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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The article has two paragraphs out of four, containing isolated events and recent events that are in the news. The information in these paragraphs (they are the last 2 in the article) are sourced well (except for the WAVY-TV piece which leans more into poor source territory, in my opinion) but they violate WP:BALASP. I suggest we either expand the whole article so that these 2 paragraphs do not stands as the 50% of the material, or summarize their information to keep the essential and leave out the details. Forich ( talk) 20:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The lead currently finishes with this sentence: Marik has called himself a "status quo destabilizer"
. If one follows the trail of references to this fact it ends up in the way Marik signed a guest post in the website EMCrit. Reading further into it, one finds that EMCrit is a blog in which the owners say they "post a full ~20-minute podcast. In between, the site gets filled with blogposts, links, and EMCrit Wees (minature podcasts)". So, Marik submitted a guest blog post in this informal casual internet thing, he signed it with "status quo destabilizer" and now we use it in the lead on his Wikipedia entry? Imagine if Barack Obama had signed a blog post somewhere like "frustrated basketball player" and someone dared to add that to the lead to his Wikipedia, it is likely not due. Please, either remove it entirely or place it in the body of the article with some more context.
Forich (
talk) 18:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight.Then, we are directed to WP:WEIGHT, saying
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]. The sentence in which we added a playful/irreverent self-description used by Marik in the signing section of a blog post, can not be justified by "well, one Reliable Source picked up that he called himself like that and considered that it described him well along with a context of him being criticized for recommending an unproven treatment for sepsis". For me, there are only two ways in which this sentence can be DUE for the lead:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hospital privilege suspended, apparently. [2] Alexbrn ( talk) 17:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
And he sued the hospital: www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95725 Interesting to see that whenever Ivermectin pops up in a Wiki article, the same editors have to comment on it with non-neutral words like "erroneous". One of Wiki's founders saw it coming and doesn't trust what he created anymore: youtu.be/l0P4Cf0UCwU Otaku00 ( talk) 10:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
My thing is a neutral viewpoint and coverage of a wide range of facts, and it was Wiki's co-founder's thing, too - not partial knowledge. Just look how you pointed at the Ivermectin profits without mentioning those of Biontech that are way bigger. Otaku00 ( talk) 12:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
There's a difference between saying "The CDC and NIH don't believe this, and a recent poll says that 95% of doctors don't believe it, and also shows that the 5% of doctors who DO believe it also believe that hurricanes are caused by malicious Martians" and saying "discredited". The former is a fact, that latter is a conclusion drawn from the fact. GIVE me that fact, and I WILL draw that conclusion, but DO NOT tell me what conclusion I SHOULD draw. Take for instance text in the article as of the date of this my talk-page post: "is a co-leader of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which has misleadingly advocated for the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19". Ummm, the use of the word "misleadingly" is absolutely not permissible by Wikipedia's standards, although the well-sourced clause that immediately follows (as of the date of this post) "against the advice of leading health agencies" is totally permissible. Writing "Almost all doctors and health-agencies are convinced beyond doubt that this is false and that the methods used to argue for its allegedly being true are disreputable, underhanded, and fallacy-ridden." is justified, but writing "This is false." is a heinous disregard for neutrality and "fact-only" writing. Give me facts, and let me draw the inevitable conclusions therefrom. Don't give me the conclusions that I should draw. If you don't argue fairly, you're only convincing people of the OPPOSITE of what you'd like them to believe, because they see the lack of neutrality in your methods and simply choose against YOU. 2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 ( talk) 04:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
Hi dear Wikipedia users, I need help including the latest peer reviewed data, which are now numerous. On some claims deemed controversial here by biased and outdated sources that can give Covid patients better options to improve outcomes. I know articles like these are constantly monitored to make sure it stays within the realm of reality, but over protection to the point of censorship in unwarranted and against website rules.-- 134.79.160.199 ( talk) 04:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I have posted a response on my talk page, but can respond here to continue. Feel free to check there anytime. thank you for the advice.-- 134.79.160.199 ( talk) 04:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
How much of it is misinformation? Maybe one can say the early studies were low cost and had errors so they are not reliable, so to support them would not be correct. Hence, I included the agreed word "incorrect" before it was changed again. I am seeing this on entire areas of Wikipedia, where those that handle articles and articles themselves are stuck on information from early 2021, almost like a time bubble. Government websites and articles are using that word less and less. Only Poynter backed fact checkers keep using it. Some of them were found to be in conflict of interest in regards to some corporations like J&J. If there is an emerging science backed by studies why not list that? Ivermectin has already been used as a Covid treatment in many countries including the US. The FDA says its use should be allowed but only in clinical trials. Certain terms and framing in this article either must be updated or overhauled to reflect current reality. I will list an example of a sentence that may need change here to get approval before changing the article to avoid constant reverts by other users. Have already found hundreds of new peer reviewed scientific papers that in majority from the government health agencies themselves. I propose a collaborative team effort on this issue, thank you all.-- 134.79.160.199 ( talk) 00:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Ivermectin has already been used as a Covid treatment in many countries including the US. The FDA says its use should be allowed but only in clinical trials. Certain terms and framing in this article either must be updated or overhauled to reflect current reality. I will list an example of a sentence that may need change here to get approval before changing the article to avoid constant reverts by other users. Have already found hundreds of new peer reviewed scientific papers that in majority from the government health agencies themselvesThis is pretty much purely false and not substantiated so please cut it out and drop the dead horse. Andre 🚐 02:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Your are correct I have yet to post the sources mentioned. So until then, I concede and drop horse paste. Bon voyage.-- 134.79.160.199 ( talk) 05:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
In a now-deleted blog post from last year, allegations were made against the Marik Chest study. I reverted a recent linking to an April 5 press release from Marik's group. Marik's group cites an April 3 letter from the Chest editors regarding the results of their investigation. The letter states "This evaluation was not able to confirm nor fully refute the concern that was identified." The letter also states that they will be correcting the article methods section in two locations. I don't see any erratum appended to the study. My instinct is to wait for (1) the erratum to be published and (2) possibly independent coverage before updating this Wikipedia article. ScienceFlyer ( talk) 16:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
ABIM acts against Kory and Marik: [3] -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:59, 9 August 2023 (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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The article has two paragraphs out of four, containing isolated events and recent events that are in the news. The information in these paragraphs (they are the last 2 in the article) are sourced well (except for the WAVY-TV piece which leans more into poor source territory, in my opinion) but they violate WP:BALASP. I suggest we either expand the whole article so that these 2 paragraphs do not stands as the 50% of the material, or summarize their information to keep the essential and leave out the details. Forich ( talk) 20:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The lead currently finishes with this sentence: Marik has called himself a "status quo destabilizer"
. If one follows the trail of references to this fact it ends up in the way Marik signed a guest post in the website EMCrit. Reading further into it, one finds that EMCrit is a blog in which the owners say they "post a full ~20-minute podcast. In between, the site gets filled with blogposts, links, and EMCrit Wees (minature podcasts)". So, Marik submitted a guest blog post in this informal casual internet thing, he signed it with "status quo destabilizer" and now we use it in the lead on his Wikipedia entry? Imagine if Barack Obama had signed a blog post somewhere like "frustrated basketball player" and someone dared to add that to the lead to his Wikipedia, it is likely not due. Please, either remove it entirely or place it in the body of the article with some more context.
Forich (
talk) 18:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight.Then, we are directed to WP:WEIGHT, saying
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]. The sentence in which we added a playful/irreverent self-description used by Marik in the signing section of a blog post, can not be justified by "well, one Reliable Source picked up that he called himself like that and considered that it described him well along with a context of him being criticized for recommending an unproven treatment for sepsis". For me, there are only two ways in which this sentence can be DUE for the lead:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hospital privilege suspended, apparently. [2] Alexbrn ( talk) 17:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
And he sued the hospital: www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95725 Interesting to see that whenever Ivermectin pops up in a Wiki article, the same editors have to comment on it with non-neutral words like "erroneous". One of Wiki's founders saw it coming and doesn't trust what he created anymore: youtu.be/l0P4Cf0UCwU Otaku00 ( talk) 10:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
My thing is a neutral viewpoint and coverage of a wide range of facts, and it was Wiki's co-founder's thing, too - not partial knowledge. Just look how you pointed at the Ivermectin profits without mentioning those of Biontech that are way bigger. Otaku00 ( talk) 12:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
There's a difference between saying "The CDC and NIH don't believe this, and a recent poll says that 95% of doctors don't believe it, and also shows that the 5% of doctors who DO believe it also believe that hurricanes are caused by malicious Martians" and saying "discredited". The former is a fact, that latter is a conclusion drawn from the fact. GIVE me that fact, and I WILL draw that conclusion, but DO NOT tell me what conclusion I SHOULD draw. Take for instance text in the article as of the date of this my talk-page post: "is a co-leader of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which has misleadingly advocated for the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19". Ummm, the use of the word "misleadingly" is absolutely not permissible by Wikipedia's standards, although the well-sourced clause that immediately follows (as of the date of this post) "against the advice of leading health agencies" is totally permissible. Writing "Almost all doctors and health-agencies are convinced beyond doubt that this is false and that the methods used to argue for its allegedly being true are disreputable, underhanded, and fallacy-ridden." is justified, but writing "This is false." is a heinous disregard for neutrality and "fact-only" writing. Give me facts, and let me draw the inevitable conclusions therefrom. Don't give me the conclusions that I should draw. If you don't argue fairly, you're only convincing people of the OPPOSITE of what you'd like them to believe, because they see the lack of neutrality in your methods and simply choose against YOU. 2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 ( talk) 04:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
Hi dear Wikipedia users, I need help including the latest peer reviewed data, which are now numerous. On some claims deemed controversial here by biased and outdated sources that can give Covid patients better options to improve outcomes. I know articles like these are constantly monitored to make sure it stays within the realm of reality, but over protection to the point of censorship in unwarranted and against website rules.-- 134.79.160.199 ( talk) 04:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I have posted a response on my talk page, but can respond here to continue. Feel free to check there anytime. thank you for the advice.-- 134.79.160.199 ( talk) 04:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
How much of it is misinformation? Maybe one can say the early studies were low cost and had errors so they are not reliable, so to support them would not be correct. Hence, I included the agreed word "incorrect" before it was changed again. I am seeing this on entire areas of Wikipedia, where those that handle articles and articles themselves are stuck on information from early 2021, almost like a time bubble. Government websites and articles are using that word less and less. Only Poynter backed fact checkers keep using it. Some of them were found to be in conflict of interest in regards to some corporations like J&J. If there is an emerging science backed by studies why not list that? Ivermectin has already been used as a Covid treatment in many countries including the US. The FDA says its use should be allowed but only in clinical trials. Certain terms and framing in this article either must be updated or overhauled to reflect current reality. I will list an example of a sentence that may need change here to get approval before changing the article to avoid constant reverts by other users. Have already found hundreds of new peer reviewed scientific papers that in majority from the government health agencies themselves. I propose a collaborative team effort on this issue, thank you all.-- 134.79.160.199 ( talk) 00:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Ivermectin has already been used as a Covid treatment in many countries including the US. The FDA says its use should be allowed but only in clinical trials. Certain terms and framing in this article either must be updated or overhauled to reflect current reality. I will list an example of a sentence that may need change here to get approval before changing the article to avoid constant reverts by other users. Have already found hundreds of new peer reviewed scientific papers that in majority from the government health agencies themselvesThis is pretty much purely false and not substantiated so please cut it out and drop the dead horse. Andre 🚐 02:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Your are correct I have yet to post the sources mentioned. So until then, I concede and drop horse paste. Bon voyage.-- 134.79.160.199 ( talk) 05:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
In a now-deleted blog post from last year, allegations were made against the Marik Chest study. I reverted a recent linking to an April 5 press release from Marik's group. Marik's group cites an April 3 letter from the Chest editors regarding the results of their investigation. The letter states "This evaluation was not able to confirm nor fully refute the concern that was identified." The letter also states that they will be correcting the article methods section in two locations. I don't see any erratum appended to the study. My instinct is to wait for (1) the erratum to be published and (2) possibly independent coverage before updating this Wikipedia article. ScienceFlyer ( talk) 16:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
ABIM acts against Kory and Marik: [3] -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)