evolving discourse, US Congress hearings on GoF, NIH deputy director testimony on the matter, and NIH disbarring of EcoHealth Alliance. Such developments suggest needing more updated and nuanced coverage showing current scientific and policy discussion. Only the fourth referenced cited for the statement actually call it conspiracy, and it is from early 2020, so its potential OR in the case of the first three. A few US government scientists and researchers are on record questioning the link, as reported in a recent WSJ articles . IntrepidContributor (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• No per WP:NOLABLEAK and WP:PROFRINGE. TarnishedPath^talk 05:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  The former is an essay, not a policy, and the latter is precisely what is discussed by the above contributor, but dismissed out of hand.

  (Though apparently discussion is not what people are looking for, seeing as this editor was just banned indefinitely and I find myself next on the chopping block. A word to the wise to future editors trying to update the article; be very careful!) BabbleOnto (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  That editor was sanctioned by the community for making unfounded accusations against other editors, not for disagreeing in a discussion. And the ban is only until the editor retracts the accusations, which they can do at any time. I suggest you strike your comment. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's fair warning. Future editors shouldn't WP:SEALION, make unfounded WP:ASPERSIONS, or edit in a WP:DISRUPTIVE way. If they don't do those things they won't find themselves topic banned or blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. And one will not be sanctioned merely for disagreeing in a discussion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  And one will not be sanctioned merely for disagreeing in a discussion

  I'm sure it's pure coincidence, then, that nearly every single editor who argued for one side is now either banned or threatened into silence with ban/IP check threats?

  It's tough to say "Just follow the rules," when there are no firm rules. In fact, at least one of the bans was for trying to have rules enforced too much. See WP:SEALION,WP:WL. Tough to be compliant with rules which are not firm and can be enforced or disregarded ad hoc.

  It seems if there is a way to argue against the current majority on this topic without getting banned, it has yet to be discovered. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Again, I suggest you strike this nonsense. I have quite often argued against a majority in my 17 years here and have never been sanctioned. As per WP:ROPE and WP:BITE I have not linked to your posts here at the current AE filing in the hope that you will understand that, as an encyclopedia, we necessarily have policies and guidelines. Discussion here is massive - absolutely massive. That requires rules. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Your comment insisting no one gets sanctioned just for disagreeing with people includes a threat if I continue to disagree with you and don't retract said disagreement.

  All 6 people arguing one particular point are now banned from editing or threatened with bans if they keep defending their points. Discussion on this particular topic is not encouraged, it is not even tolerated. All dissenters have either been banned or scared into silence.

  Am I allowed to disagree with you? Or should I strike this whole comment lest I get banned for it? BabbleOnto (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  The threat is about casting aspersions, not having a content dispute. There is no cabal gathered against you, you just have a fringe point of view, and Wikipedia is about summarizing the best sources. Stop talking about editors, and prove your sources aren't political nonsense. Or, get banned for being here to argue endlessly instead of trying to improve an encyclopedia. Extra Jesus Hold The Satan!! (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would love to discuss sources. Unfortunately I'm facing a ban for discussing sources. I'm sorry, or I would. I would love to discuss my sources, I'd love to explain why I believe they fit within the rules, I'd love to engage in a constructive compromise to include relevant new findings. I'm afraid it's been determined that the sources won't be allowed and anyone who tried argue otherwise is now banned. Or else I'd love to talk about it with you.

  (As evidence to my point, literally as we speak these very replies are being reported to administrators within seconds of me typing them. I'm afraid even mentioning it may have spelled my own doom.) BabbleOnto (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Extra... blocked as sock of Raxythecat Doug Weller talk 15:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Gosh @Doug Weller, there are quite a few socks floating around these covid lab leak articles these days! Maybe a factor of Trump being inaugurated or similar fuel to the FRINGE fire. But it's not just on the PROFRINGE side, it seems. Tensions are high. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Again, I suggest you strike this nonsense. I have quite often argued against a majority in my 17 years here and have never been sanctioned
  @BabbleOnto 1000%. I've been in this situation too, a number of times. The way to handle it is to walk away when consensus is against you. You've said your 2 cents, you've contributed to the discussion. You can also simply ask "is this a local consensus? Let's get more uninvolved editors here." and then post to an appropriate noticeboard or wikiproject.

  The answer is not to continue to argue your point until everyone agrees. It's all made abundantly clear in the helpful essay WP:1AM.

  I cannot tell you the number of times I've had to do some breathing exercises and re-read that essay.

  (Okay with me if someone wants to move this entire block of replies over to BabbleOnto's talk page or another user's talk page. This page is for discussion of this article, of course) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  IntrepidContributor, the OP, is currently TBanned and blocked and BabbleOnto is about to be TBanned or will voluntarily refrain from Covid. It would be better just to hat this section. Any objections? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  It would be better just to hat this section.
  Agreed — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)