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 page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated C-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. |
This article contains a translation of Wolfgang Wodarg from de.wikipedia. |
An article in the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph [1] dated February 6 uses the term conspiracy theorist to denote Wodarg. It is unclear whether the term is used by an interview subject or the newspaper itself. Due to BLP concerns over the pejorative connotations of the term I don't think the term should be used in the article unless several more reliable sources use it. __ meco ( talk) 15:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The article that mentioned him was actually from 2nd February 2010. [2] Cimbalom ( talk) 02:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I'm confused, but there seems to be a lot of stated "factual" information here that doesn't have a reference to anything. Most of these claims are made on his personal website, but does this qualify as wiki-worthy information? At the very least I think there should be a "this article needs better citations" doodad at the top of the page, or that it be noted that this information is questionable and from personal testimony. - Vigilanti -- 24.202.147.144 ( talk) 17:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree (ten years later), so I've added BLP sources. Cimbalom ( talk) 02:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
New article by him https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/covid-19-a-case-for-medical-detectives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:4776:69D5:6CA4:AB4F:E92A ( talk) 15:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I removed the coronavirus controversy section, because it was based on self-published information. Two references were given: the first was a video talk by the subject himself. The second reference did not mention him. Cimbalom ( talk) 02:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Chinese scientists published on March 5th a report that concluded that "in the close contacts of COVID-19 patients, nearly half or even more of the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' reported in the active nucleic acid test screening might be false positives", corroborating the questions Wodarg raised in the interviews.[8] The reference is: "Potential false-positive rate among the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' in close contacts of COVID-19 patients]. [Article in Chinese] Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 5;41(4):485-488. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20200221-00144". However, this article was retracted. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32133832. See also: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/26/822084429/in-defense-of-coronavirus-testing-strategy-administration-cited-retracted-study?t=1586160134910
I do not think we need the Controversies section. It contains a sentence about Gert Postel, which is not controversial, and a section about COVID, about which there already is another section above. I'll merge them. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated C-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. |
This article contains a translation of Wolfgang Wodarg from de.wikipedia. |
An article in the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph [1] dated February 6 uses the term conspiracy theorist to denote Wodarg. It is unclear whether the term is used by an interview subject or the newspaper itself. Due to BLP concerns over the pejorative connotations of the term I don't think the term should be used in the article unless several more reliable sources use it. __ meco ( talk) 15:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The article that mentioned him was actually from 2nd February 2010. [2] Cimbalom ( talk) 02:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I'm confused, but there seems to be a lot of stated "factual" information here that doesn't have a reference to anything. Most of these claims are made on his personal website, but does this qualify as wiki-worthy information? At the very least I think there should be a "this article needs better citations" doodad at the top of the page, or that it be noted that this information is questionable and from personal testimony. - Vigilanti -- 24.202.147.144 ( talk) 17:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree (ten years later), so I've added BLP sources. Cimbalom ( talk) 02:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
New article by him https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/covid-19-a-case-for-medical-detectives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:4776:69D5:6CA4:AB4F:E92A ( talk) 15:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I removed the coronavirus controversy section, because it was based on self-published information. Two references were given: the first was a video talk by the subject himself. The second reference did not mention him. Cimbalom ( talk) 02:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Chinese scientists published on March 5th a report that concluded that "in the close contacts of COVID-19 patients, nearly half or even more of the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' reported in the active nucleic acid test screening might be false positives", corroborating the questions Wodarg raised in the interviews.[8] The reference is: "Potential false-positive rate among the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' in close contacts of COVID-19 patients]. [Article in Chinese] Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 5;41(4):485-488. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20200221-00144". However, this article was retracted. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32133832. See also: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/26/822084429/in-defense-of-coronavirus-testing-strategy-administration-cited-retracted-study?t=1586160134910
I do not think we need the Controversies section. It contains a sentence about Gert Postel, which is not controversial, and a section about COVID, about which there already is another section above. I'll merge them. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)