This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
What is the relevance of "Controversial research funded by AIER in the past includes a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them," to the topic of this article? Seems like a coatrack.
Kenosha Forever (
talk) 17:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
And what are your sources for disgrace
? I don't see that in the Edge. Anyway, the Koch bit is only one element in the paragraph. You seem to be objecting to the whole AIER section, which is absolutely do for the article - no AIER, no GBD. Period.
Newimpartial (
talk) 00:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
massive undue coatrack. Please read the previous discussions before continuing your crusade. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Once again, what you are reading and what I am reading are very different. I recommend NPOVN. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that the sources the article is based on generally mention the AIER connection, including its activities and track record. However, I would agree that excessive WP:WEIGHT is given to the AIER's activities. A note/sentence in passing would be sufficient IMO. JBchrch ( talk) 19:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
To my mind that quote institution embedded in a Koch-funded network gives the game away, viz: there is nothing substantive. Weasel words to obscure that the dreaded Taint of the Koch is by transitivity, AEIR collaborates with other institutions that received Koch funding. I think at one point that embarrassing line was run into the article. After a lot of dispute it is retained as a quote. Only the lede part was put to a vote, where it lost by a large margin. Personally, I've given up arguing the Koch issue, but very happy to see it out of the lede. The there are numbers of editors on both sides, and the faction who see it as important context are more persistent.
Regarding that longish 2nd paragraph in the Sponsor section, I'd cut everything in that paragraph before the sentence Controversial research funded by AIER in the past.... That sentence to the end leaves a brief mention of the sweatshops and a bit longer mention of climate denial. To me, that provides just enough taste of context and eliminates the ridiculous Koch fixation. -- M.boli ( talk) 03:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Including criticism of this declaration makes complete sense - yet referring to the declarations sponsor as supporting climate change denial seems, in my eyes at least, an Ad Hominem, which doesn’t seem entirely appropriate for an impartial page. Especially when the relevancy of climate change to covid is somewhat dubious. Raidiohead55 ( talk) 13:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
In
§ Sponsor, should the sentence Controversial research funded by AIER in the past includes a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them,
[1]
be removed?--
JBchrch (
talk) 16:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Meta-discussion about the wording of the Rfc question; now resolved.
|
---|
|
Note for eventual closer: because the Rfc was worded as a "removal" question, no and keep votes are on the same side of this question. Mathglot ( talk) 03:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The editor Kenosha Forever is a sock. Their vote should be disregarded. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
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) 22:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Who owns Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.234.234 ( talk) 21:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Hob Gadling: Please could you explain what about my edit you feel was previously rejected on the talk page, it was checked before any edits were made. This article reads more like an opinion column in a newspaper than an encyclopedia at present, the purpose of the edit is to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:Tone. There are even original interpretations in the article that go beyond any sources "For instance it could..." sic The only material removed was entirely off-topic and still easily accessible from this page in the the linked articles. Mainline421 ( talk) 17:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Your addition of the word previously before the phrase associated with
climate change denial
is not supported by any of the sources. Your edit also duplicated the primary-sourced
WP:MANDY denial (however, Kulldorff has repeatedly stated that the authors 'received no money to write the Declaration' and that 'no organization influenced its content.'
)
Your removal of AIER's funding of a study asserting that
sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them
is at odds with
the recent RfC.
Kleinpecan (
talk) 05:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is biased towards new, not the status quoor
admitting WP:IDONTLIKEIT as your reason. Wikipedia is biased towards accuracy, not "the fake of the day". You will not find a shortcut that allows you to force your opinions into the article, you need to go through the discussion. So, stop the bad wikilawyering and start searching for justifications that will hold water. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Can we include AIER's approval of The War on Christmas? ? It seems as apropos to add that as mention any position on Climate Change (which is completely orthogonal to any position they take on COVID-19). Or how about the progressive destruction of the Constitution in The Fall of the Dominoes? Or the coming collapse of America in Dear America, it's time to break up. There are plenty of off-topic positions we could cite. I am sure that somebody with a non-NPOV could find plenty of articles which shows that AIER supports their POV. You might reasonably conclude that AIER is purposefully stirring the pot, so that people talk about things that need talking about. RussNelson ( talk) 02:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
As a frequent reader and contributor to Wikipedia, I am very disturbed by the overall result of this article. It is clear the author is a supporter of current and past government policies regarding the Covid 19 pandemic. The beginning of the article informative, but quickly devolves into a hit piece. The opposing opinions, are almost entirely government officials who have a vested interest in defending their actions. It would more appropriate for this to be two articles, the second being "Opposition to the Great Barrington Declaration", linked to this article. 75.97.182.173 ( talk) 02:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I am sure nobody needs me to run down all the reasons why listing, or boosting, or characterising, the signatories, based on AIER's own website, is a truly terrible idea. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. We do not give undue weight to fringe ideas.
In fact we should avoid all self-sourced content here, per WP:PROFRINGE. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
political stunt rather than a scientific document(as you have argued above) is absolutely baffling to me. This information is clearly WP:DUE and the source is acceptable per WP:SELFSOURCE. Besides, we have an entire § Counter memorandum section with the names of its signatories. Just like with the credentials issue, either we keep both or we remove both. The alleged WP:DUE issue (i.e. the idea that critics should be given more weight than the declaration itself) is still safeguarded by the long, (borderline WP:NOTEVERYTHING-non conform) § Reception section.
the idea that critics should be given more weight than the declaration itself, you are understating it. The declaration itself and its websites are primary sources, which means that for self-serving claims or claims about third parties, they have zero weight. None. Their position can be cited via secondary sources that cover it, but when they start making self-serving claims we cannot cite them directly at all, and if nobody else covers those claims then they are both WP:UNDUE and fail WP:V, meaning we cannot include even a single word hinting at them. Due weight is about giving sources weight appropriate to their notability, significance, reliability, and so on; it is not about giving everyone equal weight, or about giving every organization the freedom to write large swaths of any article they're involved in. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The cosigners represent a host of scientific disciplines such as public health, biostatistics, finance, and psychiatry. They include Michael Levitt, PhD, (who received the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2013), Jonas Ludvigsson, MD, Angus Dalgleish, PhD, David Katz, PhD, and Mike Hulme, PhD.[5] Regarding Mike Hulme, see also [6]. According to the Independent,
It has won the support of UK scientists including Professor Karol Sikora[7]. And Prof. David Livermore has written about his involvement on The Telegraph [8]. JBchrch ( talk) 21:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
serious scientists from prestigious institutionsis seriously misguided for several reasons, some of which have been pointed out above:
What is currently happening feels like withholding informationImagine a Wikipedia which tries to make conspiracy theorists happy by supplying every piece of "information" that could, if withheld, make them "think that everybody is lying to them". That Wikipedia would be very, very different from what we have now. I guess Larry Sanger would like it though. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
[9] is reliable because these individuals have accepted to sign the declaration and to associate their names with it.No, AIER itself is not reliable (in fact, they specifically said, in as many words, that they did not fact-check the names that were submitted on their online form - anyone could input any name with no efforts at verification.) Their claim that someone signed something controversial or took some controversial position - especially one that is self-serving from AIER's perspective, as this one is - is completely unusable as a primary source. This means that no, you have not established that those people have signed the declaration. You need a WP:SECONDARY source for that fact - and, in fact, a high-quality one, because stating that someone signed the declaration, as fact, is clearly WP:BLP-sensitive given its controversial nature. And, at a glance, "infectioncontroltoday.com" is unlikely to qualify either - it looks like a personal website of no particular notability (note that even being written by a subject-matter expert itself would not qualify for what you're trying to use it for, since you're trying to cite sensitive claims about third parties - you need an actual high-quality WP:RS for that.) As I said, we could theoretically cite someone's own website, if we know it is unequivocally them, where they say "I signed the declaration" to establish that they did so (although yes, WP:DUE might also be a concern at that pint.) But we aren't even at that point in the discussion yet - WP:DUE is debatable, but WP:RS and WP:BLP are a hard stop. We absolutely cannot use a primary cite to the fact that AIER claims someone signed the declaration for anything, fullstop, because AIER itself is not a reliable source. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
personal website of no particular notability, it's a monthly print magazine, written by health professionals, with a wide readership. You know, even a Lancet outlet writes the GBR
has since been endorsed by thousands of medical practitioners, researchers, and public health scientists.[10]. But surely, we at Wikipedia know better and we have determined that all of these people have WP:FRINGE views and have clearly no idea what they are talking about. JBchrch ( talk) 10:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
political issueshows that your opinion on it is not motivated by scientific facts and that, if you are indeed a signatory, your signature carries as much weight as that of Dr. Person Fakename.
GBD is bad, because the only people who matter say soExactly right. The people who matter are those who are qualified to tell good reasoning from bad reasoning - the experts. And they publish their conclusions in venues where they are checked by other experts. Science is not done by guessing followed by voting.
if someone doesn't agree with us brainiacs, they are 'whiners' who don't know actual 'science'No, a whiner is someone who whines. If his reasoning reveals that he does not know how science works, then that is another, independent property. Calling scientists "brainiacs" is another sign for that second property.
science requires the acceptance of hypothesis in order to disprove itThis does not make any sense. It sounds as if you had read parts of sentences in a text about Popper and put them together at random.
I added one sentence with AIER's response, viz AIER says the flood of fake signatures was promoted by a hostile British journalist, and they were largely removed very quickly.
[1]
Sadly and predictably, some editor tagged this as non-primary source needed (which isn't true for a statement from AIER) and later the sentence was deleted. --
M.boli (
talk) 12:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
References
Any open letter, petition or declaration that opens itself up to signatures from the public is going to include a number of fake ones. In light of this are the fake signatures on the GBR widespread to the degree that they're particularly notable? The section only says that there are "numerous clearly-fake names" (an example of weasel language) and that there are "more than 100... non-relevant people". -- Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 12:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
"Instead, it teaches you methods which, if you actually use them in designing your studies, prevent your opinion from influencing the result too much. That is necessary because your opinion is, as likely it as not, unrealistic crap. If someone asks a lot of scientists to sign some random unrealistic crap, there will be quite a number whose unrealistic crap opinions agree with it."
Indeed. That being the case, instead of promoting the unrealistic crap opinions turned religious beliefs of incompetent policymakers, you may want to turn your attention to the data published by the John Hopkins Website and see for yourself that the number of Covid19 cases spikes spectacularly following mass vaccination. In the case of Australia, the number of weekly cases shot up from virtually 0 to 552.78K following the injection of 45,423,554 doses of vaccines. The same can be seen in South Korea with 110,959,467 doses of vaccines injected followed by a peak of 47,326K weekly cases. Same in Israel that must be the most vaccinated country in the world. Meanwhile, the exact same pattern can be observed in every country. Source: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html 2403:6200:8856:A97A:28DB:F613:CFEA:30CF ( talk) 04:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
It is disingenuous for a website that allows editing by individuals identified by pseudonyms to criticize pseudonym signatories to a deceleration, which declaration was written about epidemiology by epidemiologists, and then to criticize based on the opinion of conflicted virologists, and others with limited or no training in epidemiology. You should follow the money for the critics of the GBD if you want to see special interests. What I do not see here is any discussion of epidemiology and quarantine, and the topic is not simple, e.g., see https://www.academia.edu/download/37751556/2002MathBiosci.pdf, Failing that, there is no scientific content in this post. What I want paid attention to is just how nuanced epidemiology and quarantine are in the 1986 article cited above, and cited in the literature 416 times to the effect that the majority of quarantine models have no solutions. Failing that, this post is just axe-grinding. 207.47.175.199 ( talk) 15:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I think we should include mention of Fauci and Collins' dismissal of the Great Barrington Declaration without consideration. How Fauci and Collins Shut Down Covid Debate. Given that lockdowns "Travel and trade are essential to the global economy as well as to national and even local economies, and they should be maintained even in the face of a pandemic." and distancing Social distancing born in Albuquerque teen’s science project were the new idea, and relying on herd immunity and vaccines is the standard idea, it seems out of bounds for them to dismiss what has always been done in favor of something completely untried and unwarranted. We know they dismissed it because they said in FOIAed emails that they intended a "quick and devastating published take-down" of it with a public relations campaign. Collins said the three authors were "fringe epidemiologists", and noted extra concern that Michael Levitt (a Nobel Prize winner) was one of the signers. RussNelson ( talk) 15:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
There are now multiple news sources that confirm the response of Collins and Fauci to the GBD, including last week's congressional testimony by Fauci. Examples here:
Whether you agree with Collins & Fauci's position or not, the fact that they called for a "takedown" of scientists that they labeled "fringe epidemiologists" in the media is absolutely a part of the Great Barrington Declaration's history and needs to be included in this article. FranciscoWS ( talk) 15:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, as a mere editor with no qualified expertise, I agree that the GBD "ignores sound public health expertise", which is what the public health groups said. However, I disagree that it does this "despite public health experts agreeing 'better balance must be found between protecting public health and helping the economy.'" It seems to me that public health experts do not agree this and that either there is a significant division of opinion among these experts or that the consensus between them lies elsewhere. I note that the quotation about a balance between public health and the economy appears to repeat a false narrative often platformed in UK media that there is such a balance and that the quotation does not appear to be pf the public health experts but instead is a claim made by the article on the Hill website. It claims "Public health experts generally acknowledge the negative impact of the restrictions and agree that a better balance must be found between protecting public health and helping the economy, especially with regards to children who have been kept out of school." This is a false dichotomy: acting on public health grounds to bring down the levels of infection of the virus helps protect and keep open the economy. There isn't a balance between the two, some respected scientists agree with myself on this and I dispute the claim by the Hill website article. I await evidence to show that public health experts do agree on the better balance which pits public health, in my view falsely, against the economy when the two in fact support each other, as acting on public health also protects the economy (as agreed by some or perhaps even the consensus of experts, or the consensus of experts that are not potentially compromised by being part of official bodies that support governments that claim there is such a balance).
As there may be some matter of dispute over what I say here, I have not taken it to edit the article, instead I consider the claim on the Hill website to be disputed, as I dispute it, and that it is not substantiated at present. Yet it is repeated in this article: it is not a fact, I see that public health experts either do not agree that there is a balance between public health and the economy or else that public health action supports the economy (by keeping infection levels low so that the economy can function more, as opposed to being disrupted by self-isolation being needed by vast numbers of people due to infections being out of control due to failure to take public health action). I agree that a false political debate has been created about this matter, supported by a complicit media in the UK, so that what I say may be polticially controversial. I dispute the Hill's assertion that public health experts agree on this balance between health and economy. I believe the 'balance' argument to be false when the two support each other and think many public health experts support me on this. This Wikipedia article therefore currently falsely claims, on the basis of the unsubstantiated assertion at the source, that public health experts agree about a balance when in fact they either don't agree on this or there is significant dispute by many of the experts who see health as supporting economy and it therefore not being a case of balancing the two as if the two are to be weighed up against each other - a false argument. I note this is not a quote from what the public health groups said but is instead the Hill's own claim and one that provides no evidence to me to show that it is true. It ought not be here, because we should not be including unsubstantiated claims, in this case about public health expert alleged agreement, within a Wikipedia article. Those that disagree with me are politically biased on the matter in my view as the issue has been politicised (which is another reason why I object to it as it is a political point in the Wikipedia article and not Wikipedia neutral). But, given that this last point by me is controversial, I have not taken it upon myself to delete the objectionable material from the article. aspaa ( talk) 04:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a laughably biased, editorialized article. Why is so much commentary included? The clear and substantial bias presented here goes to discredit wikipedia as an objective source of information. Most of this article should be deleted. A description of the Declerarion, list of authors, and link to the website is really all that's needed. Any editorializing or criticism of it belongs in a seperate section titled "Criticism." As it's currently written, 95% of this article is subjective criticism spread throughout nearly every paragraph. Regardless of how many contributors there are, this article is anything but objectively written. Save your opinionated blogging for an external site. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 2601:285:8080:A560:B9DD:FC94:2158:CF9F ( talk) 18:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Rather than engage in original research, take this sentence that also cites another source: "Despite its popularity with political actors and some scientists, the views of the GBD represent a minority opinion among public health researchers, some of whom have been critical of its ideas in the press. [8]"
The article mentions AIER's climate change denial because reliable sources mention it. Reliable sources mention it because if an organization denies or distorts the consensus in one scientific field ( climate science) for ideological or political reasons, that organization is more likely to deny or distort the consensus in other scientific fields ( epidemiology).
The rest of your comment is blabbering that is irrelevant to the article. Please focus on the article; the signal-to-noise ratio of your comments becomes worse and worse every day. Kleinpecan ( talk) 06:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, the USA is not the only place that has Covid measures in place, also we say asked "provide one RS that says the BGD does not go against the scientific consensus.", "policymakers, and the general public" are not scientists. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I repeat: I could not find the place where your source says the GBD does not go against the scientific consensus.
The sentence Despite these efforts, a consensus among scientists, policymakers, and the general public on how to collectively fight the pandemic and its disparate impacts has failed to emerge in the United States.
does not say that. It does not even say there is no consensus among scientists. It says there is no consensus
That is obviously correct because almost half of the general public in the US cannot tell science from a hole in the ground, making them unlikely to agree with it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
"I could not find the place where your source says the GBD does not go against the scientific consensus."
I could not find the place where your source says the GBD does not go against the scientific consensus.-Well, you are asking for something that doesn't exist--there is no scientific consensus--so obviously I can't find it--it only exists as an assumption that you have made but not tested. Prove that any such thing exists, please. 207.47.175.199 ( talk) 08:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Can people please read wp:or, it does not matter what you think, we go with what RS think. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
alternative reality out thereshould be handled by the alternative Wikipedia in the alternative universe where it exists. It does not concern us here in this non-Bizarro universe where the GBD suggestions do not work. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I will add wp:npa even protects them, either do not respond on reply without the snark. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
From the Telegraph, not an op-ed as far as I can tell:
-For your consideration [15] - SmolBrane ( talk) 18:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, about the study mentioned above - [16] - SmolBrane ( talk) 18:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
On the matter of updating the article, another RS non-opinion source [17] that should be included. This one's pretty nuanced and perhaps difficult to include. My thanks to the editors that have the time and dedication to maintain and edit this article; I just don't have the time or the experience. It's always easier to judge an article than edit it, of course. SmolBrane ( talk) 17:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
References
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
What is the relevance of "Controversial research funded by AIER in the past includes a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them," to the topic of this article? Seems like a coatrack.
Kenosha Forever (
talk) 17:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
And what are your sources for disgrace
? I don't see that in the Edge. Anyway, the Koch bit is only one element in the paragraph. You seem to be objecting to the whole AIER section, which is absolutely do for the article - no AIER, no GBD. Period.
Newimpartial (
talk) 00:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
massive undue coatrack. Please read the previous discussions before continuing your crusade. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Once again, what you are reading and what I am reading are very different. I recommend NPOVN. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that the sources the article is based on generally mention the AIER connection, including its activities and track record. However, I would agree that excessive WP:WEIGHT is given to the AIER's activities. A note/sentence in passing would be sufficient IMO. JBchrch ( talk) 19:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
To my mind that quote institution embedded in a Koch-funded network gives the game away, viz: there is nothing substantive. Weasel words to obscure that the dreaded Taint of the Koch is by transitivity, AEIR collaborates with other institutions that received Koch funding. I think at one point that embarrassing line was run into the article. After a lot of dispute it is retained as a quote. Only the lede part was put to a vote, where it lost by a large margin. Personally, I've given up arguing the Koch issue, but very happy to see it out of the lede. The there are numbers of editors on both sides, and the faction who see it as important context are more persistent.
Regarding that longish 2nd paragraph in the Sponsor section, I'd cut everything in that paragraph before the sentence Controversial research funded by AIER in the past.... That sentence to the end leaves a brief mention of the sweatshops and a bit longer mention of climate denial. To me, that provides just enough taste of context and eliminates the ridiculous Koch fixation. -- M.boli ( talk) 03:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Including criticism of this declaration makes complete sense - yet referring to the declarations sponsor as supporting climate change denial seems, in my eyes at least, an Ad Hominem, which doesn’t seem entirely appropriate for an impartial page. Especially when the relevancy of climate change to covid is somewhat dubious. Raidiohead55 ( talk) 13:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
In
§ Sponsor, should the sentence Controversial research funded by AIER in the past includes a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them,
[1]
be removed?--
JBchrch (
talk) 16:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Meta-discussion about the wording of the Rfc question; now resolved.
|
---|
|
Note for eventual closer: because the Rfc was worded as a "removal" question, no and keep votes are on the same side of this question. Mathglot ( talk) 03:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The editor Kenosha Forever is a sock. Their vote should be disregarded. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
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) 22:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Who owns Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.234.234 ( talk) 21:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Hob Gadling: Please could you explain what about my edit you feel was previously rejected on the talk page, it was checked before any edits were made. This article reads more like an opinion column in a newspaper than an encyclopedia at present, the purpose of the edit is to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:Tone. There are even original interpretations in the article that go beyond any sources "For instance it could..." sic The only material removed was entirely off-topic and still easily accessible from this page in the the linked articles. Mainline421 ( talk) 17:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Your addition of the word previously before the phrase associated with
climate change denial
is not supported by any of the sources. Your edit also duplicated the primary-sourced
WP:MANDY denial (however, Kulldorff has repeatedly stated that the authors 'received no money to write the Declaration' and that 'no organization influenced its content.'
)
Your removal of AIER's funding of a study asserting that
sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them
is at odds with
the recent RfC.
Kleinpecan (
talk) 05:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is biased towards new, not the status quoor
admitting WP:IDONTLIKEIT as your reason. Wikipedia is biased towards accuracy, not "the fake of the day". You will not find a shortcut that allows you to force your opinions into the article, you need to go through the discussion. So, stop the bad wikilawyering and start searching for justifications that will hold water. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Can we include AIER's approval of The War on Christmas? ? It seems as apropos to add that as mention any position on Climate Change (which is completely orthogonal to any position they take on COVID-19). Or how about the progressive destruction of the Constitution in The Fall of the Dominoes? Or the coming collapse of America in Dear America, it's time to break up. There are plenty of off-topic positions we could cite. I am sure that somebody with a non-NPOV could find plenty of articles which shows that AIER supports their POV. You might reasonably conclude that AIER is purposefully stirring the pot, so that people talk about things that need talking about. RussNelson ( talk) 02:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
As a frequent reader and contributor to Wikipedia, I am very disturbed by the overall result of this article. It is clear the author is a supporter of current and past government policies regarding the Covid 19 pandemic. The beginning of the article informative, but quickly devolves into a hit piece. The opposing opinions, are almost entirely government officials who have a vested interest in defending their actions. It would more appropriate for this to be two articles, the second being "Opposition to the Great Barrington Declaration", linked to this article. 75.97.182.173 ( talk) 02:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I am sure nobody needs me to run down all the reasons why listing, or boosting, or characterising, the signatories, based on AIER's own website, is a truly terrible idea. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. We do not give undue weight to fringe ideas.
In fact we should avoid all self-sourced content here, per WP:PROFRINGE. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
political stunt rather than a scientific document(as you have argued above) is absolutely baffling to me. This information is clearly WP:DUE and the source is acceptable per WP:SELFSOURCE. Besides, we have an entire § Counter memorandum section with the names of its signatories. Just like with the credentials issue, either we keep both or we remove both. The alleged WP:DUE issue (i.e. the idea that critics should be given more weight than the declaration itself) is still safeguarded by the long, (borderline WP:NOTEVERYTHING-non conform) § Reception section.
the idea that critics should be given more weight than the declaration itself, you are understating it. The declaration itself and its websites are primary sources, which means that for self-serving claims or claims about third parties, they have zero weight. None. Their position can be cited via secondary sources that cover it, but when they start making self-serving claims we cannot cite them directly at all, and if nobody else covers those claims then they are both WP:UNDUE and fail WP:V, meaning we cannot include even a single word hinting at them. Due weight is about giving sources weight appropriate to their notability, significance, reliability, and so on; it is not about giving everyone equal weight, or about giving every organization the freedom to write large swaths of any article they're involved in. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The cosigners represent a host of scientific disciplines such as public health, biostatistics, finance, and psychiatry. They include Michael Levitt, PhD, (who received the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2013), Jonas Ludvigsson, MD, Angus Dalgleish, PhD, David Katz, PhD, and Mike Hulme, PhD.[5] Regarding Mike Hulme, see also [6]. According to the Independent,
It has won the support of UK scientists including Professor Karol Sikora[7]. And Prof. David Livermore has written about his involvement on The Telegraph [8]. JBchrch ( talk) 21:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
serious scientists from prestigious institutionsis seriously misguided for several reasons, some of which have been pointed out above:
What is currently happening feels like withholding informationImagine a Wikipedia which tries to make conspiracy theorists happy by supplying every piece of "information" that could, if withheld, make them "think that everybody is lying to them". That Wikipedia would be very, very different from what we have now. I guess Larry Sanger would like it though. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
[9] is reliable because these individuals have accepted to sign the declaration and to associate their names with it.No, AIER itself is not reliable (in fact, they specifically said, in as many words, that they did not fact-check the names that were submitted on their online form - anyone could input any name with no efforts at verification.) Their claim that someone signed something controversial or took some controversial position - especially one that is self-serving from AIER's perspective, as this one is - is completely unusable as a primary source. This means that no, you have not established that those people have signed the declaration. You need a WP:SECONDARY source for that fact - and, in fact, a high-quality one, because stating that someone signed the declaration, as fact, is clearly WP:BLP-sensitive given its controversial nature. And, at a glance, "infectioncontroltoday.com" is unlikely to qualify either - it looks like a personal website of no particular notability (note that even being written by a subject-matter expert itself would not qualify for what you're trying to use it for, since you're trying to cite sensitive claims about third parties - you need an actual high-quality WP:RS for that.) As I said, we could theoretically cite someone's own website, if we know it is unequivocally them, where they say "I signed the declaration" to establish that they did so (although yes, WP:DUE might also be a concern at that pint.) But we aren't even at that point in the discussion yet - WP:DUE is debatable, but WP:RS and WP:BLP are a hard stop. We absolutely cannot use a primary cite to the fact that AIER claims someone signed the declaration for anything, fullstop, because AIER itself is not a reliable source. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
personal website of no particular notability, it's a monthly print magazine, written by health professionals, with a wide readership. You know, even a Lancet outlet writes the GBR
has since been endorsed by thousands of medical practitioners, researchers, and public health scientists.[10]. But surely, we at Wikipedia know better and we have determined that all of these people have WP:FRINGE views and have clearly no idea what they are talking about. JBchrch ( talk) 10:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
political issueshows that your opinion on it is not motivated by scientific facts and that, if you are indeed a signatory, your signature carries as much weight as that of Dr. Person Fakename.
GBD is bad, because the only people who matter say soExactly right. The people who matter are those who are qualified to tell good reasoning from bad reasoning - the experts. And they publish their conclusions in venues where they are checked by other experts. Science is not done by guessing followed by voting.
if someone doesn't agree with us brainiacs, they are 'whiners' who don't know actual 'science'No, a whiner is someone who whines. If his reasoning reveals that he does not know how science works, then that is another, independent property. Calling scientists "brainiacs" is another sign for that second property.
science requires the acceptance of hypothesis in order to disprove itThis does not make any sense. It sounds as if you had read parts of sentences in a text about Popper and put them together at random.
I added one sentence with AIER's response, viz AIER says the flood of fake signatures was promoted by a hostile British journalist, and they were largely removed very quickly.
[1]
Sadly and predictably, some editor tagged this as non-primary source needed (which isn't true for a statement from AIER) and later the sentence was deleted. --
M.boli (
talk) 12:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
References
Any open letter, petition or declaration that opens itself up to signatures from the public is going to include a number of fake ones. In light of this are the fake signatures on the GBR widespread to the degree that they're particularly notable? The section only says that there are "numerous clearly-fake names" (an example of weasel language) and that there are "more than 100... non-relevant people". -- Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 12:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
"Instead, it teaches you methods which, if you actually use them in designing your studies, prevent your opinion from influencing the result too much. That is necessary because your opinion is, as likely it as not, unrealistic crap. If someone asks a lot of scientists to sign some random unrealistic crap, there will be quite a number whose unrealistic crap opinions agree with it."
Indeed. That being the case, instead of promoting the unrealistic crap opinions turned religious beliefs of incompetent policymakers, you may want to turn your attention to the data published by the John Hopkins Website and see for yourself that the number of Covid19 cases spikes spectacularly following mass vaccination. In the case of Australia, the number of weekly cases shot up from virtually 0 to 552.78K following the injection of 45,423,554 doses of vaccines. The same can be seen in South Korea with 110,959,467 doses of vaccines injected followed by a peak of 47,326K weekly cases. Same in Israel that must be the most vaccinated country in the world. Meanwhile, the exact same pattern can be observed in every country. Source: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html 2403:6200:8856:A97A:28DB:F613:CFEA:30CF ( talk) 04:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
It is disingenuous for a website that allows editing by individuals identified by pseudonyms to criticize pseudonym signatories to a deceleration, which declaration was written about epidemiology by epidemiologists, and then to criticize based on the opinion of conflicted virologists, and others with limited or no training in epidemiology. You should follow the money for the critics of the GBD if you want to see special interests. What I do not see here is any discussion of epidemiology and quarantine, and the topic is not simple, e.g., see https://www.academia.edu/download/37751556/2002MathBiosci.pdf, Failing that, there is no scientific content in this post. What I want paid attention to is just how nuanced epidemiology and quarantine are in the 1986 article cited above, and cited in the literature 416 times to the effect that the majority of quarantine models have no solutions. Failing that, this post is just axe-grinding. 207.47.175.199 ( talk) 15:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I think we should include mention of Fauci and Collins' dismissal of the Great Barrington Declaration without consideration. How Fauci and Collins Shut Down Covid Debate. Given that lockdowns "Travel and trade are essential to the global economy as well as to national and even local economies, and they should be maintained even in the face of a pandemic." and distancing Social distancing born in Albuquerque teen’s science project were the new idea, and relying on herd immunity and vaccines is the standard idea, it seems out of bounds for them to dismiss what has always been done in favor of something completely untried and unwarranted. We know they dismissed it because they said in FOIAed emails that they intended a "quick and devastating published take-down" of it with a public relations campaign. Collins said the three authors were "fringe epidemiologists", and noted extra concern that Michael Levitt (a Nobel Prize winner) was one of the signers. RussNelson ( talk) 15:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
There are now multiple news sources that confirm the response of Collins and Fauci to the GBD, including last week's congressional testimony by Fauci. Examples here:
Whether you agree with Collins & Fauci's position or not, the fact that they called for a "takedown" of scientists that they labeled "fringe epidemiologists" in the media is absolutely a part of the Great Barrington Declaration's history and needs to be included in this article. FranciscoWS ( talk) 15:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, as a mere editor with no qualified expertise, I agree that the GBD "ignores sound public health expertise", which is what the public health groups said. However, I disagree that it does this "despite public health experts agreeing 'better balance must be found between protecting public health and helping the economy.'" It seems to me that public health experts do not agree this and that either there is a significant division of opinion among these experts or that the consensus between them lies elsewhere. I note that the quotation about a balance between public health and the economy appears to repeat a false narrative often platformed in UK media that there is such a balance and that the quotation does not appear to be pf the public health experts but instead is a claim made by the article on the Hill website. It claims "Public health experts generally acknowledge the negative impact of the restrictions and agree that a better balance must be found between protecting public health and helping the economy, especially with regards to children who have been kept out of school." This is a false dichotomy: acting on public health grounds to bring down the levels of infection of the virus helps protect and keep open the economy. There isn't a balance between the two, some respected scientists agree with myself on this and I dispute the claim by the Hill website article. I await evidence to show that public health experts do agree on the better balance which pits public health, in my view falsely, against the economy when the two in fact support each other, as acting on public health also protects the economy (as agreed by some or perhaps even the consensus of experts, or the consensus of experts that are not potentially compromised by being part of official bodies that support governments that claim there is such a balance).
As there may be some matter of dispute over what I say here, I have not taken it to edit the article, instead I consider the claim on the Hill website to be disputed, as I dispute it, and that it is not substantiated at present. Yet it is repeated in this article: it is not a fact, I see that public health experts either do not agree that there is a balance between public health and the economy or else that public health action supports the economy (by keeping infection levels low so that the economy can function more, as opposed to being disrupted by self-isolation being needed by vast numbers of people due to infections being out of control due to failure to take public health action). I agree that a false political debate has been created about this matter, supported by a complicit media in the UK, so that what I say may be polticially controversial. I dispute the Hill's assertion that public health experts agree on this balance between health and economy. I believe the 'balance' argument to be false when the two support each other and think many public health experts support me on this. This Wikipedia article therefore currently falsely claims, on the basis of the unsubstantiated assertion at the source, that public health experts agree about a balance when in fact they either don't agree on this or there is significant dispute by many of the experts who see health as supporting economy and it therefore not being a case of balancing the two as if the two are to be weighed up against each other - a false argument. I note this is not a quote from what the public health groups said but is instead the Hill's own claim and one that provides no evidence to me to show that it is true. It ought not be here, because we should not be including unsubstantiated claims, in this case about public health expert alleged agreement, within a Wikipedia article. Those that disagree with me are politically biased on the matter in my view as the issue has been politicised (which is another reason why I object to it as it is a political point in the Wikipedia article and not Wikipedia neutral). But, given that this last point by me is controversial, I have not taken it upon myself to delete the objectionable material from the article. aspaa ( talk) 04:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a laughably biased, editorialized article. Why is so much commentary included? The clear and substantial bias presented here goes to discredit wikipedia as an objective source of information. Most of this article should be deleted. A description of the Declerarion, list of authors, and link to the website is really all that's needed. Any editorializing or criticism of it belongs in a seperate section titled "Criticism." As it's currently written, 95% of this article is subjective criticism spread throughout nearly every paragraph. Regardless of how many contributors there are, this article is anything but objectively written. Save your opinionated blogging for an external site. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 2601:285:8080:A560:B9DD:FC94:2158:CF9F ( talk) 18:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Rather than engage in original research, take this sentence that also cites another source: "Despite its popularity with political actors and some scientists, the views of the GBD represent a minority opinion among public health researchers, some of whom have been critical of its ideas in the press. [8]"
The article mentions AIER's climate change denial because reliable sources mention it. Reliable sources mention it because if an organization denies or distorts the consensus in one scientific field ( climate science) for ideological or political reasons, that organization is more likely to deny or distort the consensus in other scientific fields ( epidemiology).
The rest of your comment is blabbering that is irrelevant to the article. Please focus on the article; the signal-to-noise ratio of your comments becomes worse and worse every day. Kleinpecan ( talk) 06:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, the USA is not the only place that has Covid measures in place, also we say asked "provide one RS that says the BGD does not go against the scientific consensus.", "policymakers, and the general public" are not scientists. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I repeat: I could not find the place where your source says the GBD does not go against the scientific consensus.
The sentence Despite these efforts, a consensus among scientists, policymakers, and the general public on how to collectively fight the pandemic and its disparate impacts has failed to emerge in the United States.
does not say that. It does not even say there is no consensus among scientists. It says there is no consensus
That is obviously correct because almost half of the general public in the US cannot tell science from a hole in the ground, making them unlikely to agree with it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
"I could not find the place where your source says the GBD does not go against the scientific consensus."
I could not find the place where your source says the GBD does not go against the scientific consensus.-Well, you are asking for something that doesn't exist--there is no scientific consensus--so obviously I can't find it--it only exists as an assumption that you have made but not tested. Prove that any such thing exists, please. 207.47.175.199 ( talk) 08:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Can people please read wp:or, it does not matter what you think, we go with what RS think. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
alternative reality out thereshould be handled by the alternative Wikipedia in the alternative universe where it exists. It does not concern us here in this non-Bizarro universe where the GBD suggestions do not work. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I will add wp:npa even protects them, either do not respond on reply without the snark. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
From the Telegraph, not an op-ed as far as I can tell:
-For your consideration [15] - SmolBrane ( talk) 18:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, about the study mentioned above - [16] - SmolBrane ( talk) 18:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
On the matter of updating the article, another RS non-opinion source [17] that should be included. This one's pretty nuanced and perhaps difficult to include. My thanks to the editors that have the time and dedication to maintain and edit this article; I just don't have the time or the experience. It's always easier to judge an article than edit it, of course. SmolBrane ( talk) 17:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
References