This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Campbell (YouTuber) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 30 March 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Frequently asked questions
|
A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.
Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials.( May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) ( WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings.( July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) ( WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
Dr John was popular before covid and still posts on a lot of other health related topics that he feels important. This page reads like its a hate page and if you watch his videos he does not talk about things without links to reputable sources. If he makes a mistake he will also rectify it which i believe we need more of. I notice wiki is quickly losing what it was used for, as an information site. Now it seems to have its own belief. He used to advise on taking the vaccine, lockdown and mask wearing. It was only through medical research from highly regarded sources he changed. 212.86.59.222 ( talk) 06:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where is your proof of mis information. John always backs up everything with evidence. Please remove tge word misinformation. Billylove75 ( talk) 14:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia. Can you please source when John Campbell became anti-vax? It is one thing to analyze and critique a vaccine and another to write-off all vaccines. 24.203.188.202 ( talk) 02:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
someone who does not think they need a vaccineThat is not what Campbell does. He spreads misinformation about vaccines that deludes people away from vaccinations and leads to epidemics. Please inform yourself from reliable sources instead of disinformation sites. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
entire sentences. My response still fits, and what's more important, your approach is at odds with Wikipedia's rules. We will not delete a sourced statement just because some random person on the internet believes it is
totally illogical and irrational. Otherwise, Wikipedia, just picking one example, would have to be silent on the shape of the Earth. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
"pro awareness of Coronavirus vaccine dangers"← that is a WP:PROFRINGE framing since the "dangers" he trumpets are consistently fake, as sources relay. Unduly self-serving comments WP:ABOUTSELF are not permitted in Wikipedia articles, and nearly all antivaxxers claim they aren't one. The whole point is this guy changed from somebody semi-reasonable to a antivaxxer, as our sources say. Bon courage ( talk) 03:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. ABOUTSELF only works when independent reliable sources are not being contradicted. MrOllie ( talk) 13:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
is absolutly[sic]
not an antivax. Well, reliable sources state otherwise. Zaathras ( talk) 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm suggesting a change to the description of ivernectin against COVID-19 as new research and papers have been released. One of which is: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ 92.237.245.156 ( talk) 22:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
If "false claims" have been made and "misinformation" has been "veered into", would sources please be added to that section? Have you checked the citations? TheVBW ( talk) 15:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
This regards ref 19, which at the time of writing is:
- Vadon R (October 4, 2023). "Vaccine claims, Alzheimer's treatment and Tim's Parkrun times". More or Less: Behind the Stats (Radio programme). 2 minutes in. BBC. Radio 4.
There is nothing wrong with the reference itself, but I found the "2 minutes in" to be potentially misleading. Since this reference, a radio programme, is used twice on the page to refer to two different parts of the programme.
Ref 19 is cited for the first time in the third paragraph under under "COVID-19 pandemic", providing a source for the paragraph's claims, which centre on comments from Richard Vadon, a guest in the programme. Vadon's comments arise at around 2 minutes into the programme, so the "2 minutes in" is helpful here.
The second time Ref 19 is used -- in the second paragraph under "Death count" -- it is to provide a source for the sentence, "Campbell took down his video after being contacted by the programme, telling them that he was not a statistician." The part of the programme discussing this happens at about 10:40-11:00. So, it's not accurate to use ref 19 here, since it implies that one should go "2 minutes in" to hear the source for the sentence.
However, I am not familiar enough with best practices here to know what's the right way to correct this. Is it just as simple as creating a new reference where it mentions "10:40 minutes in" and have it replace ref 19b? Also note that this same radio programme is used as reference 34, just without the timestamp. Would appreciate input, thank you. Sic veresco ( talk) 17:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Campbell (YouTuber) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 30 March 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Frequently asked questions
|
A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.
Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials.( May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) ( WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings.( July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) ( WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
Dr John was popular before covid and still posts on a lot of other health related topics that he feels important. This page reads like its a hate page and if you watch his videos he does not talk about things without links to reputable sources. If he makes a mistake he will also rectify it which i believe we need more of. I notice wiki is quickly losing what it was used for, as an information site. Now it seems to have its own belief. He used to advise on taking the vaccine, lockdown and mask wearing. It was only through medical research from highly regarded sources he changed. 212.86.59.222 ( talk) 06:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where is your proof of mis information. John always backs up everything with evidence. Please remove tge word misinformation. Billylove75 ( talk) 14:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia. Can you please source when John Campbell became anti-vax? It is one thing to analyze and critique a vaccine and another to write-off all vaccines. 24.203.188.202 ( talk) 02:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
someone who does not think they need a vaccineThat is not what Campbell does. He spreads misinformation about vaccines that deludes people away from vaccinations and leads to epidemics. Please inform yourself from reliable sources instead of disinformation sites. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
entire sentences. My response still fits, and what's more important, your approach is at odds with Wikipedia's rules. We will not delete a sourced statement just because some random person on the internet believes it is
totally illogical and irrational. Otherwise, Wikipedia, just picking one example, would have to be silent on the shape of the Earth. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
"pro awareness of Coronavirus vaccine dangers"← that is a WP:PROFRINGE framing since the "dangers" he trumpets are consistently fake, as sources relay. Unduly self-serving comments WP:ABOUTSELF are not permitted in Wikipedia articles, and nearly all antivaxxers claim they aren't one. The whole point is this guy changed from somebody semi-reasonable to a antivaxxer, as our sources say. Bon courage ( talk) 03:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. ABOUTSELF only works when independent reliable sources are not being contradicted. MrOllie ( talk) 13:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
is absolutly[sic]
not an antivax. Well, reliable sources state otherwise. Zaathras ( talk) 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm suggesting a change to the description of ivernectin against COVID-19 as new research and papers have been released. One of which is: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ 92.237.245.156 ( talk) 22:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
If "false claims" have been made and "misinformation" has been "veered into", would sources please be added to that section? Have you checked the citations? TheVBW ( talk) 15:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
This regards ref 19, which at the time of writing is:
- Vadon R (October 4, 2023). "Vaccine claims, Alzheimer's treatment and Tim's Parkrun times". More or Less: Behind the Stats (Radio programme). 2 minutes in. BBC. Radio 4.
There is nothing wrong with the reference itself, but I found the "2 minutes in" to be potentially misleading. Since this reference, a radio programme, is used twice on the page to refer to two different parts of the programme.
Ref 19 is cited for the first time in the third paragraph under under "COVID-19 pandemic", providing a source for the paragraph's claims, which centre on comments from Richard Vadon, a guest in the programme. Vadon's comments arise at around 2 minutes into the programme, so the "2 minutes in" is helpful here.
The second time Ref 19 is used -- in the second paragraph under "Death count" -- it is to provide a source for the sentence, "Campbell took down his video after being contacted by the programme, telling them that he was not a statistician." The part of the programme discussing this happens at about 10:40-11:00. So, it's not accurate to use ref 19 here, since it implies that one should go "2 minutes in" to hear the source for the sentence.
However, I am not familiar enough with best practices here to know what's the right way to correct this. Is it just as simple as creating a new reference where it mentions "10:40 minutes in" and have it replace ref 19b? Also note that this same radio programme is used as reference 34, just without the timestamp. Would appreciate input, thank you. Sic veresco ( talk) 17:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)