Talk:Great Barrington Declaration/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Article from the Independent

I'd like to add, as a source in the lead, this article from The Independent. I'm not suggesting any change in content, but it's a reliable source that can support the status quo articles claims, specifically that the GBD's approach is considered fringe. I'm hoping to build some rough consensus for inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not reliable, if you want to make the qualification on which scientists are making this point (if any are) then that would be okay.

The two articles from the Brownstone Institute from the authors of GDB claim the Guardian's label of fringe was wrong and an attack from the media [1][2].

The book The Great Covid Panic states on page 168 "[The Great Barrington Declaration] re-established the orthodoxy that had existed before March 2020, calling for public health policies to be based on an assessment of costs and benefits." It also says on page 227 "the system of deliberative framing of opponents was let loose on critical scientists, such as the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration of October 2020, they became subject to an enormous campaign of disinformation and accusation." This no doubt referers to the slander of "fringe" so that these scientists can be ignored in the public media debate. This independently corroborates all three of the authors accounts that calling them fringe is merely a slander used to make them seem less credible and Wikipedia should either qualify the use of the word fringe with who is saying it in the Scientific Community (if anyone is) or remove it altogether. The authors of the Great Covid Panic are from the London School of Economics, the School of Economics at The University of New South Whales and an Australian policy journalist known for hist work at the BBC.

The New York Times published an article explaining that as late as 2006 and 2007, the idea of social distancing was "impractical, unnecessary and politically infeasible." [1] So only in the past decade or so has this view changed. This is reflecting in one of Jay and Martin's co-authored article post writing the GDB explaining the complete lack of scientific consensus about the lock down and how it upend generations of public health theory. [4]

[1] https://brownstone.org/articles/the-collins-and-fauci-attack-on-traditional-public-health/

[2] https://brownstone.org/articles/a-pathogen-of-panic/

[3] Frijters, Paul, et al. The Great COVID Panic : What Happened, Why, and What to Do Next. Austin, Tx, Brownstone Institute, 2021. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/politics/social-distancing-coronavirus.html 65.175.199.251 (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

WSJ's Editorial Board endorsing that : "These researchers weren’t fringe and neither was their opposition to quarantining society." 65.175.199.251 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fauci-collins-emails-great-barrington-declaration-covid-pandemic-lockdown-11640129116 65.175.199.251 (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

For WSJ Opinion, WSJ's position as reliable source per WP:RSP did not applies, as WP:RSOPINION is the one that applies. Per guidelines, Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact.This shows that the "facts" that are asserted by the authors may not be assessed as reliable. Thus, I don't think the "non-fringe" opinion on the WSJ article outweigh other sources that stated that it is "fringe". As for the NYTimes article I don't see anything about GBD, which is the onus of the discussion. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Rolling the change back that added a single non-medical journal citation for the word fringe. British Medical Journal published an article from Dr. John Ioannidis at Stanford School of Medicine examining the credibility of the scientists involved and concluded: "Both GBD and JSM include many stellar scientists, but JSM has far more powerful social media presence and this may have shaped the impression that it is the dominant narrative."

The data can be downloaded and looked at by any of you here.

Is anyone not convinced by this? This is perhaps the most prestigious and one of the oldest peer reviewed medical journal in the world. JonTrossbach (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This is getting more and more ridiculous. You are really dragging up the Kardashian paper? --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyone else want to chime in? To be clear, this a generally reliable source that says "the Great Barrington Declaration, a fringe anti-lockdown statement". Can we use it to support "fringe" in the lead? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a bit facetious to be comparing the credentials of Jon Stone and Ian Sample to a group of internationally recognized scientists. In your article, Jon Stone calls the GBD "fringe," so fringe, that Boris Johnson took the advice of a microbiologist over the "fringe" opinion of a policy correspondent. The microbiologist came out of retirement to give his "fringe" opinion that historically governments have never handled pandemics like this. If anything the article can be interpreted that it is "fringe" to do lockdowns historically from a public health policy perspective:

"Never in history have we handled a pandemic like this. Not the 1889-94 “Russian Flu” (maybe a coronavirus), which killed 135,000 from a population half of today’s; nor in 1918, when we defeated the German army as a far worse epidemic peaked. Future generations will look back aghast." -- Professor David Livermore in the Telegraph

This is neither surprising nor fringe. This thread is fraught with comparing journalistic panache from mass media outlets to the actual scientific literature from actual scientists. These scientists are referring public health policy recommendations that have come through the process of peer review and have reached a consensus around the worthiness of publication and generally accepted theory. Journalists do not carry the same legitimacy of peer reviewed and tested science.

Now let's look at the Guardian article. Who exactly is saying it is "fringe?" Well, the author for one. Who is he referencing?

He is referencing a structural biologist, James Naismith, who is the only one in the entire article who may have said something that *might* refer to a notion of fringe.

“Their proposed strategy is outside the scientific mainstream,” Naismith goes on to say (the article paraphrases here): it is easy to describe what is hoped for, but delivery is another matter. In this paraphrasing, it is unclear if Naismith is talking about the general acceptability of the theory or his own opinions in the difficulties in applying the policy. Naismith is a structural biologist, one who studies chemical and physical mechanisms of different types of macromolecules and how they got to be that way. This happens at a lower level, his research regarding biological pieces of organisms, e.g. ribosomes (performs mRNA translation), enzymes, proteins their interactions and their origins, . Microbiologists study a bit higher level than this, regarding the living organisms, fungi, bacteria, and their interactions. Epidemiology goes even higher than this and studies the pathology of an epidemic, and the relevant biological mechanisms that facilitate transfer in a given population, usually a human population but may also be plants and animals. The author of GBD's CV can be compared to Naismith's here. As you can see, one is a ringer for giving advice on policy during epidemics and the other has less overlap, and in fact the word epidemic is not in Naismith's title. While interdisciplinary measures for public health threats is probably a good thing, it is a bit unclear why Professor Naismith is giving policy recommendations when his CV doesn't cover any studies around epidemiology, why he is quipping on scientific mainstream of epidemiology from a structural biologist lab when he doesn't work with people but macromolecules and ribosomes, nor does he do any statistical modeling of spread amongst a population unlike the many who have signed the GBD have i.e. biostatisticians, mathematicians modeling epidemics.

Naismith's lab is now doing testing for NeoVac who is doing mRNA research. He is directly incentivized to say such things, and it can be argued that he is pushing his fringe notions on the public for his own profit.

The others in the Guardian article quoted are opining on their doubts about how to implement different strategies and do not make judgements on the general acceptability of the theory, only how they perceive it may be implemented with or without success. Here is the definition of fringe.

According to google the definition of fringe is "the border or outer edges of an area or group."

It is disturbing that Professors from Oxford, Stanford, Harvard all agree, all of whom have had their work peer reviewed on specifically the topic the policy is advising on, a microbiologist came out of retirement to sign the declaration who swayed Boris Johnson, and somehow this one guy, Naismith and this one journalist, Ian Sample's take on this one guy trumps all of those people categorically throwing all their legitimacy into a bucket of "fringe." These two people, Naismith and Sample are worth more than all of these people combined, so much more that scientists from Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford who unilaterally agree that based on the peer reviewed and scientific literature and historically what has worked in the past indiciating that GBD is likely the best way to go is "fringe" because these two journalists and a structural biologist's words interpreted by the journalist say so. 15,000 medicine and public health scientists have signed the GBD at the time of this posting. And in the comment stated above you can find the 50+ big names from various prestigious institutions at 19:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

No scientist referenced here has labeled GBD as "fringe." This precise word came through the lips of two journalists who have then attributed it to the "scientific community." Two journalists took the words of one structural biologist and applied it to the entire "scientific community," and here we are with document that hundreds of actual scientists have signed, actually representing the scientific community saying literally the opposite.

At best you can label it controversial, but fringe. No. There are no grounds for this and to say it is is to weigh the words of two keyboard happy journalists over a legion of scientists. And if that is the case, Wikipedia is going downhill fast. Zemaye1 (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I flipped Sunetra Gupta and James "Jim" Naismith's google scholar links. Zemaye1 (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You talk too much, and mainly about things Wikipedia Talk pages are not for.

It is easy to find reliable sources calling the GBD "bullshit", "pseudoscience", "fringe", "unethical", "fatally flawed", "scientifically weak", "ridiculous", "total nonsense", and several similar terms. They all point in the same direction with different intensity. It cannot be that we cannot call a spade a spade just because every source uses a different synonym for "spade". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Hob Gadling for your reply. I see you have a lot of edits in this article that we do not see eye to eye with. What percentage would you estimate that you wrote of this article? Zemaye1 (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

To satisfy your curiosity that is unrelated to the discussion, Hob Gadling had only made 4 edits, less than 0.1% of the article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I do think that Zemaye1 viewing his viewpoints, despite being long, is what the Talk page is for. Despite his insistence, I do think that engaging in Talk page is the proper way to resolve this, instead of engaging in edit wars or vandalism. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The Talk page is not for elaborating an editor's viewpoint, not for displaying behaviour such as Professors from Oxford, Stanford, Harvard and 50+ big names from various prestigious institutions, not for second-guessing reliable sources and finding them "disturbing". Sources on one subject do not become more reliable by lots of people people signing them who are experts on other subjects. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Zemaye1, please remember that in the end Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth per WP:NOTTRUTH. As I said before, I agreed with GBD, but it can't be included on the Wikipedia. As more research will be done in coming years, if what GBD is saying is correct, it will be noted as well in the article, and none can remove them. But as there are not enough research (yet) to justify the truth of GBD, we have to rely on our "limited" knowledge and classify it as fringe, for now. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK and do contributions on other areas, there are lots of important areas where your research might be great. Thanks. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Building on @Zemaye1's case I think it would be improper to include this reference for two reasons:

(1) At least the Guardian article references a Ph.D in an at least somewhat relevant field while the Independent doesn't.

(2) The article was published almost a year ago and is only now being added, in terms of contemporary Covid policy, that is a very long time ago and is most certainly outdated and it is not being incorporated as the authors opinion as @SunDawn properly pointed out. JonTrossbach (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Just WP:ASSERT it's "fringe" per relevant sources. The fact the reliable sources won't contradict that is not our problem to fix, and Wikipedia needs to reflect mainstream knowledge about the GDB (in short, that it's very silly indeed). 17:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs)

break 1

Discussion leading nowhere.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article in the Independent was written by Jon Stone https://www.independent.co.uk/author/jon-stone. Jon Stone is a "Policy Correspondent." I would not equate that status with that of a policy expert. Moreover, he covers any field that requires an inexpert opinion, not just "epidemiology." Jon Stone has no credibility. Standard epidemiology textbooks have credibility, and those support the GBD POV. Look for yourselves. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Standard epidemiology textbooks [..] support the GBD POV Citation needed. Look for yourselves Bluff failed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC) Why don't you look at the citations you or your ilk have already deleted. There are none of my citations left on this talk page, so what is my motive for citing specifics? So you can delete them again? That is why I entreated the reader to look for himself, not because I cannot, but because you do not let any of them stand. You are the sound of one hand clapping. BLUFF? Prove anything with your diatribe, and you haven't here. There is no scientific basis for the claims in this garbage hit piece. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC) If you actually are sincere, do you guarantee that if I cite the first 10 epidemiology textbooks I randomly come across, that they will not be deleted as soon as I cite them? My experience with this post has been that you will not lose an argument, if you seem to, you merely delete any text to the contrary. That is not conducive to the presentation of any POV other than your own, and, I accuse you of promoting harm to the general public that has led to shortened lifespans of the general public as a direct result of your inability to respect any norms of proper discussion. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC) This bluff also failed. what is my motive for citing specifics? What is the point of saying you got something without showing it, then, when called upon it, refusing to show it? You clearly have nothing. "Look for yourselves" is not valid reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC) I have already provided one such citation and it was deleted because your POV did not prevail, you can either; 1) promise not to vandalize text, 2) Look at the deletion history, 4) Look at any epidemiology textbook or 4) I can. In the latter case, without assurances of a level playing field, there is no point in my wasting time on you. You have three alternatives that do not involve my wasting my time so either do so, or try to find an epidemiology text that supports your bizarre POV. I note in passing that name calling, i.e., "bluffing," is not the same as having an evidenced argument. And, you offer no evidence that I have bluffed, just your childish assertion. Find you own citations, I am not going to work under these conditions for an ingrate. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC) I find it very unlikely that any epidemiology textbook says anything specific about the Great Barrington Declaration, I can certainly find no such citation in the article or talk page histories, deleted or otherwise. Per WP:SYN, any textbook that does not specifically discuss the topic at hand would be useless, and making a list of off topic citations would definitely be a waste of everyone's time. MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC) Most epidemiology texts predate the GBD, so your criteria for asking for epidemiology textbook information specific to the GBD excludes the entire history of epidemiology, neat trick if anyone buys that, I do not. And, you are missing the point, namely that the GBD arose from many decades of epidemiological experience. Moreover, you are proving my point, namely that if I present convincing evidence, you will merely delete it. So, you say, evidence and background for the GBD is irrelevant; how "quaint." 207.47.175.199 (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC) Assuming that your alleged citation exists, it would take me a lot of time, maybe an hour, to sift through all that to find it. Even if I do find it, I cannot be sure if it is the one you mean. You, on the other hand, know where you can find it and it would take you a few seconds to link it again. So, it would make far more sense for you to provide it. Since you refuse to do that, the most likely assumption is that you are bluffing and that it does not exist. I think we are finished here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Read the above entry by MrOllie, in which he states that unless a textbook explicitly cites the GBD, he will delete it. So, let me cite Mark Woolhouse, an epidemiology content expert http://www.epigroup.biology.ed.ac.uk/mark-woolhouse, and who is the antithesis of Jon Stone, the fringe "policy correspondent" with only "street creds" whose rant is something supported here as if it had either substance or content, and which do not appear to be the case. In Mark's 2022 book "The Year the World Went Mad: A Scientific Memoir" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60110761-the-year-the-world-went-mad. In it, he states that "I do agree with the Great Barrington Declaration that this simple, straightforward epidemiological fact should have shaped our response. Instead, the UK administrators continued to act as though everyone was equally at risk." BTW the book is interesting, it tracks the UK experience with administrators who, like Fauci, have vacillated between an initial absence of response and denial of Covid-19 importance to eventually adopt an ineffectual and costly overreaction to it. Nor is that surprising, people who are not content experts really shouldn't be making content decisions without listening to content experts, and, like the content contributions here, they unfortunately do not. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Read the above entry by MrOllie, in which he states that unless a textbook explicitly cites the GBD, he will delete it. I said no such thing. Further, I pledge that I will delete no citation you place on this talk page. Woolhouse's book is not an epidemiology texbook, though. I look forward to seeing the citation you were referring to earlier. MrOllie (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC) As 95% or more of my submissions on this talk page have been deleted, it is reasonable for me to fear such action, and, unfortunately, it is easier for me to find a new relevant text than to find a needle in that haystack of deletions. The only reason I am persisting is because there is a need. The POV expressed here is increasingly recognized as fringe. EDITED: Take, for example, the May 2021 poll by the Trafalgar Group, which Group's polls' are touted by Wikipedia as very accurate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar_Group. The particular poll I am referring to shows that confidence in Dr. Fauci has plummeted: https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/news/nat-issues-fauci-0520/. Most Democrats still support Fauci, but Republicans and non-party affiliated generally do not, and those latter were 60.7%, which is not a "fringe," it is a majority. So, should I trust what Fauci says about the GBD? Why should I? Fauci is not an epidemiologist, and, he doesn't appear to know much about it. The article here seems to have avoided anyone who knows anything about epidemiology. Very well, here is the history of attempting to use quarantine from the middle ages until the present https://academic.oup.com/book/25025/chapter/189058983?login=false#med-9780199596614-div2-4. What I want you to notice is how futile it has been, and now it keeps being reinvented by people who ignore history. For example, regarding the first quarantine station in modern day Dubrovnik (Italy) in 1377 AD; "Health passports, and restrictions on travel and trade during plague epidemics were added to the surveillance system based on spies and the cordon sanitaire. The procedures developed were largely unsuccessful in their primary aim of preventing the spread of plague, a disease whose aetiology was then unknown." And it is said that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. It is not reasonable to say this has nothing to do with the GBD, the GBD arose from just such an understanding of what is ineffectual. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Hummm, maybe an analogy would help the reader. Trying to stop an epidemic with a transmission rate (Rt) greater than one is like children trying to dam up a stream, and letting no water flow, by putting rocks in it. The children may be happy with their temporary success, but all they are really doing is playing around. Even scientists, paid "in part by the Public Health Agency of Canada" to support travel quarantine and the like https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/quarantine-and-the-risk-of-covid19-importation/D045048891770F7693CF2D55F2FB9A0B, admit that "The probability of an outbreak increases with the rate of importations, even when Rt < 1, so that with importations every couple days or less, outbreaks are almost certain, regardless of local control efforts." 207.47.175.199 (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Please read WP:INDENT. I corrected your indentations, which seem to indicate that you responded to yourself. You continue to claim that the reason why you do not supply us with a citation for Standard epidemiology textbooks [..] support the GBD POV is that it will be deleted, but now you are supplying other, non-textbook citations, without fear of them being deleted. It is obvious that you do not have such a citation. Another page you should read is WP:NOTDUMB. I am hatting this thread now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

break 2

Rather than relying on a newspaper article, why not cite academic sources such as this and this? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I could get behind this. JonTrossbach (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I personally like the term used in The Royal Society publication "minority position" over the Springer article using the word "fringe" but Springer was published more recently. JonTrossbach (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with adding only the Springer article, there is clearly not a consensus in the scientific community as to what label applies to GBD nor is their one in this page. Whether it is minority opinion, fringe or as this NIH article says the GBD is "a clear indication that a significant percentage of scientists do not support generalized lockdowns going on forever."

Can we come to a consensus on how the lead should be changed. We have multiple citations now reflecting the seriousness with which the GBD is being taken, even if it is only a minority position, which is not the same as fringe (like @mrollie said fringe is connoted to people believing in ghosts). JonTrossbach (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say anything of the kind. And in this case 'a minority position' is exactly the same as fringe. MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If minority position and fringe are the same why is it such a big deal to swap them out in the lead? JonTrossbach (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia follows the reliable sources, and that is how they phrase it. MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If the reasoning you have is so thin that you have to resort to distortions such as interpreting not support generalized lockdowns going on forever as support for the GBD, it is better if you retreat from this discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your input but GBD is specifically referenced in the NIH article as their justification for saying it. JonTrossbach (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not a NIH article. It is an article in the journal 'Ethics, Medicine and Public Health' which, like many, many articles, happens to be mirrored on the NIH's website. 'Ethics, Medicine and Public Health' is a very low impact multidisciplinary open access journal - pretty low tier as sources go. It is also worth noting that the author seems to be a serial fringe pusher - here is an article where he claims that vaccines cause autism. MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, it was put on the NIH website because it contributed to the scientific discussion.

As was pointed out about a reference in the article, James Naismith has conflicts of interest influincing his opinion and his reference should be taken out too by your standards. JonTrossbach (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the NIH puts almost anything on their website, including a lot of utter nonsense. Try putting 'homeopathy' in their search box and see what comes up. MrOllie (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

We have already established that you think minority position and fringe are "exactly the same". That is the change I advocate for. JonTrossbach (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

1) Stop with the random bolding. 2) No, we didn't. I said that ' in this case a minority position is exactly the same as fringe, because this is a fringe position. MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I encourage @Firefangledfeathers to undo their change while a consensus is being built. JonTrossbach (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a baffling position. Given that the status quo includes "fringe", how is it not an improvement to cite sources that support the label. I understand you want to remove it entirely, but setting that aside, additional reliable sources (with no content change) only provide benefits to our readers. Yes, I am willing to self-revert, though I intent to give it a half-day or so to see if anyone else has an opinion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer to say pseudoscientific. Alexbrn (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn, your comment might fit better in the content discussion just above. While you're here though, as long as "fringe" is in the lead, is it an improvement or not to add this article from The Independent and/or this article in Science & Education? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I personally think there's enough WP:Verification already but since there seems to be some doubt about it, a further reinforcing source could be good. I certainly have no objection. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

We have two, the NIH article I found and the Royal Academy of Sciences article @Cordless Larry found which states it is a minority position. What is your justification for not swapping the words fringe and minority position? They have a clear distinction. JonTrossbach (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Pithy is better than prolix, and a better summary. The words "pseudoscientific fringe" would be good. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Science is not pithy and that is not a good reason. Accuracy over pith needs to be the standard. You claim that GBD is pseudo-science. Which has been firmly established it is not. JonTrossbach (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

When has that been established? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Definition of the word fringe "the border or outer edges of an area or group." To acknowledge them as fringe scientists is to acknowledge them as scientists. And many of them are from the best Universities in the world.

On the topic of minority position and fringe, do you too, see them as exactly the same? I do not. JonTrossbach (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

LOL! That is quite the mental gymnastics. The GBD not being pseudoscience has not "been established" anywhere but in your head. Of course, to see "minority position and fringe" as exactly the same is another question entirely. You are debating several people who frequent WP:FTN and who have a lot of experience with users trying to defend pseudosciences. WP:NOTDUMB and WP:YWAB are pages you may want to have a look at. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of the Royal Society's article, which also states Supported by a rightwing US thinktank, the Declaration has helped to sustain a small but vocal minority in the British media that spread misinformation about lockdowns and the progress of infections. We're not here to make it easier to spread misinformation by making it seem like this Declaration has more support than it does. MrOllie (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

a small but vocal minority in the British media This has nothing to do with GBD itself. JonTrossbach (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It does have to do with efforts to legitimize the GBD to spread misinformation. We can see examples of this happening in real time on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

We have already established that you think minority position and fringe are "exactly the same". That is the change I advocate for. JonTrossbach (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

False. It would be much easier to win arguments if you could change essential details of the other side, but that's not how things are done. Your attempts to define me as agreeing with your position do not mean I actually agree with your position. MrOllie (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I responded in bold above for everyone to judge for themselves. JonTrossbach (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I rolled it back upon finding the BMJ publication that clearly states the many of the scientist who signed the GBD are stellar scientists. JonTrossbach (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we have a paragraph about the Ioannidis paper in the article. You should read it. Also, I undid your revert because the Ioannidis paper really doesn't have anything to do with the edits you reverted. MrOllie (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Even @Firefangledfeathers said they were going to revert those changes I just took the time to do it. Stop vandalizing this article.

Literally you have the most recent and consequential peer reviewed topic at the bottom. Meanwhile, we have editors calling this pseudoscience.

@SunDawn please step in here. JonTrossbach (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I said I would self-revert if we didn't hear opinions from other editors. Since then, there's been weak support from Alexbrn and support-via-reversion from MrOllie. I'd like to reiterate that removing reliable sources without changing the content at all has no benefit to readers. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead is not reflective of the content in this article and that is actively harming readers ability to gain an understanding of this topic.

You did not gain consensus in changing this article. JonTrossbach (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead clearly does reflect the rest of the article, which is also very critical. But that doesn't have much to do with the matter at hand, which is about adding an additional source and some fixes to date layouts that you also reverted for some reason. If you've got problems with the wording of the article, that is not a good reason to try to halt other work on the article. MrOllie (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Which lead we are talking about? The status quo is including the word "fringe". You need a consensus to reach that, which I think consensus is not reached at this point. At this point I think we should stop beating this dead horse, as it is pretty clear that consensus is not reach. If in the future there are new evidence that complies to WP:MEDRS, we can talk then. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What to do about the lead

It has been established multiple academic publications with conflicting views on GBD have been published by multiple reputable journals in recent months. How should we update the lead to reflect this?

February 2022 BMJ says they are credible even stellar scientists: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/2/e052891

October 2021 Royal Academy of Sciences says they are minority: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsfs.2021.0022

January 2022 Springer calls them fringe: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-021-00306-y

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JonTrossbach (talk • contribs)

The lead is the summary of the body of the article. Is there any part of the body not currently summarized in the lead? If so, which paragraph? --McSly (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The last paragraph is not reflected in the lead it actually cites the BMJ article that says they are credible and even stellar scientists.See the last paragraph of this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#Counter_memorandum JonTrossbach (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

As a matter of fact the first line in this article, is referenced with the BMJ article, only to directly contradict the BMJ article in the next lead sentence. See:

"The Great Barrington Declaration was an open letter published in October 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.[1][2]"

The [1] reference here is the BMJ reference, the same journal that called them stellar scientists.

Then the next sentence directly contradicts the BMJ article shoved at the bottom of the page:

"It claimed harmful COVID-19 lockdowns could be avoided via the fringe notion of "focused protection", by which those most at risk could purportedly be kept safe while society otherwise continued functioning normally."

So on one hand it sights the BMJ which at the bottom of the articles says these scientists are highly reguarded. It needs to be changed to reflect the BMJ peer reviewed medical journal articles siting the scientists as highly regarded.

Even many of our fellow respectable editors were misled by this poor structure in the article. JonTrossbach (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Whatever kind of scientists they are/were ("useful idiots" per one source), does not make the GBD any less fringe or any less pseudoscientific, and it is a fallacy in any case to argue any person automatically gives scientific credibility to whatever comes out of a think tank and is put on a web site. That is kind of obvious and well sourced, and Wikipedia shall reflect that because it must, to be neutral. Neutrality is not negotiable. Alexbrn (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Linus Pauling was pretty respected as well. Doesn't mean he was right about Vitamin C curing cancer. - MrOllie (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I wish there were fewer Wikipedia editors who firmly believe that science works like the military, where the shoulder decoration decides who is right and who is wrong. It gets tedious to explain that simple misconception again and again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn @MrOllie @Hob Gadling None of this is on topic, nor is it an objection to changing what is here. Please if you have objections voice them in as clear a manor as possible. If you need help voicing your opinions, we can help you work through them.

Wikipedia is bias toward the academic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_bias JonTrossbach (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that essay. Perhaps now read it a bit more closely? "If a Wikipedia article has an academic (scholarly) bias, it does not mean it is "taking" sides, and it is not a violation of WP:NPOV." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Very well said, I think the article should be bias toward the Medical Journal articles it references. JonTrossbach (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The next step would be for you to have a thorough look at WP:MEDRS, which goes into more detail. That crap Ioannidis paper, for example, is a WP:PRIMARY source consisting of an ad hominem attack on people who disagree with him. It has been roundly trashed by his colleagues, and it is as worthless here as it is in the scientific community.

And don't ping me, I have a watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Let us all try and slow down our thoughts on this.

You have your own opinions on a peer reviewed medical journal, and that is okay, and I respect your opinion. It is valid and emotions are high on this topic, the Coronavirus has taken much from everyone in this conversation, of that I'm sure.

However, we need to make this study more noticeable in the article.

There are many communities within science and I also bet what you say is reflective of how some scientific communities feel on the paper. This topic is not however as settled as something like the Theory of Relativity. But the way the article is written right now does not allow a reader to understand, in an efficient enough way, that their is a peer reviewed article from The British Medical Journal via a Stanford Medical School Doctor that independently reviewed the scientific worthiness of the authors and signatories of the GBD and that it has concluded they are not fringe and not even a minority position. And it is the most current academic journal Reference in the entire article.

This can be added to the lead in an objective and even boring way, but this needs to be added to the lead so people can be allowed to come to their own opinions about the article and, if you are right about what you say, they will come to your same conclusions. But right now the articles importance is not only downplayed but not reflective of where the scientific discussion is right now in June 2022. JonTrossbach (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

A WEEK AGO, Ioannidis’ legacy in medical science seemed unassailable. Today, not so much. I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis. [1] We're simply not going to do this, this paper is widely regarded to be trash, and Ioannidis is widely regarded as having gone completely off the rails: What the heck happened to John Ioannidis? MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This should all be included as references in the lead.

The statement about this paper could read:

Dr. John Ioannidis of the Stanford Medical School published the peer reviewed article under The BMJ showing the empirical evidence that the scientist relating to the GBD are not a scientific minority [1] and their have been many media articles denouncing his scientific credibility as a result [2][3]

I think that would help a reader understand the topic more efficiently and reach an understanding of where the science is today.

What do you think? JonTrossbach (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

"this may have shaped the impression that it is the dominant narrative.", so john Ioannidis does not say "the scientist relating to the GBD are not a scientific minority", he says they MAY not be (assuming wew take not dominant to mean eqault weight". Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah thank you I definitely phrased it a little too suggestive. How about this?

Dr. John Ioannidis of the Stanford Medical School published the peer reviewed article under The BMJ showing the empirical evidence that may suggest the GBD are not a scientific minority [1] and their have been many media articles denouncing his scientific credibility as a result [2][3] as well as calls from other scientists for a methodological review of his work [4].

Obviously we will have to rework another sentence a bit to make this fit but I will stay as true to the other peer reviewed articles positions when revising those sentences.

Does anyone have the link or able to reference the time article referenced here in [4] It says "Yamey has been critical of the GBD, including in an article in TIME." I couldn't find it though. JonTrossbach (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Not in the lede, the lede is only for summerising major parts of our article, this is not. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, how do you propose fixing the article? JonTrossbach (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Ioannidis invented a new hypothesis, which says that GBD signatories have a longer science penis than John Snow signatories. He tried to substantiate that hypothesis using statistics, but everybody who is half-way competent knows Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. That is one of the reasons why Wikipedia frowns on primary sources such as Ioannidis' Kardashian paper. His hypothesis did not gain any traction in the scientific community, but only furthered the decrease of his reputation, and it is not relevant except as just another false rumor spread by the pro-disease camp. It is not needed here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It is biased not bias. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Didn't this troll get blocked as an IP? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Help -- eyes needed on related content.

Could editors have a look at this content on the Great Barrington Declaration] at the Hillsdale College article, where it seems to have become the subject of an edit war. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Bias

This is one of the most biased assessments I have ever read. 92.12.105.61 (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is neutral. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Dont be silly, See User:Roxy the dog All your bias are belong to us. -Roxy the English speaking dog 10:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Care to explain how without going through all the same arguments already rejected here (see archive)? Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This article has a POV fork with COVID-19 pandemic in Iceland

I would suggest that editors kindly resolve the POV fork with the relative successes of the herd immunity strategy employed by Iceland:

COVID-19_pandemic_in_Iceland#Herd_immunity_through_infection

COVID-19 pandemic#Herd immunity

SmolBrane (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel like this exact argument was considered and rejected elsewhere. In short, relying on herd immunity once cases have waned and the overwhelming majority of your populace is vaccinated is not the same as advocating for what GBD pushed in late 2020. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation of events does not resolve the POV fork for our readers. Iceland's successes should be mentioned on this article given the wholesale rebuttals of herd immunity on this article. SmolBrane (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding Iceland is WP:OR unless cited RS mention the declaration or closely associated controversies. Llll5032 (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The associated controversy is the application of herd immunity as a strategy. We should not list herd immunity as a strategy on the COVID-19 pandemic article if it is as problematic as this article suggests. The content on these articles needs to be unified to avoid a POV fork. SmolBrane (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The two strategies are not the same. Iceland vaccinated their population and then dropped restrictions, the Great Barrington Declaration advocated for dropping restrictions before a vaccine was available. MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer sources to do this differentiation on our behalf rather than risk a POV fork/SYNTH(us deciding that herd immunity somehow means different things at different times)--I find the differentiation somewhat unconvincing. SmolBrane (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds great. Find us a source that compares Iceland's strategy to the declaration and we'll have something to start from. MrOllie (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Found it! This came up in April, and I don't see a reason to rehash it. WhatamIdoing and Hob Gadling's points from back then still stand. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

So, we can be prepared that the same editor who tried the same failed reasoning in February and September will try again in about six months. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Also note they're engaged in some related edits at COVID-19 pandemic in Iceland, which could do with eyes. Bon courage (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Battacharya background info

I made some changes which were reverted without good cause. This is one. I will add one or two more of them when I have time:

Original text: “Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford University whose research focuses on the economics of health care.”

My version: “Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, is a professor of medicine, of Economics, and of Health Research Policy at Stanford University and the director of Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. ”

Bon courage claimed that this was puffery and an “WP:Honorific mess.” These claims are both patently false. I consider the reversion solely bc of claimed puffery to be vandalism. Still, I will hold off reverting for at least a day to see if anyone has a valid reason to revert my edits.

WP:PUFFERY “Wikipuffery is the puffing of a subject or the addition of praise-filled adjectives and claims. They may be there to exaggerate the notability of the article subject to avoid deletion of the article. Examples include use of adjectives such as "famous", "notable", "best known", "award-winning", "acclaimed", or "influential", detailed listings of minor biographical details (including complete lists of anything related to the person or topic), and lead paragraphs that proclaim the superiority of the subject.”

MOS:PUFFERY “Words to watch: legendary, best, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, popular, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, revolutionary, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique, pioneering, phenomenal ... Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information.”

Here is the comment I made when partially reverting back to my edit in response to Bon Courage’s first reversion of my edit (his comment there was “Unsourced, WP:HONORIFIC mess”): “Bon courage, I didn’t use any english honorifics; I accidentally neglected to add back my cites. I will add them in the next edit.”

My comment when partially reverting back to my edit in response to Nomoskedasticity’s reversion of my edit (his comment there was “Not needed -- readers can view the linked article”): “I added back some of my reverted edit giving what I think are the bare bones background for Bhattacharya. Did not add back my edit listing all of his degrees, school and Phi Beta Kappa. For brevity, I deleted his research focus which can probably be inferred from the other background info. I think this is a good compromise. If you don’t think so, I ask that you pls start a talk page discussion citing any applicable guidelines, etc. rather than reverting this edit. Thank you.” JustinReilly (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bon Courage @ Nomoskedasticity JustinReilly (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity JustinReilly (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

References

MAybe it is not (technically) a violation of puffery, but other than extra words what does it add, what does it tell us about the subject of the article? Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Please check out the Manual of Style (MOS) on honorifics cited by @Bon courage: “WP:HONORIFIC”

In this statement I made in my first comment in this thread, I accidentally omitted the hyperlink to “english honorifics,” which link I did include in my original comment accompanying my edit: “Here is the comment I made when partially reverting back to my edit in response to Bon Courage’s first reversion of my edit (his comment there was “Unsourced, WP:HONORIFIC mess”): “Bon courage, I didn’t use any english honorifics; I accidentally neglected to add back my cites. I will add them in the next edit.””

Here’s the link for you to check out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_honorifics

Here is the MOS that is actually apposite: MOS:CREDENTIAL

“Post-Nominal letters for academic degrees following the subject's name (such as Steve Jones, PhD; Margaret Doe, JD) may occasionally be used within an article where the person with the degree is not the subject, to clarify that person's qualifications with regard to some part of the article, though this is usually better explained in descriptive wording. Avoid this practice otherwise. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Contractions.”

If you would prefer “descriptive wording” for “MD, PhD,” please suggest some. It seems to me that “MD, PhD,” should be used for brevity and because it bears on his “qualifications with regard to some part of the article.” JustinReilly (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, it adds his main professional qualifications, which are all highly relevant qualifications regarding his knowledge of and authority on the subject matter of the Declaration. There were no cites previously, so adding these cites is obviously a positive. In the interest of brevity, I deleted a sentence about his research interests, which didn’t add that much and could probably be inferred from the info I added, so barely any net text was added, if any. JustinReilly (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• The is an article about the GBD, not Jay. See WP:COATRACK. Furthermore, a WP:CREDENTIAL-laced encomium, without mentioning the bullshit and misinformation issues, would be a gross POV violation. There's a hyperlink: readers can click on it to learn more about the guy if they wish. Bon courage (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bon courage, re: “a WP:CREDENTIAL-laced encomium, without mentioning the bullshit and misinformation issues, would be a gross POV violation.”

That’s inapposite since I have not said “the bullshit and misinformation issues” should not be mentioned (regardless, including my edit shouldn’t be seen as a problem according to your statement, since virtually the entire article focuses on the “BS and misinfo issues”)

re:WP:COATRACK, I don’t see anything here that would argue against my edits. If there is something please specify. The typical examples listed all are far from my edit in that they are all clearly unreasonable and/or extremely biased (such as puffery).

“A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. Typically, the article has been edited to make a point about something else. The nominal subject is functioning as an overloaded coat-rack, obscured by too many "coats" – additional topics that were grouped together to make it appear as if they were all examples of the same thing. A similar effect can result when an article's original author writes too much about the background and loses sight of the title. Either way, the existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant, undue or biased material there.

“Problems with coatrack articles

“A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. In the extreme case, the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject(s). Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. However, this does not include largely critical articles about subjects that actually are discredited; see the tips laid out at WP:FRINGE (Wikipedia:Fringe theories) for more information.”

One example of a coatrack article is the Attack Article. I don’t know if this is one; I don’t know enough now. Just something to bear in mind.

“The Attack Article “Further information: Wikipedia:Attack page “Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits articles whose primary purpose is to disparage a particular person or topic. Articles about a particular person or topic should not primarily consist of criticisms of that person or topic.”

WP:ATTACK “An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages may be removed immediately. Upon finding such a page, identify it for speedy deletion by prepending the db-attack template, and blank the page as courtesy...

“If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person, and there is no neutral version in the history to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attack_page JustinReilly (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

An article should not feel like a horde of male chimpanzees parading, beating their chests and hooting. But that is the feeling one gets when people mentioned in the article get tinsel around their names. It's just bad style. See WP:PEACOCK. You yourself quote a WP page as saying may occasionally be used. Why is this supposed to be one of the occasions? Because you want to bolster the Declarers? Are you also in favor of adding the same type of letter salad to the names of the opponents? Probably not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Right, we need a reason why this improves the article, not just a wall of policy quotes. Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Not Fringe

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

---

I could not get past the initial sentence or 2 describing this as fringe. Basically you copy and pasted what Francis Collins and Fauci said. That by itself is terribly inaccurate. It really renders the rest of this not worth reading. Daugman (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

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

If several prestigious medical professors, including from Stanford, are arguing for a position, then it's definitely not "fringe." You can say that Fauci says that it's fringe, but you can't put it in Wikipedia's voice and be in compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:SYN. 152.130.15.129 (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does "not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme." is what fringe means. That means if 1% or even 10 +% hold a view it's finge. Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It IS part of the mainstream. Several major governments, such as Sweden and Denmark, followed the same policy for their COVID response. It sounds like you think it's fringe because you don't agree with it. So, you're also violating WP:NOR. The signers of the letter are experts in the medical field, and your're not. Like I said, you can say that "so-and-so considers it a fringe position" but you can't put it in Wikipedia's voice. 152.130.15.129 (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No I call it fringe because it does not follow the scientific consensus, and RS have said that. Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody cares about what governments think about science. It is not their expertise. Governments often do not listen to experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Bias

This is extremely biased, and calls actual proven science “fringe”. Amazing how hard the left wants to kill academic freedom. Someone please fix this. It’s essentially what Sweden did (spoiler alert: they are way better off now) 71.83.234.83 (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

see above. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven, have you received any prior warnings for violating Wikipedia's policies? 152.130.15.129 (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

What has this to do with the topic? Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears that because the Swedish government ignored the public health advice, Sweden in 2020 had 10 times the fatality rate from COVID than neighboring Norway. The authors of that article do make a connection to the GBD, which they say is "unscientific, unethical, and unfeasible." -- M.boli (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

References

tenditious

Very tendentious and nasty article! Not neutral at all. Many of the references are also tendentious. Someone should really fix this article. 2600:6C67:927F:E127:48BD:B4E:AC2:32C4 (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we follow the sources. We don't get to just label them 'tendentious' and then ignore them. - MrOllie (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a completely irrelevant and non sequitur response.

(Redacted) 24.205.120.99 (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a line in the article that lists three sources. Two of your sources are not on the reliable sources list. Actually, in fact they are two articles from the same not reliable source. The third source is to a journal that is not peer-reviewed and has a very low citation count and with a 98% acceptance rate. Further, the claim made in that is not found anywhere in that journal article extract. "We follow the sources" indeed. 66.49.112.52 (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

What is the reliable sources list? Do you mean WP:RSP? Those are just the sources that come up often, listed so they do not have to be discussed againa and again.

There is a line Very specific. Now everybody can see exactly what you mean and check if what you say is true. (That was sarcasm.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It's THIS line: "The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian free-market think tank associated with climate change denial." There are three references: 14, 15, 16. Number 14 links to an article in MedPageToday, which a cursory look-over suggests a slight editorial bias. Which is ok, if it's properly noted. But the article itself that allegedly supports that line contains a single sentence: "The declaration was supported by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian, free-market think tank headquartered in western Massachusetts, known for its attacks on climate change." No reference. Just the passive-aggressive passive voice suggesting that some unnamed persons "know" it for its attacks. I went to their website. Their entire focus is economics. There was not a single climate change article on the front page. I had to search to find one. There were many, but none of them "attacked climate change." Every single one had to do with the economic effects of various mitigation strategies. Their approach is to take a rational cost-benefit analysis to the problem. "[A]ttacks on climate change" suggests something else entirely, like saying that it's not happening. That's denial. Not applying economic reasoning to the problem. A little digging on Muck Rack for Amanda D'ambrosio doesn't suggest bias outside the norm for her industry, so it might just be a careless throwaway line on her part.

The second reference is to an article that, through some absolutely Kevin Baconian level of separation, claims that their PR firm was also hired by and paid by Koch Industries to support what is alleged to be climate change denial. Of course I have no idea if that's actually true so I did a little digging. So, because the Barrington guys hired a PR firm, that was hired by someone else to represent someone else entirely, the Barrington people are climate change deniers. It's almost literally a 6 degrees from Kevin Bacon smear. And upon further digging I also see that it NONE of those heretical climate change deniers actually deny climate change. All they do is criticize and question the effectiveness of the regulatory response to it. That isn't climate change denial.

This is One. Line. If one line is that riddled with errors and bias, then probably the whole thing should be thrown out.

Someone on another page said in response to a similar criticism, "Well why don't you stop complaining and make the edits yourself." Well, I don't know what it is about people who have little else going on in their lives that makes them have a leftist bias, but it's apparently a real thing. I don't have time to scour Wikipedia pages for honesty. Most of us on the other side of left don't. How about this: Why don't you just try to be a little more honest? 66.49.112.52 (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

An analogy to the PR firm smear would be like saying that because an attorney's client was found guilty of murder, someone else he represents months later who is being charged with petty theft is also guilty of murder. This is a supposedly "reliable source." Byline Times. Nafeez Ahmed. Who, by looking at Muck Rack, appears to be a quite unhinged fellow. 66.49.112.52 (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

So, your problem is that the source we use does not cite a source? And if it did cite a source, you would complain that the source the source cites does not cite a source? That is not how Wikipedia works.

Searching the AIER site, using your own definition of climate change denial (check the article, especially the section "Taxonomy of climate change denial") is WP:OR. Maybe they deleted the denialist pages now.

The text is sourced, and it gives important context - opposing science the acceptance of which endangers the free market, whether it is climatology or epidemiology, is what market-fundamentalist institutes do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is wildly out of date. The references and this article are really arguments against an idea presented before vaccines were widely available. This is a problem for mixed past tense and present tense sentences such as "...concluded the strategy is dangerous" should be "...concluded the strategy was dangerous".

This article could be made more balanced by placing the word "fringe" in context which makes it clear it is opinion (thus open to dispute or new data) and not fact proven by the reference. Use a qualifier such as "believed to be a fringe notion...". Although "fringe" was said by a science editor in the reference, it is not a scientific word and obviously a "pejorative label". The actual scientist in the reference said "outside the scientific mainstream". This more appropriate phrasing would certainly improve the article. Johnwik2022 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably read WP:FLAT. Wikipedia isn't going to give credence to fringe bollocks like the GBD stuff. Bon courage (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

And WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly added a sentence to the top about the declaration preceding vaccine availability, for some more context. Perhaps the wording could be improved. Llll5032 (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Best way for the article to describe how this Declaration was suppressed?

Elon Musk has released information from Twitter that shows that it deliberately and secretly suppressed the authors and topic of the Great Barrington Declaration. FOIA results show that senior government officials including Fauci worked to ask companies to censor it. What is the best way in the article to discuss this? Gnuish (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The best way would be to get some reliable sources that discuss it first, and then go from there. Neither of your links qualify. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: to try to forestall the inevitable, here is why neither of those links are reliable sources. Twitter is a self-published source, so it is not considered reliable. Nor is the "Independent Institute", and especially not from their "Commentary" section, which as near as I can tell is the equivalent of their opinion column. Even if it was, though, this article would certainly not be a RS for this Wikipedia subject, because the authors on the byline are a Senior Research Fellow and the Managing Editor at the American Institute for Economic Research, which is the organization that sponsored the Great Barrington Declaration, so they are certainly not an independent source. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Twitter is not the source. Bari Weiss is. Bari Weiss is an established journalist. From your self-published source link, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Self-publishing is only a concern because someone of unestablished credentials can write a book or publish a blog post. But Bari Weiss, a journalist, choosing to use a platform like Twitter to report her news story is less of a concern than Matt Yglesias using his personally owned platform, Vox, to self-publish an article he wrote. As I looked, Vox is considered a reliable source. Then so should Bari Weiss' Twitter account. 66.49.112.52 (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. Twitter is the source. Reliable sources are reliable because there is a review process. When Weiss publishes in a paper, the editor gets the article checked. Blog posts are not reliable, tweets are not reliable, Facebook posts are not reliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

What is Matthew Yglesias' review process? Vox is basically a blog he shares with his fellow juice boxer, Ezra Klein. The only other staff he has are people who design the graphics and maintain the IT infrastructure. That's not a review process. There are plenty of other reliable sources who are independent. They don't have editors. And if they are doing investigative journalism, the only thing the editor checks for is adherence to style guidelines anyway. Are you saying that the only difference between a reliable source and an unreliable one is someone checking for correct punctuation? Because editors are not checking the factual accuracy of the subject of the reporting. 66.49.112.52 (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep talking (on the Talk page of "Great Barrington Declaration") about this Yglesias guy I never heard of, who does not seem to be used as a source in the article "Great Barrington Declaration". If you have a problem with how Wikipedia decides if a source is reliable, go to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition to what Hob Gadling correctly says above, what field do you think Bari Weiss is a subject matter expert in? She's a journalist, and has no expertise in Twitter policy, computer recommendation algorithms, or medical science. Being a journalist does not automatically make you a subject matter expert in all fields just because you might report on them at some point. That's why the editorial process in an actual newspaper is important, after all. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Facepalm There's already a source about how the GBD folk were totally silenced, having to make to with meeting Trump, testifying before the US Congress, and so on. The article could do something to describe this I suppose. Bon courage (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

To be clear: the above remark by @Bon courage is sarcasm. The linked article is also quite sarcastic. It recounts of how wrong the GBD people were, time and again. And were wrong in their whining about having been "silenced". -- M.boli (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Right.[2] The "story" here is in fact how twitter at one time tried (like other social media platforms) to keep a lid on COVID misinfo, but how now it doesn't. If reliable sources mention GBD in relation to this, then it may be worth mentioning. Bon courage (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I am mistified a bit, given the amount of publicity it received, and the fact it was published and widely commented on, how exactly was it suppressed? Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

A big part of how online providers moderate content is to prevent it from trending. Push it off the first page of search results unless it was specifically searched for. Keep it off the trending lists. Push it down in the lists of suggestions when people are typing search queries. Recently, after Twitter removed the controls, hash-climatescam started showing up as the first result for searches about climate change. There is more to it. My understanding is sometimes when bad stuff is echoed by accounts which have a lot of uptake, it might not be echoed to all the followers. But the main notion is to put the thumb on the scale in the marketplace of ideas so misinformation doesn't swamp the information. Not censoring it from the people who seek it out or participate in discussions. -- M.boli (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I have hardly any time at all to edit right now, but there is this one SmolBrane (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm Being Repressed! Oh, what a giveaway! Did'j'hear that, did'j'hear that, eh? That's what I'm all about! Did you see 'im repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?! --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

LOL what even is this comment? Anyway Fox ran a story too(placed the epidemiologist on a blacklist for arguing Covid lockdowns would harm children/"I think it was my pinned tweet linking to the @gbdeclaration that triggered the blacklist based on unspecified complaints Twitter received"). I'm well aware of the deprecation of Fox but Fox is already cited on this article. Let's WP:STEELMAN here folks! SmolBrane (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so first of all, again, this is talking about Bhattacharya's status as a "fringe epidemiologist" who was "blacklisted" (based on a questionable definition of the word) by Twitter, not anything about the GBD itself being suppressed. Indeed, this all reportedly happened in "August 2021", 10 months *after* the GBD was published. Furthermore, the fact that the Fox article reports the GBD as being written and signed in "October 2021", not 2020, which is a pretty significant typo, as it makes it sound like Bhattacharya was "blacklisted" because of the GBD two months before it was written somehow. Not promising in something purporting to be a reliable source. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to mock people rather than deal with issues. It is also against the rules of conduct here. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was an accurate description which succinctly dealt with the issue. Which policy or guideline do you believe has been broken? NadVolum (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The post, now deleted, that read "Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm Being Repressed! Oh, what a giveaway! Did'j'hear that, did'j'hear that, eh? That's what I'm all about! Did you see 'im repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?! --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)" 207.47.175.199 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That article mentions the Great Barrington Declaration only in passing, and says nothing about any "suppression" of the Declaration itself. It may be of use in the article about Jay Bhattacharya, but says nothing of relevance here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

So far the one reference we have which says anything substantive is the Magness and Waugh essay, which says Twitter prevented one person's tweets from trending or going viral:

GBD co-author Jay Bhattacharya was slapped with a secret “Trends Blacklist” tag by Twitter executives at some point after his account was created in September 2021, Weiss’s thread confirms. The blacklist tag effectively suppressed Bhattacharya’s tweets by preventing them from going viral or being picked up by Twitter’s trends algorithm.

Maybe we could add a sub-section to the Reception part of the article, cover the response by online media. It could include the requests from government officials and Twitter's de-boosting of GBD-related material. If Magness and Waugh's claim of outright censorship on some platforms could be substantiated, that would be part of this section. Of course the right-wing outrage, along with a bit of the reasons for it, could also be documented in the same section.

It also seems to me that if the charges of censorship are part of the public discourse around the GBD, then it behooves Wikipedia to put some factual information about that in this article.

I also note there haven't been many reliable secondary sources yet. And this is a developing story. I wouldn't be prepared to start a subsection on this topic yet, but it seems to me that pretty soon it should be possible. And advisable. -- M.boli (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Wait for decent sources, if any. This seems to me mostly a trumped-up talking point pushed by COVID loons. Bon courage (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

And by people who think that "free speech" means that everybody, including social platforms, has the duty to repeat and spread what they say (but not what their opposition says). --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe that you would imply that Elon Musk isn't equitable in his "free speech absolutism"! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree re: developing story/possible subsection/advisable. Vox has a story too, harmonization/linking to Twitter Files might be productive. Sorry, I don't have much time to boldly do it myself here or on the Twitter files article. SmolBrane (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, the Vox story does not discuss any actual suppression of the GBD itself, and mentions it at all only to give context to who Bhattacharya is, with no direct linking between Twitter aand the GBD. If you want to create a subsection for this, you're going to need to find sources that are actually germane to the topic here. Sources that only cover possible consequences for one of the signers ten months after the fact will not cut it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's not even new information; Twitter always said that it fought COVID disinformation, which this falls under (and which we cover with higher-quality sources, in more important contexts, in the reception section.) The only difference is the framing which has been adopted by a few people, but that isn't really reflect in reliable sources, so it doesn't belong in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  The Vox article asks "Did Twitter — or the Biden administration — overreach in efforts to limit Covid-19 misinformation?" before discussing Bhattacharya and the GBD. We can wait for the COVID twitter files that are forthcoming--perhaps they will be insightful and the attention paid to that article will generate more collaboration here if it's involved. SmolBrane (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Another source ("The Stanford professor, Jay Bhattacharya, was censored because he backed the ‘Great Barrington Declaration’ and promoted the theory of ‘herd immunity’") I'll try to come up with an appropriate addition today. SmolBrane (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The Spectator is not a generally RS, see WP:SPECTATOR. Llll5032 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The Spectator is already cited twice on this article. SmolBrane (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we remove the WP:SPECTATOR cited stuff, or ignore WP:SPECTATOR? - Roxy the dog 19:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The Spectator publishes almost entirely opinion. Removing all of it would probably improve the article. MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

A strange circumstance to witness the sudden need to deprecate this source. The prior citations have been here for months. Regardless, the GBD is still only mentioned passingly here--I will probably wait for more insights from the twitter files if they yield. I appreciate M.Boli's collaborative tone on this matter. SmolBrane (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Use of the SPECTATOR appears to be attributed in all cases, so we appear to be aware of it's reliability issues. - Roxy the dog 19:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they've been there for months. Thanks for pointing out the problem. MrOllie (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

References