This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There seems to be a slow-moving edit war developing over whether to include content about a Twitter post and the reaction to it. Please discuss it here rather than continue to revert each other. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for intervening. The addition by Alssa1 is wholly inaccurate, biased and irrelevant. There was no "public outcry" in regards to Professor Sridhar's tweet. There was an expression of partisan outrage from unionist politicians of minority parties and their supporters ONLY. This was part of a campaign of harassment and, indeed, abuse that has been levelled at Professor Sridhar by certain elements of Scotland's political scene. More on this can be found here https://www.thenational.scot/news/18566263.devi-sridhar-shares-screenshots-vile-abuse-sent-pandemic/ and here https://www.thenational.scot/news/18558720.devi-sridhar-hits-back-unionist-brands-so-called-expert/ . If Alssa1 insists on including his misinformation about the tweet, then we will have to include the whole history of harassment that surrounds it. That would be plainly riduclous. All of this is irrelevant to Professor Sridhar's life and accomplishments which are very prodigious. It is no exaggeration to say that she's one of the most accomplished people in the world, let alone in her own field. To have a plethora of useless information on her Wikipedia entry in regards to an internal political spat (largely taking place on Twitter) would, I'd suggest, make a mockery of the very function of Wikipedia. I'm afraid I will not stand by and see a woman of such high standing being deliberately targeted by someone whose Wikipedia profile confirms them to be a right wing British nationalist of a kind which is synonymous with Scottish unionism. Many thanks again for your intervention. In regards to a photo, I'd imagine the one used in the news story I've linked to above would be suitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Laura Simoni ( talk • contribs) 11:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
As
Victuallers said above, there is a real person involved here. Professor Sridhar fights to save lives by offering advice freely to the Scottish Government and continues to make many selfless contributions to battling disease and saving lives across the world. The fact that she once may or may not have a offended a few unionists in Scotland with a tweet - *a tweet* - would be a bizarre inclusion to her Wikipedia page and has no place there. This is especially true given the relative success of the Scottish Government in suppressing the virus, now recognised globally, where Professor Sridhar's contribution has been invaluable. See here, for example
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/world/europe/coroanvirus-scotland-england.html or here
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-scotland-england-cases-charts-latest-lockdown-strategy-a9622016.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1594931108 The bottom line is that Alssa1 is attempting to politicise this wikipedia entry and is also posting a disingenuous comment by saying there was a "public outcry". There was no public outcry. The outrage of a few unionists on Twitter is not a public outcry. Alssa1 knows that this is a political spat and, as such, it is him who is playing the man (or woman) and not the ball by trying to smear Professor Sridhar with this ridiculous inclusion of a non-event which has no relevance to her life and achievements whatsoever. Professor Sridhar is a globably renowned figure. She has no involvement in the local, parochial debates between Nationalists and Unionists in Scotland. She has been snagged into the tittle tattle of these debates simply through the mischief-making of people like Alssa1. It is an absurd situation, and its absurdity has no place in this wikipedia entry - unless, of course, we are to take the view that Wikipedia is not a serious knowledge resource but a place to spread misinformation about the people included here.
I think the weakness in both our positions is, as you have stated, that there is no common view on this. This is because what we're arguing about is an extension of the Scottish debate on independence where there is no common view. Polls currently show the pro-independence side to be ahead at 54%. This could as easily shift to show the unionist side ahead at any point. It is that close. But this debate has nothing to do with Professor Sridhar and her life and achievements. That is the point here. Please, if you haven't already, take the time to look at her Wikipedia entry. Her accomplishments are astonishing. But what makes her an astonishing person, above all, is her dedication to eradicating disease and improving the lives of people around the world. To include an episode from such a petty dispute, which can only be judged subjectively, in an attempt to undermine her person, simply cannot be allowed to happen if this platform is to maintain the credibility it deserves through the efforts of those who contribute to its existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Laura Simoni ( talk • contribs) 08:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it's clear that Alssa1 is politically motivated to add text which is intended to undermine the character of Professor Sridhar while failing to give the full picture of the events he refers to. Professor Sridhar has been acclaimed for her part in steering the Scottish Government towards a successful handling of the coronavirus pandemic in Scotland. This has infuriated Scottish unionists because it contrasts with what has been largely perceived as a disastrous performance by the UK government in relation to the same (See here, for example: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scotland-on-course-to-beat-coronavirus-says-independent-sage-tz25tsj07 and here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/19/plaudits-for-nicola-sturgeon-fuel-talk-of-scottish-independence-drive ). A hard core of Scottish unionists have consequently been on the attack against Professor Sridhar, seeking to discredit her and distort the reality of her contribution to saving lives in Scotland. This attempt by Alssa1 to include his text is simply an extension of that. My own reasons for challenging this are not so much political but arise from a determination to ensure that the integrity of someone whose advice and actions have undoubtedly saved lives in my country remains intact and free of political manipulation. The issue of her tweet is an irrelevance to her achievements on a global scale, irrelevant to her achievements as an advisor to the Scottish government, and an irrelevance to the vast majority of people in Scotland except for a few hardcore Scottish unionists. Indeed, Professor Sridhar has been widely praised for her contribution to suppressing the virus in Scotland. This from one of Scotland's most important contemporary cultural figures, the author Irvine Welsh, only the other day, appropriately delivered in the form of a tweet: "This woman [Professor Sridhar], and willingness of Sturgeon & govt in Scotland to listen to her, is one of the main reasons the infection rate there has gone from being one of the worst to one of the best in Europe." See: https://twitter.com/IrvineWelsh/status/1284433480198299648 This tweet by Irvine Welsh is a much truer reflection of what people in Scotland think of Devi Sridhar - not some bogus "public outcry" which didn't happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Laura Simoni ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
In line with recommendations I have resubmitted the rfc Should this article mention Sridhar's twitter post reported on 5 July 2020? Alssa1 ( talk) 08:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
{{od} The difference is the volume of media coverage -- number of stories, numbers of media outlets talking about it, number of weeks the story stayed in the news. Another difference is that Wikipedia works by consensus, and the consensus here is that the SD "Tweet" story is too trivial for the SD article, whereas the consensus there was that something should be included in the article. HouseOfChange ( talk) 21:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I have been trying to understand the background of this story, so bear with me if you already know it.
So maybe this article should have a section on DS's critique of UK COVID strategy, which has generated much more news coverage, and is much more relevant to her career, than a few words in one tweet that her opponents would love to make central to the COVID discussion. HouseOfChange ( talk) 13:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Don't put things into quotes that are not in fact quotes. I said that you 'continue to misrepresent her' meaning that your previous talk page comment continues to make the same misrepresentation that others have made. Since people have repeatedly explained to you, above, why your repeated addition of the tweet "controversy" gets repeatedly removed, I would rather spend my own volunteer hours working on Wikipedia articles.
HouseOfChange (
talk) 16:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
|
The "Scottish" section now contains a fair sampling of her public comments, criticism of them, and the Scottish government pointing out that she does not speak for them. Wikipedia tries to treat notable controversies in a balanced way. The tiny tweet "controversy" takes much longer to explain than it is worth to the article, IMO. The material now there makes it clear that DS feels free to express political as well as scientific opinions, and that some of her statements have been controversial. Reference 24 (David Bol piece), now in the article, describes the whole tweet controversy and even references it in the article headline. HouseOfChange ( talk) 17:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I have ever seen a BLP that catalogs qualifications its subject does not have. "Steven Pinker does not have a PhD in English literature, therefore he is not qualified to write books." etc. Some blogger has decided that because Devi Sridhar is not a GP working for the NHS, she is therefore unqualified to give advice on public health. And in support of that, should we add some joking remarks by DS that she is not a "real doctor." Certainly not in the lead, but I don't see it falls to this biography or any other to explain to hypothetical idiots out there that having a degree in public health is a different expertise from knowing how to remove a wart or prescribe a month's worth of pills. HouseOfChange ( talk) 19:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
So context is maintained, the comment under consideration can be found here:
2A01:4B00:84C7:9E00:D972:2639:7E7B:DF23 ( talk) 20:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Better citation clearly needs to be used - a way forward here would be to switch to using the following language in the education section:
DrJoHeiter ( talk) 21:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
It is WP:SYNTH (and highly misleading) to insert into the lead that DS "is an anthropologist", based on her Oxford D.Phil thesis from 2006 (whose topic was World Bank policy and its effect on nutrition in India.) HouseOfChange ( talk) 16:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Global Health is a theme, not a discipline. If someone has a doctorate in economics, and focuses on public health, they'd be described as 'an economist specialising in public health'. Sridhar's training is in anthropology. Her MSc is in anthropology, as was her PhD. Additionally, Oxford has no DPhil in 'Public Health'. Hence, she should be described as 'an anthropologist specialising in public health'. This is factually accurate. There is no other discipline that she could claim to be.
It is worth noting that in 2005, Sridhar wrote in Anthropology Today 'I have learned that to present oneself as an anthropologist arouses suspicion and prompts questions, and results in unanswered phone calls and cancelled appointments. Obtaining access is almost impossible. However, when I introduce myself as 'working in public health', doors open.' (Sridhar, D. (2005). Review of Ethics and Development: Some Concerns with David Mosse's Cultivating Development, Anthropology Today, Vol. 21, No.6, pp.19). Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3694943. This quote suggests that she is well aware that she is an anthropologist, but has chosen to downplay this as it is not politically helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RustySockets ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems misleading to give "anthropologist" top billing, especially when her degree was in social anthropology and her MPhil and Dphil research were on global public health policy. How does it benefit our readers to introduce non-essential and confusing material into the lead? If we want to say she is "a public health policy expert and also a something else", it would make more sense to say that she is also an author, or to say that she is an advisor on UK and Scottish health policy. Either of those facts about Sridhar is more important than the academic specialty of her thesis advisor. HouseOfChange ( talk) 17:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
HouseOfChange I don’t know if you’ve noticed but I think there *is* actually WP:OR in the first sentence. Any idea what I think it is? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I want to take a step back from the discussion to the RS:
So maybe it will be clearer and more accurate if we describe her as a "medical anthropologist," since that is what I read in her Oxford background. Or "social anthropologist"? What do others think? I want us to find a consensus way to go forward. HouseOfChange ( talk) 02:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
In my mind the question is about two points, the accurate description of the person's work and their academic/educational background. As for the first, following the line of evidence presented above and also corroborate by the publication record on Google Scholar [3] Her work over the last 15 years has no anthropology in it and only public health. This would support the view of calling her a public health researcher in the lead of the article followed by an explanation in the main body on the anthropology bit. As for the academic/educational background point, her last academic grade appointment is Chair of global health, and again based on the references provided above all her appointments (lecturer etc.) over the last 15 years were in public health and not anthropology. Having had a look at the University of Edinburgh's website on the procedure to be appointed Chair you can see that this involves "Sustained achievement of the highest distinction, in the advancement of knowledge and understanding ..."; "Recognition in an international context". [4]. The last two points support that the peers and the scientific community in global health see her as a global health researcher and not anthropologist. Finally, being appointed lecturer/professor in my view is the highest academic grade she achieved via an evaluation process similar to an examination, and would therefor be the latest stage of her education. OK, that is it from me. Getting all a bit too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.4.80 ( talk) 09:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I will not read the morass above, but having looked at the Wikipedia article and the sources, the Wikipedia article does not sufficiently explain the political forays and counter-sallies. I think the way I had it was suitably worded, but Richard Nevell has reverted it. As it stands, the article is rather unbalanced, but I think a wipe of all the criticism and counter-criticism is not helpful. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Here are some sources, beisde the two articles in The Herald which I cited before:
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)I'm fairly sure this volume and breadth of coverage, over a sustained period, is worth rewriting the relevant section to include. It would be odd to omit it, and it's not true to say that this is merely a Twitter pile-on. It's clearly a long-running political dispute, and this article needs to do that reality justice. GPinkerton ( talk) 06:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I propose the following text:
Sridhar praised the resulting Scottish government strategy to deal with the pandemic, a strategy whose goals are 1) "to reduce exposure" and 2) "to keep daily new cases as low as possible." [5] In June 2020, Sridhar appeared to be at odds with the policy position of First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon on the upcoming beginning of the school term and the question of whether schools might reopen as normal. [6] Sridhar later issued a clarification, saying that in fact, Sturgeon and she "were completely aligned". [6] [7] Ruth Davidson, leader of the largest of the Opposition Parties of the Scottish Parliament, criticised the apparent volte-face, writing on Twitter: "Guess someone got the hairdryer treatment over the phone...", though Sturgeon responded that this was "Untrue" and "utterly disgraceful to suggest". [6] [8] [9] Sridhar also repeatedly contrasted the Scottish Government's response to the pandemic to the strategy used by the British Government in managing the COVID-19 pandemic in England: [10] "Devi Sridhar, who runs the global health governance program at the University of Edinburgh, noted that the two countries took radically different approaches from the start: England's priority was to prevent its hospitals from being overrun, while Scotland's was to drive cases down to zero. If not for imported cases from the south, Dr. Sridhar said, Scotland could come close to that goal by the end of the summer." [10]
Sridhar has received criticism for her political comments. [11] Murdo Fraser and Donald Cameron, Scottish Conservative opposition members of Scottish Parliament, attacked Sridhar's statement on Twitter that "it is the tragedy of history that when a serious pandemic hit the world where leadership and good governance were required, Donald Trump was US President and Boris Johnson was UK Prime Minister." [12] [13] [14] In response, Sridhar wrote on Twitter that "Scotland is now doing well in its response to Covid-19 which seems to anger anti-Scottish, pro- UK people (' unionists') who are now turning their attacks on me bc I serve on scientific advisory group to Scottish Govt". [15] Sridhar later deleted the statement and apologised, saying the "Deleted tweet describing unionists as anti-Scottish was inaccurate. I misspoke and meant to say anti- Scottish independence, trying to make distinction for my international followers who don't understand what's happening today. Apologies for any offence caused". [15] Fraser "welcomed" the apology but continued to criticise Sridhar, calling for a further apology because "it appears that she still stands by the political attack on the Prime Minister". [15] Writing in The Daily Telegraph, former Scottish Labour Party MP Tom Harris wrote that Sridhar's remarks were "stupid and offensive". [16] By early August, The National reported that Sridhar had blocked Fraser on Twitter, along with Alex Cole-Hamilton, a Scottish Liberal Democrat MSP. [17]
In August, Sridhar used a New York Times op-ed to urge "strict border measures" for European countries, to contain the coronavirus. [18] Noting the different coronavirus rates in Scotland and in Northern Ireland versus in England and in Wales [19] she expressed concern that Scotland and Northern Ireland both "face a stream of incoming infections from England and Wales." [18] The "stream of incoming infections" comment has been criticised by Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats and others, who accused Sridhar of "feeding a divisive nationalist narrative without scientific evidence to back it up" and pointing out that outbreaks in the Orkney Islands, in Glasgow and Lanarkshire, and in Aberdeen could not be attributed to arrivals from England. [20] [21] According to Glasgow's The Herald newspaper: "The Scottish Government said Ms Sridhar was independent and did not speak on its behalf." [21] Nicola Sturgeon said that Sridhar's comments were "not political" and a "perfectly legitimate public health point". [22]
The volume of coverage from across the political spectrum is too much and the people involved too significant to write off as "trivial". This is a significant part of the subject's biography and nearly all of her involvement in public life. GPinkerton ( talk) 20:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Twitter pile-on" arguing it should not be included in the article, and then to cry foul when someone suggests focusing on the top-tier politicians and omitting the petty grievances of Sridhar and her online critics. Apart from that, the article detailing these claims is cited in the proposed text, so by your own logic that's incorporation enough. In short, Devi Sridhar is a public health expert whose political statements are the bulk of her coverage in reliable sources and to which the article should give due consideration. As it stands the article is a gross POV violation, and I question the neutrality of your comments here. GPinkerton ( talk) 03:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
advisory role in no way disqualifies her from having and expressing political opinions. 2.) You have claimed Sridhar said
pro-British and anti-Scottish, whereas she in fact said "anti-Scottish, pro-UK people ('unionists')". This is not the same thing. 3.) You said Sridhar has said
Scotland's low COVID rates are at risk from a "stream of infections" from the UKbut this is not what Sridhar said and betrays a basic misunderstanding. Sridhar spoke in reference to cases from "England and Wales". Not "the UK", which would make no sense, since part of the UK is Scotland, and Sridhar is speaking of Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to England and Wales. This misunderstanding is manifest further up on this page when you claimed
"Sridhar again faces criticism for stating that Scotland's relative success in containing Covid is threatened by a "stream of incoming infections" from Britain, which has the highest rate of coronavirus deaths in Europe, which again suggests you believe Scotland is somehow not Britain and that
the highest rate of coronavirus deaths in Europesomehow does not include Scotland. I see you are now taking WP:OWNership of this page … GPinkerton ( talk) 03:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@ GPinkerton: Thank you for raising the issue on the talk page, and apologies for not chipping in here sooner –the weekend was rather busy. My concern is to do with the overall balance of the article and there are some issues that need to be addressed.
Should the article address controversy? Yes, but there is a question about how this should be done and it's not easy to come to a solution. Recounting each back and forth of a Twitter disagreement is not good practice, especially since Wikipedia articles are meant to use a summary style. That level of detail may be appropriate for someone who is notable for their social media activity, but that is not the case here. Richard Nevell ( talk) 17:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
References
I think it's been clear that containment is the best strategy for your economy, for public health, and for society. Driving numbers low enough that you can get economic and social activity going seems to be the optimal strategy in my view. And the countries that have done that are starting to open up schools and resume activity.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
For now, Scotland's approach has made it a bright spot in coronavirus-ravaged Britain. New cases have dwindled to a handful a day, and deaths to a trickle. If Scotland maintains this progress — a big if, given its open border — it could stamp out the epidemic by the fall, public health experts say. Such a goal seems fanciful in England, which is still reporting hundreds of new cases and dozens of deaths every day.
The screenshot showed an email reading: 'Devi, whores like you would love the Corona Virus to kill millions...' The email subject line read: 'Mind your own business.. you ignorant fascist c***.'
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The comments led to Scottish Conservative constitution spokesperson, Murdo Fraser, claiming Professor Sridhar was 'making her political colours clear', while his party colleague Donald Cameron added: 'Political neutrality from top Scottish Government adviser? Of course not...'
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The only way to stop constant increases in the coronavirus is to eliminate community transmission and to use robust test, trace and isolate policies to continue catching imported cases and clusters as they emerge...Stopping community transmission requires mandatory, enforced quarantine for incoming travelers and testing before release. Europe could do the same and cooperate across countries toward this goal so that intra-European travel and tourism can continue when a safe bubble can be built.
Tory MSP Donald Cameron said Ms Sridhar was 'stoking up the belief that infections from England are hampering Scotland's fight' against Covid. The Scottish Government said Ms Sridhar was independent and did not speak on its behalf.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Should the article include criticism of Devi Sridhar (Scottish Government impartial adviser on COVID-19) and her forays into politics? The leaders of three main political parties have been quoted in reliable media specifically on the subject. An example text including citations to the following media is presented in the section above this. Please give suggestions as to how this should be handled. GPinkerton ( talk) 04:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC) ( this sentence moved from below for technical reasons GPinkerton ( talk) 20:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC))
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC may also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
racist and sexist abuse. Nothing of that kind is proposed and it is shameful to suggest otherwise, HouseOfChange. GPinkerton ( talk) 18:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
References
She told them: '[I] have always expressed my opinions openly ... I'm an independent academic & have no funding from Scottish govt. Originally from Miami & finding these cheap attacks bizarre & sad.'
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Tory MSP Donald Cameron said Ms Sridhar was 'stoking up the belief that infections from England are hampering Scotland's fight' against Covid. The Scottish Government said Ms Sridhar was independent and did not speak on its behalf.
It is understandable that local Scottish media have published a lot about DS's membership on the Scottish COVID advisory committee as well as a number of social media kerfluffles about her political statements.
But the bigger picture is that DS is an international expert on COVID 19, who (in addition to writing papers about COVID research for BMJ and Lancet, and op-eds in The Guardian and the New York Times) also voluntarily serves on two expert advisory panels.
The more important of these committees is the Royal Society's DELVE (Data Evaluation and Learning for Viral Epidemics), whose membership includes Nobel laureates Venki Ramakrishnan and Daniel Kahneman. [1] In addition to advising the UK's SAGE team, this group published data-driven research on COVID, e.g this data-based guidance in The Lancet, [2] whose results were summed up in The Guardian by DS as 1) Test, trace, and isolate 2) Give public health guidance on avoiding the virus and 3) Control borders to prevent reimportation. [3]
When the Scottish government convened its own COVID advisory group in March 2020, DS agreed in April to serve as one of its members. She is also (since June) a member of its subgroup on Education and Children’s Issues.
It is a mistake for this bio to treat DS's international participation in the COVID 19 response as a subtopic of her membership in a Scottish government advisory committee. We would also serve our readers better also if the article included more of DS's public statements on the best way for governments to address COVID. HouseOfChange ( talk) 22:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
References
DELVE: Data Evaluation and Learning for Viral Epidemics is a multi-disciplinary group, convened by the Royal Society, to support a data-driven approach to learning from the different approaches countries are taking to managing the pandemic. This effort has been discussed with and welcomed by Government, who have arranged for it to provide input through SAGE, its scientific advisory group for emergencies.
To facilitate cross-country learning, this Health Policy paper uses an adapted framework to examine the approaches taken by nine high-income countries and regions that have started to ease COVID-19 restrictions: five in the Asia Pacific region (ie, Hong Kong [Special Administrative Region], Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea) and four in Europe (ie, Germany, Norway, Spain, and the UK). This comparative analysis presents important lessons to be learnt from the experiences of these countries and regions.
A recent Lancet peer-reviewed paper, which I co-authored, examined international lessons from easing lockdown and identified three key elements that are essential for bringing the virus under control. Most important is a robust system for testing, tracing and isolating...Strong public health guidance on avoiding the virus at any age is needed...And we need strict border measures to prevent the virus from being reimported
I worry about increased child abuse and children losing access to supportive environments outside the household, such as schools and recreational programmes; more kids falling into poverty and going hungry; the loss of education and teacher interaction, especially for kids who need this support; limited social interaction with other kids and play, which is important for social development and physical activity; the loss of loved ones and caregivers.. and, finally, delayed paediatric care for non-COVID conditions because of overwhelmed health systems.
Nationalist sentiment has surged during the pandemic: Fifty-five percent of Scots now favor independence, according to a recent poll — a solid majority that analysts said reflected a perception that Scotland's nationalist-led government has handled the crisis better than Mr. Johnson and his pro-Brexit ministers have.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
In June 2020 (but talking about possible school re-openings in August 2020), Sridhar tweeted: [1]
if Covid-19 numbers can be brought low enough in Scotland by 11 August (under 20 confirmed cases) & with appropriate 'test and protect' policies, my personal view is that schools should re-open as normally as possible (kids back full-time & able to play/interact together).
Then, according to Scotland's The National: [2]
Journalist Peter Macmahon retweeted Sridhar’s thread with the angle that she, like former FM Jack McConnell, is one of the voices calling for Nicola Sturgeon to do more to get pupils back in schools on a full-time basis. Sridhar rejected the theory – saying she and the SNP leader are 'completely aligned', adding she supports her 'cautious approach' to easing lockdown
Neither of those two news stories just cited are about this trivial twitter back and forth -- which serves only as background to something that did very briefly get a bit of news coverage, a tweet by Ruth Davidson, leader of the largest of the Opposition Parties of the Scottish Parliament, that characterised DS's support of NS as a cowardly response to chastisement: "Guess someone got the hairdryer treatment over the phone...", (which Sturgeon characterized as "Untrue" and "utterly disgraceful to suggest". [3] [4]
In fact, all four of news stories suggested as sources by GPinkerton are written about the pushback against Davidson's insult, their titles being "Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson in Twitter spat over Scottish Government adviser," "Nicola Sturgeon slams Ruth Davidson's 'disgraceful' claim about virus expert," "Virus expert Devi Sridhar hits back at Ruth Davidson after 'disgraceful' tweet," and "SNP call for Ruth Davidson to explain why she attacked virus expert." This foolish and failed attempt by Ruth Davidson to score points against her political rival has only the most distant and diaphanous connection to anything said or done by Devi Sridhar. It does not deserve to be enshrined in this article, IMO. HouseOfChange ( talk) 23:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Then, this morning, at 7.43am, Nicola Sturgeon quoted Ms Sridhar’s tweet and said: '1/ Right now (like other UK nations), we must plan for a school model based on physical distancing. But as @devisridhar says, *if* we can suppress virus sufficiently & have other measures in place, nearer normality may be possible. It’s why we must stick with plan to suppress. 2/ We’ll be guided by evidence & won’t compromise safety (we still don’t know everything about this virus). And we’ll work with parents, young people & teachers to build confidence. All countries grappling with these tough issues - @scotgov determined to do right for children.'
Getting back to my "bizarre assumption that things that happen in Devi Sridhar's life are not worthy of inclusion" -- per WP:BALASP, I do assume that only important things that happen in Devi Sridhar's life belong in her Wikipedia bio. HouseOfChange ( talk) 18:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
an unsupported-by-fact accusation", 2.) determined by the electoral successes of what you wrongly call "
a small and shrinking" party? The Scottish Conservatives, for good or ill, are the second largest party in Scotland's legislature and if the criticism of their members, and members of all other major parties in parliament, are somehow undue in your view, then you must be arguing for Wikipedia-by-SNP-press-release. Luckily, others do not share this view, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and your unique and not-supported-by-others-or-by-reliable-sources view of what is relevant is of little concern. GPinkerton ( talk) 02:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
No RS supports Davidson's claim that DS "got the hairdryer treatment over the phone." This discussion is about whether or not that unsupported-by-RS claim should be added to the bio of Devi Sridhar. It is not censorship to abide by WP:ONUS and by WP:NPOV. For a comparison, the bio Rafael Cruz does not include the name of Donald Trump or Trump's widely-reported (but unsupported by RS) claim that RC was involved in the Kennedy assassination. HouseOfChange ( talk) 14:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Richard Nevell for your civil and policy-based explanations. Just reviewing policies that have been cited explaining why the "hairdryer" comment does not belong in the article: WP:SUMMARY, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BALASP. Also, what does not seem to get through at all to GPinkerton is WP:ONUS. The burden is on the person who wants to add new material to get consensus from others -- and in order to get consensus, you will find that policy-based arguments are better than accusing other editors of dishonesty, bias, and censoring Wikipedia. HouseOfChange ( talk) 01:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Professor Devi Sridhar, who sits on the Scottish Government's Covid-19 expert scientific advisory group, tweeted that 'if Covid-19 numbers can be brought low enough in Scotland by 11 August (under 20 confirmed cases) & with appropriate 'test and protect' policies, my personal view is that schools should re-open as normally as possible (kids back full-time & able to play/interact together).'
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Journalist Peter Macmahon retweeted Sridhar's thread with the angle that she, like former FM Jack McConnell, is one of the voices calling for Nicola Sturgeon to do more to get pupils back in schools on a full-time basis. Sridhar rejected the theory – saying she and the SNP leader are 'completely aligned', adding she supports her 'cautious approach' to easing lockdown
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The global health expert advising the Scottish Government on Covid-19 has hit back at the former Scottish Tory leader after she posted a 'disgraceful' tweet about the professor.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
RUTH Davidson has been urged to explain why she attacked the integrity of a well respected public health official. The former Scottish Tory leader accused Devi Sridhar of compromising her position on the return of Scottish schools because she had been leaned on by SNP ministers
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Chrisvls proposed that this article might do more to discuss DS's "stream of infections" comment in an op-ed, which caused controversy when Nicola Sturgeon did not immediately disavow the idea of a cross-border quarantine between Scotland and England. [1]
Should this bio repeat attacks on DS for claiming that COVID cases in Scotland are caused by English visitors, when DS has never made any such claim? What other sources and discussion should the bio include about the "stream of infections" controversy? HouseOfChange ( talk) 16:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
In August, Sridhar used a New York Times op-ed to urge "strict border measures" for European countries, to contain the coronavirus. [2] Noting the different coronavirus rates in Scotland and in Northern Ireland versus in England and in Wales [3] she expressed concern that Scotland and Northern Ireland both "face a stream of incoming infections from England and Wales." [2] The "stream of incoming infections" comment has been criticised by Scottish unionists and others, with Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, accusing Sridhar of "feeding a divisive nationalist narrative without scientific evidence to back it up." [4] [5] Nicola Sturgeon said that Sridhar's comments were "not political" and a "perfectly legitimate public health point". [6] The Scottish Government said Sridhar "was independent" and "did not speak on its behalf." [5]
The article now includes all of *2 and most of *1. It omits the part of Rennie's statement implying that DS blamed England for COVID outbreaks all over Scotland. Thanks to GPinkerton for helpful suggestions. HouseOfChange ( talk) 21:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Several RS state that the differing treatment of COVID-19 in Scotland versus overall-UK has been divisive. [7] [8] Unionists and Scottish conservatives fear COVID policy is being used by pro-independence partisans "to drive a wedge between Scotland and England." [1]
Praising Scottish successes and criticizing Boris Johnson's COVID policy, as DS frequently does on Twitter and in many op-eds, can therefore be seen in one of two ways. Perhaps DS is giving her professional opinion concerning two different health policies--or perhaps DS is helping to drive a wedge between Scotland and England, promoting the cause of Scottish independence.
Concerning COVID, pro-union opinion says that Scotland's "many Covid failures replicate the blunderings of Westminster, but her [SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon's] reassuring language has boosted her standing. She has deployed Scotland’s devolved powers over health to eye-catching effect." [9] Similarly, according to this op-ed, the SNP made much of small temporary COVID differences between Scotland and England, with the result that "nationalists in hazmat suits shout at vehicles with English number plates." [10] HouseOfChange ( talk) 00:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
(ec) The current and proposed text are both factually accurate, and verifiable. It does summarise the incident, I suppose the main issue is how much detail should be covered. One thing that occurs to me is that the op-ed was a reflection on the role of tourism and travel in community transmission of the virus and how countries are addressing it. As part of that, Sridhar mentioned that Scotland and Northern Ireland "face a stream of incoming infections from England and Wales."
She also said The only way to stop constant increases in the coronavirus is to eliminate community transmission and to use robust test, trace and isolate policies to continue catching imported cases and clusters as they emerge. .... Stopping community transmission requires mandatory, enforced quarantine for incoming travelers and testing before release.
I think it would therefore we worth altering the start of this bit to reflect the main point of the op-ed. That's not to say the "stream of infections" comment isn't significant. What you mean to convey and what message people hear can be two very different things, but both important. I'm reluctant to say that the answer is to include even more detail due to reasons of balance. Various politicians did indeed chime in one way or another, but what is the real-world significance of the whole episode? By contrast, I'm thinking of Marcus Rashford's campaign to get school meals extended over the school holidays. That led to not only a debate in Parliament, but a grassroots campaign in which individuals and organisations have mobilised to have an impact on society. Do we have evidence that the op-ed has had a significant impact? Richard Nevell ( talk) 18:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@ GPinkerton: I don't understand what you think is "demonstrably false," but if you cite some RS that agrees with you, I could learn. Is it also "demonstrably false" when Boris Johnson says "there’s no such thing as a border between England and Scotland"? Opinion pieces such as McWhirter's are typically not good RS for a BLP, and certainly not for linking a NYT op-ed to "masked nationalists in hazmat suits" when no causal connection is shown. Furthermore, the quote from McWhirter that you added to the bio (and which I removed) makes two distinctly false claims: that DS has changed her mind about COVID 1) by giving up on Scotland-only elimination and 2) by "now" saying we must learn to live with COVID (this latter is something she has been saying since April at least. I found no support in RS for either claim by McWhirter, which is why I removed the quote, and other sources give a less-POV picture of Scottish COVID strategy in September. HouseOfChange ( talk) 00:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
References
The Scottish Tory leader, Jackson Carlaw, has said the virus 'should not be used as an issue to drive a wedge between Scotland and England.'
The only way to stop constant increases in the coronavirus is to eliminate community transmission and to use robust test, trace and isolate policies to continue catching imported cases and clusters as they emerge...Stopping community transmission requires mandatory, enforced quarantine for incoming travelers and testing before release. Europe could do the same and cooperate across countries toward this goal so that intra-European travel and tourism can continue when a safe bubble can be built.
Willie Rennie, the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, said it was 'unhelpful' for Professor Sridhar to be 'feeding a divisive nationalist narrative without scientific evidence to back it up'.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Tory MSP Donald Cameron said Ms Sridhar was 'stoking up the belief that infections from England are hampering Scotland's fight' against Covid. The Scottish Government said Ms Sridhar was independent and did not speak on its behalf.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Ms Sturgeon said: 'I know the point Devi is making and I think it is a perfectly legitimate public health point. This is not about different countries or nationalities or different groups of people, this is about trying to keep an infectious virus under control and when there are outbreaks in particular parts of the UK that may mean limiting travel or advising against travel from those areas to other parts of the UK.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The end of an earlier lockdown lockstep has led to increasingly clear policy differences that are piling new strains on already fraying UK unity and has sparked fierce disputes over the possibility of introducing controls on visitors from England to Scotland.
Nationalist sentiment has surged during the pandemic: Fifty-five percent of Scots now favor independence, according to a recent poll — a solid majority that analysts said reflected a perception that Scotland's nationalist-led government has handled the crisis better than Mr. Johnson and his pro-Brexit ministers have.
Six years ago Scotland voted by a 10-point margin to stay part of the U.K. Yet the last nine consecutive opinion polls show the backing for leave as high as 58 per cent, and averaging at 53 per cent...
The New Scientist agreed, announcing in a headline that: 'Scotland would be Covid-free if it weren't for England'. Nicola Sturgeon ruled out closing the border but said quarantine measures might have to be imposed on cross-border travellers. Masked nationalists in hazmat suits hiked to Berwick to shout at vehicles with English number plates. That all seems a long time ago. We're back at defcon 4 and the epidemic is supposedly spreading again like wildfire in Scotland. The R number is as high as England's
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Something is wrong with the URL to the article labelled as The Herald and titled "Infections streaming in …". The URL does not link to the article and presents a login page to the The Sunday Herald. Can someone fix this? I can't find the article elsewhere and I'm not sure the citation adds up. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@
C.Fred:, @
Richard Nevell:, the reason I ask is because the citation was in fact very misleading. The article referred to was not published in The Herald or The Sunday Herald, as claimed in the citation. Neither was it titled "Infections 'streaming in from England and Wales'". Instead, it was published by the explicitly biased and pro-SNP government newspaper
The National. You can see read the story they published here, titled:
Scotland facing 'stream of infections' from England and Wales, Devi Sridhar warns. Unlike in the text I proposed, the article at present relies on this publication for statements of fact uncorroborated by reliable sources. I propose that this be removed or at least changed to make it less misleading and false. The citation, if it must be used, ought to be: Cochrane, Angus (16 August 2020).
"Scotland facing 'stream of infections' from England and Wales, Devi Sridhar warns". The National. Retrieved 2020-10-26.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link).
GPinkerton (
talk) 19:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton The two screen captures I posted above as evidence are about to be deleted, because free use images are only for use in articles (not on talk pages.) I hope, having had time to review them, you will not renew your claim that no Herald article existed, and that it was "misleading and false" to cite it in the bio. (The fact that the Herald failed to index its story in an accessible way shows just how minor they found the dispute. Fortunately, I found several pointers to the article using Google, and obtained a screen-capture of the PressReader by paying PressReader for access to that day's issue of the Herald. You can do the same, if you need more evidence concerning the article.) The full article was easy to see online, back in August, on the original access-date given in the citation. HouseOfChange ( talk) 15:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Colorblind1 has tried to add a new photo from Commons, but it is not clear who owns the rights to that image (at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sridhar_Devi_pic.jpg ) Because that image is likely to be deleted from Commons, I think we should keep our current picture until there is a better one with the right license. HouseOfChange ( talk) 17:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There seems to be a slow-moving edit war developing over whether to include content about a Twitter post and the reaction to it. Please discuss it here rather than continue to revert each other. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for intervening. The addition by Alssa1 is wholly inaccurate, biased and irrelevant. There was no "public outcry" in regards to Professor Sridhar's tweet. There was an expression of partisan outrage from unionist politicians of minority parties and their supporters ONLY. This was part of a campaign of harassment and, indeed, abuse that has been levelled at Professor Sridhar by certain elements of Scotland's political scene. More on this can be found here https://www.thenational.scot/news/18566263.devi-sridhar-shares-screenshots-vile-abuse-sent-pandemic/ and here https://www.thenational.scot/news/18558720.devi-sridhar-hits-back-unionist-brands-so-called-expert/ . If Alssa1 insists on including his misinformation about the tweet, then we will have to include the whole history of harassment that surrounds it. That would be plainly riduclous. All of this is irrelevant to Professor Sridhar's life and accomplishments which are very prodigious. It is no exaggeration to say that she's one of the most accomplished people in the world, let alone in her own field. To have a plethora of useless information on her Wikipedia entry in regards to an internal political spat (largely taking place on Twitter) would, I'd suggest, make a mockery of the very function of Wikipedia. I'm afraid I will not stand by and see a woman of such high standing being deliberately targeted by someone whose Wikipedia profile confirms them to be a right wing British nationalist of a kind which is synonymous with Scottish unionism. Many thanks again for your intervention. In regards to a photo, I'd imagine the one used in the news story I've linked to above would be suitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Laura Simoni ( talk • contribs) 11:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
As
Victuallers said above, there is a real person involved here. Professor Sridhar fights to save lives by offering advice freely to the Scottish Government and continues to make many selfless contributions to battling disease and saving lives across the world. The fact that she once may or may not have a offended a few unionists in Scotland with a tweet - *a tweet* - would be a bizarre inclusion to her Wikipedia page and has no place there. This is especially true given the relative success of the Scottish Government in suppressing the virus, now recognised globally, where Professor Sridhar's contribution has been invaluable. See here, for example
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/world/europe/coroanvirus-scotland-england.html or here
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-scotland-england-cases-charts-latest-lockdown-strategy-a9622016.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1594931108 The bottom line is that Alssa1 is attempting to politicise this wikipedia entry and is also posting a disingenuous comment by saying there was a "public outcry". There was no public outcry. The outrage of a few unionists on Twitter is not a public outcry. Alssa1 knows that this is a political spat and, as such, it is him who is playing the man (or woman) and not the ball by trying to smear Professor Sridhar with this ridiculous inclusion of a non-event which has no relevance to her life and achievements whatsoever. Professor Sridhar is a globably renowned figure. She has no involvement in the local, parochial debates between Nationalists and Unionists in Scotland. She has been snagged into the tittle tattle of these debates simply through the mischief-making of people like Alssa1. It is an absurd situation, and its absurdity has no place in this wikipedia entry - unless, of course, we are to take the view that Wikipedia is not a serious knowledge resource but a place to spread misinformation about the people included here.
I think the weakness in both our positions is, as you have stated, that there is no common view on this. This is because what we're arguing about is an extension of the Scottish debate on independence where there is no common view. Polls currently show the pro-independence side to be ahead at 54%. This could as easily shift to show the unionist side ahead at any point. It is that close. But this debate has nothing to do with Professor Sridhar and her life and achievements. That is the point here. Please, if you haven't already, take the time to look at her Wikipedia entry. Her accomplishments are astonishing. But what makes her an astonishing person, above all, is her dedication to eradicating disease and improving the lives of people around the world. To include an episode from such a petty dispute, which can only be judged subjectively, in an attempt to undermine her person, simply cannot be allowed to happen if this platform is to maintain the credibility it deserves through the efforts of those who contribute to its existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Laura Simoni ( talk • contribs) 08:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it's clear that Alssa1 is politically motivated to add text which is intended to undermine the character of Professor Sridhar while failing to give the full picture of the events he refers to. Professor Sridhar has been acclaimed for her part in steering the Scottish Government towards a successful handling of the coronavirus pandemic in Scotland. This has infuriated Scottish unionists because it contrasts with what has been largely perceived as a disastrous performance by the UK government in relation to the same (See here, for example: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scotland-on-course-to-beat-coronavirus-says-independent-sage-tz25tsj07 and here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/19/plaudits-for-nicola-sturgeon-fuel-talk-of-scottish-independence-drive ). A hard core of Scottish unionists have consequently been on the attack against Professor Sridhar, seeking to discredit her and distort the reality of her contribution to saving lives in Scotland. This attempt by Alssa1 to include his text is simply an extension of that. My own reasons for challenging this are not so much political but arise from a determination to ensure that the integrity of someone whose advice and actions have undoubtedly saved lives in my country remains intact and free of political manipulation. The issue of her tweet is an irrelevance to her achievements on a global scale, irrelevant to her achievements as an advisor to the Scottish government, and an irrelevance to the vast majority of people in Scotland except for a few hardcore Scottish unionists. Indeed, Professor Sridhar has been widely praised for her contribution to suppressing the virus in Scotland. This from one of Scotland's most important contemporary cultural figures, the author Irvine Welsh, only the other day, appropriately delivered in the form of a tweet: "This woman [Professor Sridhar], and willingness of Sturgeon & govt in Scotland to listen to her, is one of the main reasons the infection rate there has gone from being one of the worst to one of the best in Europe." See: https://twitter.com/IrvineWelsh/status/1284433480198299648 This tweet by Irvine Welsh is a much truer reflection of what people in Scotland think of Devi Sridhar - not some bogus "public outcry" which didn't happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Laura Simoni ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
In line with recommendations I have resubmitted the rfc Should this article mention Sridhar's twitter post reported on 5 July 2020? Alssa1 ( talk) 08:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
{{od} The difference is the volume of media coverage -- number of stories, numbers of media outlets talking about it, number of weeks the story stayed in the news. Another difference is that Wikipedia works by consensus, and the consensus here is that the SD "Tweet" story is too trivial for the SD article, whereas the consensus there was that something should be included in the article. HouseOfChange ( talk) 21:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I have been trying to understand the background of this story, so bear with me if you already know it.
So maybe this article should have a section on DS's critique of UK COVID strategy, which has generated much more news coverage, and is much more relevant to her career, than a few words in one tweet that her opponents would love to make central to the COVID discussion. HouseOfChange ( talk) 13:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Don't put things into quotes that are not in fact quotes. I said that you 'continue to misrepresent her' meaning that your previous talk page comment continues to make the same misrepresentation that others have made. Since people have repeatedly explained to you, above, why your repeated addition of the tweet "controversy" gets repeatedly removed, I would rather spend my own volunteer hours working on Wikipedia articles.
HouseOfChange (
talk) 16:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
|
The "Scottish" section now contains a fair sampling of her public comments, criticism of them, and the Scottish government pointing out that she does not speak for them. Wikipedia tries to treat notable controversies in a balanced way. The tiny tweet "controversy" takes much longer to explain than it is worth to the article, IMO. The material now there makes it clear that DS feels free to express political as well as scientific opinions, and that some of her statements have been controversial. Reference 24 (David Bol piece), now in the article, describes the whole tweet controversy and even references it in the article headline. HouseOfChange ( talk) 17:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I have ever seen a BLP that catalogs qualifications its subject does not have. "Steven Pinker does not have a PhD in English literature, therefore he is not qualified to write books." etc. Some blogger has decided that because Devi Sridhar is not a GP working for the NHS, she is therefore unqualified to give advice on public health. And in support of that, should we add some joking remarks by DS that she is not a "real doctor." Certainly not in the lead, but I don't see it falls to this biography or any other to explain to hypothetical idiots out there that having a degree in public health is a different expertise from knowing how to remove a wart or prescribe a month's worth of pills. HouseOfChange ( talk) 19:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
So context is maintained, the comment under consideration can be found here:
2A01:4B00:84C7:9E00:D972:2639:7E7B:DF23 ( talk) 20:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Better citation clearly needs to be used - a way forward here would be to switch to using the following language in the education section:
DrJoHeiter ( talk) 21:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
It is WP:SYNTH (and highly misleading) to insert into the lead that DS "is an anthropologist", based on her Oxford D.Phil thesis from 2006 (whose topic was World Bank policy and its effect on nutrition in India.) HouseOfChange ( talk) 16:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Global Health is a theme, not a discipline. If someone has a doctorate in economics, and focuses on public health, they'd be described as 'an economist specialising in public health'. Sridhar's training is in anthropology. Her MSc is in anthropology, as was her PhD. Additionally, Oxford has no DPhil in 'Public Health'. Hence, she should be described as 'an anthropologist specialising in public health'. This is factually accurate. There is no other discipline that she could claim to be.
It is worth noting that in 2005, Sridhar wrote in Anthropology Today 'I have learned that to present oneself as an anthropologist arouses suspicion and prompts questions, and results in unanswered phone calls and cancelled appointments. Obtaining access is almost impossible. However, when I introduce myself as 'working in public health', doors open.' (Sridhar, D. (2005). Review of Ethics and Development: Some Concerns with David Mosse's Cultivating Development, Anthropology Today, Vol. 21, No.6, pp.19). Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3694943. This quote suggests that she is well aware that she is an anthropologist, but has chosen to downplay this as it is not politically helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RustySockets ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems misleading to give "anthropologist" top billing, especially when her degree was in social anthropology and her MPhil and Dphil research were on global public health policy. How does it benefit our readers to introduce non-essential and confusing material into the lead? If we want to say she is "a public health policy expert and also a something else", it would make more sense to say that she is also an author, or to say that she is an advisor on UK and Scottish health policy. Either of those facts about Sridhar is more important than the academic specialty of her thesis advisor. HouseOfChange ( talk) 17:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
HouseOfChange I don’t know if you’ve noticed but I think there *is* actually WP:OR in the first sentence. Any idea what I think it is? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I want to take a step back from the discussion to the RS:
So maybe it will be clearer and more accurate if we describe her as a "medical anthropologist," since that is what I read in her Oxford background. Or "social anthropologist"? What do others think? I want us to find a consensus way to go forward. HouseOfChange ( talk) 02:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
In my mind the question is about two points, the accurate description of the person's work and their academic/educational background. As for the first, following the line of evidence presented above and also corroborate by the publication record on Google Scholar [3] Her work over the last 15 years has no anthropology in it and only public health. This would support the view of calling her a public health researcher in the lead of the article followed by an explanation in the main body on the anthropology bit. As for the academic/educational background point, her last academic grade appointment is Chair of global health, and again based on the references provided above all her appointments (lecturer etc.) over the last 15 years were in public health and not anthropology. Having had a look at the University of Edinburgh's website on the procedure to be appointed Chair you can see that this involves "Sustained achievement of the highest distinction, in the advancement of knowledge and understanding ..."; "Recognition in an international context". [4]. The last two points support that the peers and the scientific community in global health see her as a global health researcher and not anthropologist. Finally, being appointed lecturer/professor in my view is the highest academic grade she achieved via an evaluation process similar to an examination, and would therefor be the latest stage of her education. OK, that is it from me. Getting all a bit too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.4.80 ( talk) 09:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I will not read the morass above, but having looked at the Wikipedia article and the sources, the Wikipedia article does not sufficiently explain the political forays and counter-sallies. I think the way I had it was suitably worded, but Richard Nevell has reverted it. As it stands, the article is rather unbalanced, but I think a wipe of all the criticism and counter-criticism is not helpful. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Here are some sources, beisde the two articles in The Herald which I cited before:
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)I'm fairly sure this volume and breadth of coverage, over a sustained period, is worth rewriting the relevant section to include. It would be odd to omit it, and it's not true to say that this is merely a Twitter pile-on. It's clearly a long-running political dispute, and this article needs to do that reality justice. GPinkerton ( talk) 06:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I propose the following text:
Sridhar praised the resulting Scottish government strategy to deal with the pandemic, a strategy whose goals are 1) "to reduce exposure" and 2) "to keep daily new cases as low as possible." [5] In June 2020, Sridhar appeared to be at odds with the policy position of First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon on the upcoming beginning of the school term and the question of whether schools might reopen as normal. [6] Sridhar later issued a clarification, saying that in fact, Sturgeon and she "were completely aligned". [6] [7] Ruth Davidson, leader of the largest of the Opposition Parties of the Scottish Parliament, criticised the apparent volte-face, writing on Twitter: "Guess someone got the hairdryer treatment over the phone...", though Sturgeon responded that this was "Untrue" and "utterly disgraceful to suggest". [6] [8] [9] Sridhar also repeatedly contrasted the Scottish Government's response to the pandemic to the strategy used by the British Government in managing the COVID-19 pandemic in England: [10] "Devi Sridhar, who runs the global health governance program at the University of Edinburgh, noted that the two countries took radically different approaches from the start: England's priority was to prevent its hospitals from being overrun, while Scotland's was to drive cases down to zero. If not for imported cases from the south, Dr. Sridhar said, Scotland could come close to that goal by the end of the summer." [10]
Sridhar has received criticism for her political comments. [11] Murdo Fraser and Donald Cameron, Scottish Conservative opposition members of Scottish Parliament, attacked Sridhar's statement on Twitter that "it is the tragedy of history that when a serious pandemic hit the world where leadership and good governance were required, Donald Trump was US President and Boris Johnson was UK Prime Minister." [12] [13] [14] In response, Sridhar wrote on Twitter that "Scotland is now doing well in its response to Covid-19 which seems to anger anti-Scottish, pro- UK people (' unionists') who are now turning their attacks on me bc I serve on scientific advisory group to Scottish Govt". [15] Sridhar later deleted the statement and apologised, saying the "Deleted tweet describing unionists as anti-Scottish was inaccurate. I misspoke and meant to say anti- Scottish independence, trying to make distinction for my international followers who don't understand what's happening today. Apologies for any offence caused". [15] Fraser "welcomed" the apology but continued to criticise Sridhar, calling for a further apology because "it appears that she still stands by the political attack on the Prime Minister". [15] Writing in The Daily Telegraph, former Scottish Labour Party MP Tom Harris wrote that Sridhar's remarks were "stupid and offensive". [16] By early August, The National reported that Sridhar had blocked Fraser on Twitter, along with Alex Cole-Hamilton, a Scottish Liberal Democrat MSP. [17]
In August, Sridhar used a New York Times op-ed to urge "strict border measures" for European countries, to contain the coronavirus. [18] Noting the different coronavirus rates in Scotland and in Northern Ireland versus in England and in Wales [19] she expressed concern that Scotland and Northern Ireland both "face a stream of incoming infections from England and Wales." [18] The "stream of incoming infections" comment has been criticised by Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats and others, who accused Sridhar of "feeding a divisive nationalist narrative without scientific evidence to back it up" and pointing out that outbreaks in the Orkney Islands, in Glasgow and Lanarkshire, and in Aberdeen could not be attributed to arrivals from England. [20] [21] According to Glasgow's The Herald newspaper: "The Scottish Government said Ms Sridhar was independent and did not speak on its behalf." [21] Nicola Sturgeon said that Sridhar's comments were "not political" and a "perfectly legitimate public health point". [22]
The volume of coverage from across the political spectrum is too much and the people involved too significant to write off as "trivial". This is a significant part of the subject's biography and nearly all of her involvement in public life. GPinkerton ( talk) 20:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Twitter pile-on" arguing it should not be included in the article, and then to cry foul when someone suggests focusing on the top-tier politicians and omitting the petty grievances of Sridhar and her online critics. Apart from that, the article detailing these claims is cited in the proposed text, so by your own logic that's incorporation enough. In short, Devi Sridhar is a public health expert whose political statements are the bulk of her coverage in reliable sources and to which the article should give due consideration. As it stands the article is a gross POV violation, and I question the neutrality of your comments here. GPinkerton ( talk) 03:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
advisory role in no way disqualifies her from having and expressing political opinions. 2.) You have claimed Sridhar said
pro-British and anti-Scottish, whereas she in fact said "anti-Scottish, pro-UK people ('unionists')". This is not the same thing. 3.) You said Sridhar has said
Scotland's low COVID rates are at risk from a "stream of infections" from the UKbut this is not what Sridhar said and betrays a basic misunderstanding. Sridhar spoke in reference to cases from "England and Wales". Not "the UK", which would make no sense, since part of the UK is Scotland, and Sridhar is speaking of Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to England and Wales. This misunderstanding is manifest further up on this page when you claimed
"Sridhar again faces criticism for stating that Scotland's relative success in containing Covid is threatened by a "stream of incoming infections" from Britain, which has the highest rate of coronavirus deaths in Europe, which again suggests you believe Scotland is somehow not Britain and that
the highest rate of coronavirus deaths in Europesomehow does not include Scotland. I see you are now taking WP:OWNership of this page … GPinkerton ( talk) 03:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@ GPinkerton: Thank you for raising the issue on the talk page, and apologies for not chipping in here sooner –the weekend was rather busy. My concern is to do with the overall balance of the article and there are some issues that need to be addressed.
Should the article address controversy? Yes, but there is a question about how this should be done and it's not easy to come to a solution. Recounting each back and forth of a Twitter disagreement is not good practice, especially since Wikipedia articles are meant to use a summary style. That level of detail may be appropriate for someone who is notable for their social media activity, but that is not the case here. Richard Nevell ( talk) 17:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
References
I think it's been clear that containment is the best strategy for your economy, for public health, and for society. Driving numbers low enough that you can get economic and social activity going seems to be the optimal strategy in my view. And the countries that have done that are starting to open up schools and resume activity.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
For now, Scotland's approach has made it a bright spot in coronavirus-ravaged Britain. New cases have dwindled to a handful a day, and deaths to a trickle. If Scotland maintains this progress — a big if, given its open border — it could stamp out the epidemic by the fall, public health experts say. Such a goal seems fanciful in England, which is still reporting hundreds of new cases and dozens of deaths every day.
The screenshot showed an email reading: 'Devi, whores like you would love the Corona Virus to kill millions...' The email subject line read: 'Mind your own business.. you ignorant fascist c***.'
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The comments led to Scottish Conservative constitution spokesperson, Murdo Fraser, claiming Professor Sridhar was 'making her political colours clear', while his party colleague Donald Cameron added: 'Political neutrality from top Scottish Government adviser? Of course not...'
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The only way to stop constant increases in the coronavirus is to eliminate community transmission and to use robust test, trace and isolate policies to continue catching imported cases and clusters as they emerge...Stopping community transmission requires mandatory, enforced quarantine for incoming travelers and testing before release. Europe could do the same and cooperate across countries toward this goal so that intra-European travel and tourism can continue when a safe bubble can be built.
Tory MSP Donald Cameron said Ms Sridhar was 'stoking up the belief that infections from England are hampering Scotland's fight' against Covid. The Scottish Government said Ms Sridhar was independent and did not speak on its behalf.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Should the article include criticism of Devi Sridhar (Scottish Government impartial adviser on COVID-19) and her forays into politics? The leaders of three main political parties have been quoted in reliable media specifically on the subject. An example text including citations to the following media is presented in the section above this. Please give suggestions as to how this should be handled. GPinkerton ( talk) 04:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC) ( this sentence moved from below for technical reasons GPinkerton ( talk) 20:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC))
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC may also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
racist and sexist abuse. Nothing of that kind is proposed and it is shameful to suggest otherwise, HouseOfChange. GPinkerton ( talk) 18:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
References
She told them: '[I] have always expressed my opinions openly ... I'm an independent academic & have no funding from Scottish govt. Originally from Miami & finding these cheap attacks bizarre & sad.'
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Tory MSP Donald Cameron said Ms Sridhar was 'stoking up the belief that infections from England are hampering Scotland's fight' against Covid. The Scottish Government said Ms Sridhar was independent and did not speak on its behalf.
It is understandable that local Scottish media have published a lot about DS's membership on the Scottish COVID advisory committee as well as a number of social media kerfluffles about her political statements.
But the bigger picture is that DS is an international expert on COVID 19, who (in addition to writing papers about COVID research for BMJ and Lancet, and op-eds in The Guardian and the New York Times) also voluntarily serves on two expert advisory panels.
The more important of these committees is the Royal Society's DELVE (Data Evaluation and Learning for Viral Epidemics), whose membership includes Nobel laureates Venki Ramakrishnan and Daniel Kahneman. [1] In addition to advising the UK's SAGE team, this group published data-driven research on COVID, e.g this data-based guidance in The Lancet, [2] whose results were summed up in The Guardian by DS as 1) Test, trace, and isolate 2) Give public health guidance on avoiding the virus and 3) Control borders to prevent reimportation. [3]
When the Scottish government convened its own COVID advisory group in March 2020, DS agreed in April to serve as one of its members. She is also (since June) a member of its subgroup on Education and Children’s Issues.
It is a mistake for this bio to treat DS's international participation in the COVID 19 response as a subtopic of her membership in a Scottish government advisory committee. We would also serve our readers better also if the article included more of DS's public statements on the best way for governments to address COVID. HouseOfChange ( talk) 22:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
References
DELVE: Data Evaluation and Learning for Viral Epidemics is a multi-disciplinary group, convened by the Royal Society, to support a data-driven approach to learning from the different approaches countries are taking to managing the pandemic. This effort has been discussed with and welcomed by Government, who have arranged for it to provide input through SAGE, its scientific advisory group for emergencies.
To facilitate cross-country learning, this Health Policy paper uses an adapted framework to examine the approaches taken by nine high-income countries and regions that have started to ease COVID-19 restrictions: five in the Asia Pacific region (ie, Hong Kong [Special Administrative Region], Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea) and four in Europe (ie, Germany, Norway, Spain, and the UK). This comparative analysis presents important lessons to be learnt from the experiences of these countries and regions.
A recent Lancet peer-reviewed paper, which I co-authored, examined international lessons from easing lockdown and identified three key elements that are essential for bringing the virus under control. Most important is a robust system for testing, tracing and isolating...Strong public health guidance on avoiding the virus at any age is needed...And we need strict border measures to prevent the virus from being reimported
I worry about increased child abuse and children losing access to supportive environments outside the household, such as schools and recreational programmes; more kids falling into poverty and going hungry; the loss of education and teacher interaction, especially for kids who need this support; limited social interaction with other kids and play, which is important for social development and physical activity; the loss of loved ones and caregivers.. and, finally, delayed paediatric care for non-COVID conditions because of overwhelmed health systems.
Nationalist sentiment has surged during the pandemic: Fifty-five percent of Scots now favor independence, according to a recent poll — a solid majority that analysts said reflected a perception that Scotland's nationalist-led government has handled the crisis better than Mr. Johnson and his pro-Brexit ministers have.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
In June 2020 (but talking about possible school re-openings in August 2020), Sridhar tweeted: [1]
if Covid-19 numbers can be brought low enough in Scotland by 11 August (under 20 confirmed cases) & with appropriate 'test and protect' policies, my personal view is that schools should re-open as normally as possible (kids back full-time & able to play/interact together).
Then, according to Scotland's The National: [2]
Journalist Peter Macmahon retweeted Sridhar’s thread with the angle that she, like former FM Jack McConnell, is one of the voices calling for Nicola Sturgeon to do more to get pupils back in schools on a full-time basis. Sridhar rejected the theory – saying she and the SNP leader are 'completely aligned', adding she supports her 'cautious approach' to easing lockdown
Neither of those two news stories just cited are about this trivial twitter back and forth -- which serves only as background to something that did very briefly get a bit of news coverage, a tweet by Ruth Davidson, leader of the largest of the Opposition Parties of the Scottish Parliament, that characterised DS's support of NS as a cowardly response to chastisement: "Guess someone got the hairdryer treatment over the phone...", (which Sturgeon characterized as "Untrue" and "utterly disgraceful to suggest". [3] [4]
In fact, all four of news stories suggested as sources by GPinkerton are written about the pushback against Davidson's insult, their titles being "Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson in Twitter spat over Scottish Government adviser," "Nicola Sturgeon slams Ruth Davidson's 'disgraceful' claim about virus expert," "Virus expert Devi Sridhar hits back at Ruth Davidson after 'disgraceful' tweet," and "SNP call for Ruth Davidson to explain why she attacked virus expert." This foolish and failed attempt by Ruth Davidson to score points against her political rival has only the most distant and diaphanous connection to anything said or done by Devi Sridhar. It does not deserve to be enshrined in this article, IMO. HouseOfChange ( talk) 23:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Then, this morning, at 7.43am, Nicola Sturgeon quoted Ms Sridhar’s tweet and said: '1/ Right now (like other UK nations), we must plan for a school model based on physical distancing. But as @devisridhar says, *if* we can suppress virus sufficiently & have other measures in place, nearer normality may be possible. It’s why we must stick with plan to suppress. 2/ We’ll be guided by evidence & won’t compromise safety (we still don’t know everything about this virus). And we’ll work with parents, young people & teachers to build confidence. All countries grappling with these tough issues - @scotgov determined to do right for children.'
Getting back to my "bizarre assumption that things that happen in Devi Sridhar's life are not worthy of inclusion" -- per WP:BALASP, I do assume that only important things that happen in Devi Sridhar's life belong in her Wikipedia bio. HouseOfChange ( talk) 18:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
an unsupported-by-fact accusation", 2.) determined by the electoral successes of what you wrongly call "
a small and shrinking" party? The Scottish Conservatives, for good or ill, are the second largest party in Scotland's legislature and if the criticism of their members, and members of all other major parties in parliament, are somehow undue in your view, then you must be arguing for Wikipedia-by-SNP-press-release. Luckily, others do not share this view, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and your unique and not-supported-by-others-or-by-reliable-sources view of what is relevant is of little concern. GPinkerton ( talk) 02:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
No RS supports Davidson's claim that DS "got the hairdryer treatment over the phone." This discussion is about whether or not that unsupported-by-RS claim should be added to the bio of Devi Sridhar. It is not censorship to abide by WP:ONUS and by WP:NPOV. For a comparison, the bio Rafael Cruz does not include the name of Donald Trump or Trump's widely-reported (but unsupported by RS) claim that RC was involved in the Kennedy assassination. HouseOfChange ( talk) 14:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Richard Nevell for your civil and policy-based explanations. Just reviewing policies that have been cited explaining why the "hairdryer" comment does not belong in the article: WP:SUMMARY, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BALASP. Also, what does not seem to get through at all to GPinkerton is WP:ONUS. The burden is on the person who wants to add new material to get consensus from others -- and in order to get consensus, you will find that policy-based arguments are better than accusing other editors of dishonesty, bias, and censoring Wikipedia. HouseOfChange ( talk) 01:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Professor Devi Sridhar, who sits on the Scottish Government's Covid-19 expert scientific advisory group, tweeted that 'if Covid-19 numbers can be brought low enough in Scotland by 11 August (under 20 confirmed cases) & with appropriate 'test and protect' policies, my personal view is that schools should re-open as normally as possible (kids back full-time & able to play/interact together).'
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Journalist Peter Macmahon retweeted Sridhar's thread with the angle that she, like former FM Jack McConnell, is one of the voices calling for Nicola Sturgeon to do more to get pupils back in schools on a full-time basis. Sridhar rejected the theory – saying she and the SNP leader are 'completely aligned', adding she supports her 'cautious approach' to easing lockdown
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The global health expert advising the Scottish Government on Covid-19 has hit back at the former Scottish Tory leader after she posted a 'disgraceful' tweet about the professor.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
RUTH Davidson has been urged to explain why she attacked the integrity of a well respected public health official. The former Scottish Tory leader accused Devi Sridhar of compromising her position on the return of Scottish schools because she had been leaned on by SNP ministers
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Chrisvls proposed that this article might do more to discuss DS's "stream of infections" comment in an op-ed, which caused controversy when Nicola Sturgeon did not immediately disavow the idea of a cross-border quarantine between Scotland and England. [1]
Should this bio repeat attacks on DS for claiming that COVID cases in Scotland are caused by English visitors, when DS has never made any such claim? What other sources and discussion should the bio include about the "stream of infections" controversy? HouseOfChange ( talk) 16:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
In August, Sridhar used a New York Times op-ed to urge "strict border measures" for European countries, to contain the coronavirus. [2] Noting the different coronavirus rates in Scotland and in Northern Ireland versus in England and in Wales [3] she expressed concern that Scotland and Northern Ireland both "face a stream of incoming infections from England and Wales." [2] The "stream of incoming infections" comment has been criticised by Scottish unionists and others, with Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, accusing Sridhar of "feeding a divisive nationalist narrative without scientific evidence to back it up." [4] [5] Nicola Sturgeon said that Sridhar's comments were "not political" and a "perfectly legitimate public health point". [6] The Scottish Government said Sridhar "was independent" and "did not speak on its behalf." [5]
The article now includes all of *2 and most of *1. It omits the part of Rennie's statement implying that DS blamed England for COVID outbreaks all over Scotland. Thanks to GPinkerton for helpful suggestions. HouseOfChange ( talk) 21:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Several RS state that the differing treatment of COVID-19 in Scotland versus overall-UK has been divisive. [7] [8] Unionists and Scottish conservatives fear COVID policy is being used by pro-independence partisans "to drive a wedge between Scotland and England." [1]
Praising Scottish successes and criticizing Boris Johnson's COVID policy, as DS frequently does on Twitter and in many op-eds, can therefore be seen in one of two ways. Perhaps DS is giving her professional opinion concerning two different health policies--or perhaps DS is helping to drive a wedge between Scotland and England, promoting the cause of Scottish independence.
Concerning COVID, pro-union opinion says that Scotland's "many Covid failures replicate the blunderings of Westminster, but her [SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon's] reassuring language has boosted her standing. She has deployed Scotland’s devolved powers over health to eye-catching effect." [9] Similarly, according to this op-ed, the SNP made much of small temporary COVID differences between Scotland and England, with the result that "nationalists in hazmat suits shout at vehicles with English number plates." [10] HouseOfChange ( talk) 00:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
(ec) The current and proposed text are both factually accurate, and verifiable. It does summarise the incident, I suppose the main issue is how much detail should be covered. One thing that occurs to me is that the op-ed was a reflection on the role of tourism and travel in community transmission of the virus and how countries are addressing it. As part of that, Sridhar mentioned that Scotland and Northern Ireland "face a stream of incoming infections from England and Wales."
She also said The only way to stop constant increases in the coronavirus is to eliminate community transmission and to use robust test, trace and isolate policies to continue catching imported cases and clusters as they emerge. .... Stopping community transmission requires mandatory, enforced quarantine for incoming travelers and testing before release.
I think it would therefore we worth altering the start of this bit to reflect the main point of the op-ed. That's not to say the "stream of infections" comment isn't significant. What you mean to convey and what message people hear can be two very different things, but both important. I'm reluctant to say that the answer is to include even more detail due to reasons of balance. Various politicians did indeed chime in one way or another, but what is the real-world significance of the whole episode? By contrast, I'm thinking of Marcus Rashford's campaign to get school meals extended over the school holidays. That led to not only a debate in Parliament, but a grassroots campaign in which individuals and organisations have mobilised to have an impact on society. Do we have evidence that the op-ed has had a significant impact? Richard Nevell ( talk) 18:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@ GPinkerton: I don't understand what you think is "demonstrably false," but if you cite some RS that agrees with you, I could learn. Is it also "demonstrably false" when Boris Johnson says "there’s no such thing as a border between England and Scotland"? Opinion pieces such as McWhirter's are typically not good RS for a BLP, and certainly not for linking a NYT op-ed to "masked nationalists in hazmat suits" when no causal connection is shown. Furthermore, the quote from McWhirter that you added to the bio (and which I removed) makes two distinctly false claims: that DS has changed her mind about COVID 1) by giving up on Scotland-only elimination and 2) by "now" saying we must learn to live with COVID (this latter is something she has been saying since April at least. I found no support in RS for either claim by McWhirter, which is why I removed the quote, and other sources give a less-POV picture of Scottish COVID strategy in September. HouseOfChange ( talk) 00:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
References
The Scottish Tory leader, Jackson Carlaw, has said the virus 'should not be used as an issue to drive a wedge between Scotland and England.'
The only way to stop constant increases in the coronavirus is to eliminate community transmission and to use robust test, trace and isolate policies to continue catching imported cases and clusters as they emerge...Stopping community transmission requires mandatory, enforced quarantine for incoming travelers and testing before release. Europe could do the same and cooperate across countries toward this goal so that intra-European travel and tourism can continue when a safe bubble can be built.
Willie Rennie, the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, said it was 'unhelpful' for Professor Sridhar to be 'feeding a divisive nationalist narrative without scientific evidence to back it up'.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Tory MSP Donald Cameron said Ms Sridhar was 'stoking up the belief that infections from England are hampering Scotland's fight' against Covid. The Scottish Government said Ms Sridhar was independent and did not speak on its behalf.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Ms Sturgeon said: 'I know the point Devi is making and I think it is a perfectly legitimate public health point. This is not about different countries or nationalities or different groups of people, this is about trying to keep an infectious virus under control and when there are outbreaks in particular parts of the UK that may mean limiting travel or advising against travel from those areas to other parts of the UK.
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The end of an earlier lockdown lockstep has led to increasingly clear policy differences that are piling new strains on already fraying UK unity and has sparked fierce disputes over the possibility of introducing controls on visitors from England to Scotland.
Nationalist sentiment has surged during the pandemic: Fifty-five percent of Scots now favor independence, according to a recent poll — a solid majority that analysts said reflected a perception that Scotland's nationalist-led government has handled the crisis better than Mr. Johnson and his pro-Brexit ministers have.
Six years ago Scotland voted by a 10-point margin to stay part of the U.K. Yet the last nine consecutive opinion polls show the backing for leave as high as 58 per cent, and averaging at 53 per cent...
The New Scientist agreed, announcing in a headline that: 'Scotland would be Covid-free if it weren't for England'. Nicola Sturgeon ruled out closing the border but said quarantine measures might have to be imposed on cross-border travellers. Masked nationalists in hazmat suits hiked to Berwick to shout at vehicles with English number plates. That all seems a long time ago. We're back at defcon 4 and the epidemic is supposedly spreading again like wildfire in Scotland. The R number is as high as England's
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Something is wrong with the URL to the article labelled as The Herald and titled "Infections streaming in …". The URL does not link to the article and presents a login page to the The Sunday Herald. Can someone fix this? I can't find the article elsewhere and I'm not sure the citation adds up. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@
C.Fred:, @
Richard Nevell:, the reason I ask is because the citation was in fact very misleading. The article referred to was not published in The Herald or The Sunday Herald, as claimed in the citation. Neither was it titled "Infections 'streaming in from England and Wales'". Instead, it was published by the explicitly biased and pro-SNP government newspaper
The National. You can see read the story they published here, titled:
Scotland facing 'stream of infections' from England and Wales, Devi Sridhar warns. Unlike in the text I proposed, the article at present relies on this publication for statements of fact uncorroborated by reliable sources. I propose that this be removed or at least changed to make it less misleading and false. The citation, if it must be used, ought to be: Cochrane, Angus (16 August 2020).
"Scotland facing 'stream of infections' from England and Wales, Devi Sridhar warns". The National. Retrieved 2020-10-26.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link).
GPinkerton (
talk) 19:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton The two screen captures I posted above as evidence are about to be deleted, because free use images are only for use in articles (not on talk pages.) I hope, having had time to review them, you will not renew your claim that no Herald article existed, and that it was "misleading and false" to cite it in the bio. (The fact that the Herald failed to index its story in an accessible way shows just how minor they found the dispute. Fortunately, I found several pointers to the article using Google, and obtained a screen-capture of the PressReader by paying PressReader for access to that day's issue of the Herald. You can do the same, if you need more evidence concerning the article.) The full article was easy to see online, back in August, on the original access-date given in the citation. HouseOfChange ( talk) 15:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Colorblind1 has tried to add a new photo from Commons, but it is not clear who owns the rights to that image (at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sridhar_Devi_pic.jpg ) Because that image is likely to be deleted from Commons, I think we should keep our current picture until there is a better one with the right license. HouseOfChange ( talk) 17:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)