![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
You are to give facts not opine . Dr Malone has factual data concerning all aspects of Covid. 108.233.129.6 ( talk) 19:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Robert W. Malone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The statement: "a member of the scientific advisory board of EpiVax", in the 2nd paragraph of the careers section is false and should be removed completely. Epivaxwiki ( talk) 14:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Consulting services for EpiVax, 2005-2018 (member, Scientific Advisory Board), 2020. - Epivax, Scientific Advisory Board, 2012-2019.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Robert W. Malone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph for the overview, a source is cited to show that Dr. Malone pedals misinformation. The source is source [1] from the Atlantic. This article is simply gossip and centers around people close to Dr. Malone, or people who do not know him very well at all (some only worked with him on a project or so). This source from the Atlantic does not cite or reference the studies and journals cited by Dr. Malone, and therefore, does not debunk any information shared by Dr. Malone. Please consider removing this source. 100.37.228.159 ( talk) 17:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. The source does address the claim and seems reliable to me, however let's see what other editors who watch this article have to say. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
17:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)How do you change false information on the page Veritas aequitas 20 ( talk) 16:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
A professional in the field of virology and an inventer of vaccines but he is the one producing fallacies ? Come on now he is the only one speaking the TRUTH about all this and it is pissing the right people off. The ones that are making money off the deaths of humans. 50.27.242.246 ( talk) 15:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Robert Malone has published close to 100 peer reviewed papers which have been cited more than 12,000 times. Seems pretty authoritative. Mirddes ( talk) 22:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There is nothing to suggest that Robert Malone MD is “spreading misinformation about Covid 19”, when he shared countless reasons and facts about his claims. His list of accomplishments alone should make people listen to him. He is a VIROLOGIST. You are censoring freedom of information by listing this as a troll page, and your opinion doesn’t change the facts. Kmarie628 ( talk) 05:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
|
Hi, my edit that changed the phrase anti-vaccine and anti-vaccine mandate rally to anti-vaccine mandate rally was recently reverted by Orangemike, with the claim that the information I "added" was incorrect (despite the fact that I did not add any new information). The stated goal of the rally was to "defeat the mandates" [1], not to generally protest vaccines themselves, which is what the current iteration disingenuously implies. For example, from this [2] Forbes article:
On Sunday, protester assembled for the “Defeat the Mandate” rally in Washington, D.C., right in the middle of a Winter Covid-19 surge. But instead of rallying against the virus, they protested Covid-19 vaccination and face mask requirements. [emphasis mine]
as well as this [3] one:
Protestors marched from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. on Sunday in objection to the Covid-19 vaccine mandates, drawing an array of sometimes controversial speakers and groups.
Even the article that is currently cited [4] agrees:
Thousands of protesters from across the country — including some of the biggest names in the anti-vaccination movement — descended on the nation’s capital Sunday for a rally against vaccine mandates.
Seeing as how this meets the WP:RS requirement, I see no reason why it should be reverted. To conflate opposition to mandates and opposition to vaccination in general is intellectually dishonest. Nsophiay ( talk) 20:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of how it's characterized, it is quite poor writing to just state "on this date he spoke/appeared at a rally" and leave it as such. Like what is the context and significance? Is Wikipedia a daily newspaper telling Malone fans (or foes) what he did today and yesterday? I'm not saying it should be removed (as many would surely scream "white-washing!"), but without context it's about as meaningful as "in December 2020, Malone ate a pastrami sandwich". --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
References
Facebook quite clearly said they refused to deplatform the organization of the rally because it was explicitly anti-mandate, not anti-vaccine, and I agree with that characterization and think we should emulate it. We could clarify it though. While it was "officially" an anti-mandate rally, it is true that there was plenty of trash-talking of the vaccine by speakers there. If you want to parrot the RS and say it was an "antivax" rally because Malone said the vaccines don't work as they claimed they would in the face of Omnicom (prevent spread and lead to herd immunity) and that he has bioethical concerns about young men and myocarditis, go ahead. Rather than platforming the correct information, Wikipedia will probably end up making people identify as "antivax" who wouldn't have otherwise with such clumsy use of the label...The country of Sweden recently declined to recommend vaccines for kids, so the idea is absolutely not fringe and the label not appropriate: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-decides-against-recommending-covid-vaccines-kids-aged-5-12-2022-01-27/ Theyre not only not mandating it, theyre not recommending it. Also, I noticed some RS called Malone a "vaccine skeptic", not "anti vaccine"--I'm therefore not sure if it would be appropriate to use that label on Malone's page, "Skeptic" seems more appropriate. 2600:1012:B047:24C7:2C85:EB9B:8074:12F ( talk) 07:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Robert W. Malone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first section of the Robert W. Malone biographical page, the last sentence of the paragraph should be edited to read that Dr. Malone "has been accused...of spreading misinformation..." The Wikipedia entry states unequivocally that Dr. Malone has misled the public, though that assertion is currently under debate and unclear given how much data and literature is available to argue both sides of the case. There is no reason for Wikipedia to take an unsettled stand in either direction; the entry should highlight that his credibility is in question, but should not also serve as arbiter of that dispute. ALChittur ( talk) 01:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This will be a contentious change. Please seek consensus.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
01:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)There is no reliable source for the unequivocal assertion that Malone has "spread misinformation." Including that sentence, unaltered, rather than the qualified assertion that he has been "accused of spreading misinformation" is what is contentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.229.160.187 ( talk) 23:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi MrOllie, regarding your revert of Malone's Substack as an external link, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL states that "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." The Substack is not linked from Malone's official page, so it meets the second criterion. And regarding the first criterion, the Substack appears to be updated through the present (updates within the last few days), unlike the blog on Malone's official website which has not been updated since last November, and appears to be the source of his current claims which have been discussed in reliable sources. [1] [2] So I think this is also significant unique content, and worth including as an external link. What do you think? Fiwec81618 ( talk) 02:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED - Clearly no consensus for this move RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Robert W. Malone → Robert Malone – A previous discussion ( permalink) established that Robert Malone (American football) is not the primary topic for Robert Malone, but didn't establish any consensus to whether the virologist is the primary topic. Given how many pageviews this gets vs the football player, I think it's quite clear that he's the virologist is the primary topic, and disambiguation would be best done with a hatnote on his page (and therefore the disambiguation page currently at Robert Malone would be deleted for the move to be carried out).
Also noting that Robert W. Malone is frequently referred to his name as just "Robert Malone", far more often than as "Robert W. Malone", so if it's determined that he isn't the primary topic here, the title should still be moved away from using his middle initial as the disambiguator and to something else (such as Robert Malone (virologist)). Elli ( talk | contribs) 05:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment On his website ( https://www.rwmalonemd.com/) he identifies himself as Robert W Malone MD. In the two scientific papers quoted in the Atlantic article ( https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/86/16/6077.full.pdf and https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1690918) he is cited as ROBERT W. MALONE. Greg Kaye 10:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment He isn't a virologist, so that shouldn't be in contention as a qualifier. Neither is he an immunologist. He is a physician though. Perhaps Robert Malone (physician) ? Bob247 ( talk) 20:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I contacted Dr. Malone for some freely licensed photos for this article and he emailed me back two pictures stating that they are freely licensed. I'm not the greatest at uploading pictures to articles, if someone else could check out my Wikimedia uploads. Somers-all-the-time ( talk) 15:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The citation https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9EU9W7-1 infers wrongdoing in Malone's tweeting (on 'Jun 26') a scientific paper that was only submitted for a retraction on 1 July 2021 that was only published on 2 July 2021. The article only says that the tweet is no longer available which may just mean that Malone deleted the tweet. What is the relevance of this article? Greg Kaye 12:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
What "experts" does wiki use to be able to state this doctors in formation about corona virus vaccines, specifically mRNA inhibitors is not correct and thereby label it as misinformation. Show us "your" credible resources. 75.167.237.118 ( talk) 14:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Robert W. Malone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He mentioned we attended Santa Barbara City college while on the Joe Rogan podcast. 2600:1700:BB80:2910:D0C:C3F6:BCE1:40D8 ( talk) 19:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Can we self source and say he went to SBCC and that he was a carpenter before that? By saying "Malone said that prior to attending UC Davis, he attended SBCC and was a carpenter prior to that." Why would anyone inflate these credentials? Is SBCC more prestigious than Cuesta College? Is being a carpenter more prestigious than being a janitor? Is that why we have to assume he could be inflating anything? Why can't we just self-source these things and attribute it to him. Apparently the entire rogan episode is in the congressional record. So the carpenter and sbcc claims will be there. Can we cite that? Also will like to add this: it seems likely Malone was in an NIH funded Medical Scientist Training Program. https://news.feinberg.northwestern.edu/2014/07/mstp_50th_anniversary/ Northwestern was one of the first three to receive NIH funded MSTP scholarships in 1964 though it had awarded a joint degree since 1928. Feinberg's online alumni directory doesn't go back far enough though: https://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/sites/mstp/about/alumni/alumni-directory.html
For those unfamiliar with MSTP or MD PhD programs, the idea is the first two years of med school (heavy bio coursework) will precede the PhD portion, which is completed prior to the clinical years (3 and 4) of medical school. Oftentimes people can complete the PhD portion in a shorter amount of time (3 or 4 years) since intro grad bio coursework is oftentimes similar to the first two years of med school. These people usually finish residency (if they do one, because it isn't always necessary, as they're very well equipped to do research too) well into their 30s and as a result, the NIH pays a full scholarship, to make it a more reasonable financial proposition. The dates of Malone's education follow this: he didn't defend a thesis due to a falling out (it happens), got a "consolation MS" at UCSD, also in La Jolla and a "sister institution" of Salk, and went back to Northwestern to finish his MD. So he did what you're supposed to do...I wish we could get some better sourcing though, because he said he worked with some very high level people at Salk who probably have Wiki articles during the AIDS crisis, and that would give a lot of interesting and good context here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B023:44CA:1540:6A1C:A84D:CBAF ( talk) 19:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC) 2600:1012:B023:44CA:1540:6A1C:A84D:CBAF ( talk) 18:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Using "misinformation" is not a verifiable term given the large amount of varied medical opinion, including Dr Malone's, regarding the treatment and use of vaccines. Controversial is an appropriate term as it leaves a factual and non-biased cover. 2600:1003:B868:54E5:D88D:5FC:FFB1:5B0 ( talk) 16:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.That clearly allows us to call something false when reliable sources call it false. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
That Malone is "the inventor of mRNA vaccines" is clearly false, so "claimed" is the right word. "Said" is
WP:FALSEBALANCE.
WP:CLAIM says, To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question
, which is exactly what we should do here. --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
08:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I note that this person has begun legal action in respect of some of the claims we repeat in the article. I have therefore deleted them iaw
WP:BIO
WP:LIBEL.
Springnuts (
talk)
06:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Reference for the legal action is here: [ [1]]. Springnuts ( talk) 06:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
has begun legal actionis false, and such a claim indicates that you didn't read the reference you cite. We'll see where this threat leads, but past cases (for example, this) suggest that all Malone can reasonably expect is a smaller balance in his bank account (see this). JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 18:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Malone made the weekly fake news roundup by the Associated Press, saying in an interview with an unnamed website on 1 April 2022 that COVID vaccines cause immunosuppression. I don't know whether this is worth mentioning in this article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Unbiased means neutral comments. Calling something misinformation instead of pointing out statements and facts to support or to deny claims is biased. Calling something false without explaining what it actually false is also biased. Reaching conclusions is rare when being totally neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:447F:9CB0:49EA:5AB:12E2:1C41 ( talk) 03:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree. Alexbrn, you seem to be allowing bias by removing my edits, which aim not to defend Malone, but remove the severely negative framing and conclusion forming statements which are currently live. Editor976 ( talk) 06:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi guys, while I share a view similar to Alexbrn on this issue and disagree with the edits made thus far, I also agree that the current wording can be seen as biased from a reader's perspective. Would "is widely attributed to have promoted" rather than "has promoted" be a satisfying compromise? Alternatively, would the discussed content better serve the "COVID-19 research and controversy" section?(Apologies if I've made any mistakes posting this here, I'm very new) Rickyflare ( talk) 08:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I have asked for page protection, if we are having to deal with SPA socks I have better ways to spend my time. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Given that this topic is controversial and challenging, I am amazed at the level of bias throughout this article. My early attempts to correct this by softening the language and harsh framing, to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions from the facts, have been consistently reversed.
Despite Dr Malone being heavily criticised during the pandemic and today, Wikipedia ought not to bow to "going with the masses" or go to ng along with mainstream media reporting, and should be a neutral, balanced read.
For example, the claim in the introductory paragraph is that Dr Malone has promoted misinformation. Who decides what misinformation is? Surely where articles have been written criticising him in this way, Wikipedia ought to remain neutral, by merely describing the accusations, rather than stating as fact that it's misinformation?
Let's discuss. Editor976 ( talk) 06:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Who decides what misinformation is?From your language
My early attempts to correct this, you seem to think it is you and nobody else. Wrong. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy. And I don't think it's me who decides what misinformation is. The point I'm making is that this article contains few referenced sources which amount to scholarly critique, and lots of opinion pieces from journalists who clearly are biased in their framing of the issue. For this article, it appears that the original writers are unaware of the many published, scholarly critiques of COVID 19 Vaccination which form the basis for / support Dr Malone's views. This alone means that it is biased to phrase the introductory paragraph in such stark terms. I'm not claiming to be the arbiter of misinformation, but might be more aware than the original author of other sources which invalidate the black and white claim that him spreading misinformation is a fact. Editor976 ( talk) 08:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, to be clear, that last sentence should read: "other sources which invalidate the black and white representation of him spreading misinformation". Editor976 ( talk) 08:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
You have no idea who I am or what my views are. I'm not at all anti vax. I didn't have time to complete my editing because by the time I had published the first bit, even minor edits had been reversed. I'm happy to reference, but need more than 15 minutes to complete them. I also referenced every addition I made. You are clearly so blinkered in your POV that you don't understand the literature. I never brought up anti vax. Criticism isn't anti vax. That's a term you used, and it betrays your own bias.
Editor976 ( talk) 12:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll get the references done first, then make a new edit. Editor976 ( talk) 12:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't agree the content sentenced that he "promoted the misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines" as nobody including existing experts can prove that he is wrong. It is not yet a fair moment to say he promoted "misinformation" as we know nothing about the side-effect from mRNA vaccine after 10 or 20 years.
I suggest the statement should be edited as "he promoted the different view and opinion about the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccine.” Ldlch2 ( talk) 13:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Robert W. Malone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Original: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.[1][4][5][6][7]
Suggested edition:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has promoted different view and opinion about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
Ldlch2 (
talk)
13:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to change, in the first sentences, "Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy..." => "Malone has promoted alternative information about the safety and efficacy..." 150.145.142.9 ( talk) 11:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
To "manually archive" this discussion after merely 9 days for being long is one way to avoid losing an argument. How is this following the encyclopedia's rules-based order? — 89.206.112.12 ( talk) 10:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
This needs closing as off topic. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
You are to give facts not opine . Dr Malone has factual data concerning all aspects of Covid. 108.233.129.6 ( talk) 19:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Robert W. Malone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The statement: "a member of the scientific advisory board of EpiVax", in the 2nd paragraph of the careers section is false and should be removed completely. Epivaxwiki ( talk) 14:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Consulting services for EpiVax, 2005-2018 (member, Scientific Advisory Board), 2020. - Epivax, Scientific Advisory Board, 2012-2019.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Robert W. Malone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph for the overview, a source is cited to show that Dr. Malone pedals misinformation. The source is source [1] from the Atlantic. This article is simply gossip and centers around people close to Dr. Malone, or people who do not know him very well at all (some only worked with him on a project or so). This source from the Atlantic does not cite or reference the studies and journals cited by Dr. Malone, and therefore, does not debunk any information shared by Dr. Malone. Please consider removing this source. 100.37.228.159 ( talk) 17:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. The source does address the claim and seems reliable to me, however let's see what other editors who watch this article have to say. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
17:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)How do you change false information on the page Veritas aequitas 20 ( talk) 16:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
A professional in the field of virology and an inventer of vaccines but he is the one producing fallacies ? Come on now he is the only one speaking the TRUTH about all this and it is pissing the right people off. The ones that are making money off the deaths of humans. 50.27.242.246 ( talk) 15:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Robert Malone has published close to 100 peer reviewed papers which have been cited more than 12,000 times. Seems pretty authoritative. Mirddes ( talk) 22:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There is nothing to suggest that Robert Malone MD is “spreading misinformation about Covid 19”, when he shared countless reasons and facts about his claims. His list of accomplishments alone should make people listen to him. He is a VIROLOGIST. You are censoring freedom of information by listing this as a troll page, and your opinion doesn’t change the facts. Kmarie628 ( talk) 05:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
|
Hi, my edit that changed the phrase anti-vaccine and anti-vaccine mandate rally to anti-vaccine mandate rally was recently reverted by Orangemike, with the claim that the information I "added" was incorrect (despite the fact that I did not add any new information). The stated goal of the rally was to "defeat the mandates" [1], not to generally protest vaccines themselves, which is what the current iteration disingenuously implies. For example, from this [2] Forbes article:
On Sunday, protester assembled for the “Defeat the Mandate” rally in Washington, D.C., right in the middle of a Winter Covid-19 surge. But instead of rallying against the virus, they protested Covid-19 vaccination and face mask requirements. [emphasis mine]
as well as this [3] one:
Protestors marched from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. on Sunday in objection to the Covid-19 vaccine mandates, drawing an array of sometimes controversial speakers and groups.
Even the article that is currently cited [4] agrees:
Thousands of protesters from across the country — including some of the biggest names in the anti-vaccination movement — descended on the nation’s capital Sunday for a rally against vaccine mandates.
Seeing as how this meets the WP:RS requirement, I see no reason why it should be reverted. To conflate opposition to mandates and opposition to vaccination in general is intellectually dishonest. Nsophiay ( talk) 20:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of how it's characterized, it is quite poor writing to just state "on this date he spoke/appeared at a rally" and leave it as such. Like what is the context and significance? Is Wikipedia a daily newspaper telling Malone fans (or foes) what he did today and yesterday? I'm not saying it should be removed (as many would surely scream "white-washing!"), but without context it's about as meaningful as "in December 2020, Malone ate a pastrami sandwich". --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
References
Facebook quite clearly said they refused to deplatform the organization of the rally because it was explicitly anti-mandate, not anti-vaccine, and I agree with that characterization and think we should emulate it. We could clarify it though. While it was "officially" an anti-mandate rally, it is true that there was plenty of trash-talking of the vaccine by speakers there. If you want to parrot the RS and say it was an "antivax" rally because Malone said the vaccines don't work as they claimed they would in the face of Omnicom (prevent spread and lead to herd immunity) and that he has bioethical concerns about young men and myocarditis, go ahead. Rather than platforming the correct information, Wikipedia will probably end up making people identify as "antivax" who wouldn't have otherwise with such clumsy use of the label...The country of Sweden recently declined to recommend vaccines for kids, so the idea is absolutely not fringe and the label not appropriate: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-decides-against-recommending-covid-vaccines-kids-aged-5-12-2022-01-27/ Theyre not only not mandating it, theyre not recommending it. Also, I noticed some RS called Malone a "vaccine skeptic", not "anti vaccine"--I'm therefore not sure if it would be appropriate to use that label on Malone's page, "Skeptic" seems more appropriate. 2600:1012:B047:24C7:2C85:EB9B:8074:12F ( talk) 07:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Robert W. Malone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first section of the Robert W. Malone biographical page, the last sentence of the paragraph should be edited to read that Dr. Malone "has been accused...of spreading misinformation..." The Wikipedia entry states unequivocally that Dr. Malone has misled the public, though that assertion is currently under debate and unclear given how much data and literature is available to argue both sides of the case. There is no reason for Wikipedia to take an unsettled stand in either direction; the entry should highlight that his credibility is in question, but should not also serve as arbiter of that dispute. ALChittur ( talk) 01:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This will be a contentious change. Please seek consensus.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
01:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)There is no reliable source for the unequivocal assertion that Malone has "spread misinformation." Including that sentence, unaltered, rather than the qualified assertion that he has been "accused of spreading misinformation" is what is contentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.229.160.187 ( talk) 23:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi MrOllie, regarding your revert of Malone's Substack as an external link, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL states that "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." The Substack is not linked from Malone's official page, so it meets the second criterion. And regarding the first criterion, the Substack appears to be updated through the present (updates within the last few days), unlike the blog on Malone's official website which has not been updated since last November, and appears to be the source of his current claims which have been discussed in reliable sources. [1] [2] So I think this is also significant unique content, and worth including as an external link. What do you think? Fiwec81618 ( talk) 02:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED - Clearly no consensus for this move RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Robert W. Malone → Robert Malone – A previous discussion ( permalink) established that Robert Malone (American football) is not the primary topic for Robert Malone, but didn't establish any consensus to whether the virologist is the primary topic. Given how many pageviews this gets vs the football player, I think it's quite clear that he's the virologist is the primary topic, and disambiguation would be best done with a hatnote on his page (and therefore the disambiguation page currently at Robert Malone would be deleted for the move to be carried out).
Also noting that Robert W. Malone is frequently referred to his name as just "Robert Malone", far more often than as "Robert W. Malone", so if it's determined that he isn't the primary topic here, the title should still be moved away from using his middle initial as the disambiguator and to something else (such as Robert Malone (virologist)). Elli ( talk | contribs) 05:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment On his website ( https://www.rwmalonemd.com/) he identifies himself as Robert W Malone MD. In the two scientific papers quoted in the Atlantic article ( https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/86/16/6077.full.pdf and https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1690918) he is cited as ROBERT W. MALONE. Greg Kaye 10:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment He isn't a virologist, so that shouldn't be in contention as a qualifier. Neither is he an immunologist. He is a physician though. Perhaps Robert Malone (physician) ? Bob247 ( talk) 20:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I contacted Dr. Malone for some freely licensed photos for this article and he emailed me back two pictures stating that they are freely licensed. I'm not the greatest at uploading pictures to articles, if someone else could check out my Wikimedia uploads. Somers-all-the-time ( talk) 15:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The citation https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9EU9W7-1 infers wrongdoing in Malone's tweeting (on 'Jun 26') a scientific paper that was only submitted for a retraction on 1 July 2021 that was only published on 2 July 2021. The article only says that the tweet is no longer available which may just mean that Malone deleted the tweet. What is the relevance of this article? Greg Kaye 12:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
What "experts" does wiki use to be able to state this doctors in formation about corona virus vaccines, specifically mRNA inhibitors is not correct and thereby label it as misinformation. Show us "your" credible resources. 75.167.237.118 ( talk) 14:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Robert W. Malone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He mentioned we attended Santa Barbara City college while on the Joe Rogan podcast. 2600:1700:BB80:2910:D0C:C3F6:BCE1:40D8 ( talk) 19:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Can we self source and say he went to SBCC and that he was a carpenter before that? By saying "Malone said that prior to attending UC Davis, he attended SBCC and was a carpenter prior to that." Why would anyone inflate these credentials? Is SBCC more prestigious than Cuesta College? Is being a carpenter more prestigious than being a janitor? Is that why we have to assume he could be inflating anything? Why can't we just self-source these things and attribute it to him. Apparently the entire rogan episode is in the congressional record. So the carpenter and sbcc claims will be there. Can we cite that? Also will like to add this: it seems likely Malone was in an NIH funded Medical Scientist Training Program. https://news.feinberg.northwestern.edu/2014/07/mstp_50th_anniversary/ Northwestern was one of the first three to receive NIH funded MSTP scholarships in 1964 though it had awarded a joint degree since 1928. Feinberg's online alumni directory doesn't go back far enough though: https://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/sites/mstp/about/alumni/alumni-directory.html
For those unfamiliar with MSTP or MD PhD programs, the idea is the first two years of med school (heavy bio coursework) will precede the PhD portion, which is completed prior to the clinical years (3 and 4) of medical school. Oftentimes people can complete the PhD portion in a shorter amount of time (3 or 4 years) since intro grad bio coursework is oftentimes similar to the first two years of med school. These people usually finish residency (if they do one, because it isn't always necessary, as they're very well equipped to do research too) well into their 30s and as a result, the NIH pays a full scholarship, to make it a more reasonable financial proposition. The dates of Malone's education follow this: he didn't defend a thesis due to a falling out (it happens), got a "consolation MS" at UCSD, also in La Jolla and a "sister institution" of Salk, and went back to Northwestern to finish his MD. So he did what you're supposed to do...I wish we could get some better sourcing though, because he said he worked with some very high level people at Salk who probably have Wiki articles during the AIDS crisis, and that would give a lot of interesting and good context here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B023:44CA:1540:6A1C:A84D:CBAF ( talk) 19:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC) 2600:1012:B023:44CA:1540:6A1C:A84D:CBAF ( talk) 18:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Using "misinformation" is not a verifiable term given the large amount of varied medical opinion, including Dr Malone's, regarding the treatment and use of vaccines. Controversial is an appropriate term as it leaves a factual and non-biased cover. 2600:1003:B868:54E5:D88D:5FC:FFB1:5B0 ( talk) 16:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.That clearly allows us to call something false when reliable sources call it false. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
That Malone is "the inventor of mRNA vaccines" is clearly false, so "claimed" is the right word. "Said" is
WP:FALSEBALANCE.
WP:CLAIM says, To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question
, which is exactly what we should do here. --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
08:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I note that this person has begun legal action in respect of some of the claims we repeat in the article. I have therefore deleted them iaw
WP:BIO
WP:LIBEL.
Springnuts (
talk)
06:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Reference for the legal action is here: [ [1]]. Springnuts ( talk) 06:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
has begun legal actionis false, and such a claim indicates that you didn't read the reference you cite. We'll see where this threat leads, but past cases (for example, this) suggest that all Malone can reasonably expect is a smaller balance in his bank account (see this). JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 18:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Malone made the weekly fake news roundup by the Associated Press, saying in an interview with an unnamed website on 1 April 2022 that COVID vaccines cause immunosuppression. I don't know whether this is worth mentioning in this article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Unbiased means neutral comments. Calling something misinformation instead of pointing out statements and facts to support or to deny claims is biased. Calling something false without explaining what it actually false is also biased. Reaching conclusions is rare when being totally neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:447F:9CB0:49EA:5AB:12E2:1C41 ( talk) 03:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree. Alexbrn, you seem to be allowing bias by removing my edits, which aim not to defend Malone, but remove the severely negative framing and conclusion forming statements which are currently live. Editor976 ( talk) 06:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi guys, while I share a view similar to Alexbrn on this issue and disagree with the edits made thus far, I also agree that the current wording can be seen as biased from a reader's perspective. Would "is widely attributed to have promoted" rather than "has promoted" be a satisfying compromise? Alternatively, would the discussed content better serve the "COVID-19 research and controversy" section?(Apologies if I've made any mistakes posting this here, I'm very new) Rickyflare ( talk) 08:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I have asked for page protection, if we are having to deal with SPA socks I have better ways to spend my time. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Given that this topic is controversial and challenging, I am amazed at the level of bias throughout this article. My early attempts to correct this by softening the language and harsh framing, to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions from the facts, have been consistently reversed.
Despite Dr Malone being heavily criticised during the pandemic and today, Wikipedia ought not to bow to "going with the masses" or go to ng along with mainstream media reporting, and should be a neutral, balanced read.
For example, the claim in the introductory paragraph is that Dr Malone has promoted misinformation. Who decides what misinformation is? Surely where articles have been written criticising him in this way, Wikipedia ought to remain neutral, by merely describing the accusations, rather than stating as fact that it's misinformation?
Let's discuss. Editor976 ( talk) 06:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Who decides what misinformation is?From your language
My early attempts to correct this, you seem to think it is you and nobody else. Wrong. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy. And I don't think it's me who decides what misinformation is. The point I'm making is that this article contains few referenced sources which amount to scholarly critique, and lots of opinion pieces from journalists who clearly are biased in their framing of the issue. For this article, it appears that the original writers are unaware of the many published, scholarly critiques of COVID 19 Vaccination which form the basis for / support Dr Malone's views. This alone means that it is biased to phrase the introductory paragraph in such stark terms. I'm not claiming to be the arbiter of misinformation, but might be more aware than the original author of other sources which invalidate the black and white claim that him spreading misinformation is a fact. Editor976 ( talk) 08:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, to be clear, that last sentence should read: "other sources which invalidate the black and white representation of him spreading misinformation". Editor976 ( talk) 08:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
You have no idea who I am or what my views are. I'm not at all anti vax. I didn't have time to complete my editing because by the time I had published the first bit, even minor edits had been reversed. I'm happy to reference, but need more than 15 minutes to complete them. I also referenced every addition I made. You are clearly so blinkered in your POV that you don't understand the literature. I never brought up anti vax. Criticism isn't anti vax. That's a term you used, and it betrays your own bias.
Editor976 ( talk) 12:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll get the references done first, then make a new edit. Editor976 ( talk) 12:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't agree the content sentenced that he "promoted the misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines" as nobody including existing experts can prove that he is wrong. It is not yet a fair moment to say he promoted "misinformation" as we know nothing about the side-effect from mRNA vaccine after 10 or 20 years.
I suggest the statement should be edited as "he promoted the different view and opinion about the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccine.” Ldlch2 ( talk) 13:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Robert W. Malone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Original: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.[1][4][5][6][7]
Suggested edition:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has promoted different view and opinion about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
Ldlch2 (
talk)
13:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to change, in the first sentences, "Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy..." => "Malone has promoted alternative information about the safety and efficacy..." 150.145.142.9 ( talk) 11:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
To "manually archive" this discussion after merely 9 days for being long is one way to avoid losing an argument. How is this following the encyclopedia's rules-based order? — 89.206.112.12 ( talk) 10:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
This needs closing as off topic. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)