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.

One of his YouTube videos this week discussed a study of approx 50,000 people and noted a correlation between vaccine uptake and contracting covid. It contained numerous instances of poor reasoning, overblown claims, and even conspiratorial dogwhistling. It garnered significant criticism and has since disappeared. 2A00:23C8:1783:B501:C984:93DE:86F9:362D ( talk) 00:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only report what is published in reliable sources. A lot of Campbell's output gets no such coverage. Bon courage ( talk) 07:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Per the above, we go by what RS say, not wp:or. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

But they are not his claims. They are the claims of the study he was discussing, thus you are misinforming about him, in that you are applying claims made by the scientific published paper he is discussing not to the paper- but to him- which is deliberate misrepresentation. Your complaints are completely subjective anyhow. Define Completely overblown- what does that mean? Making wild claims that some papers claims are wild claims and then ascribing the claims to someone whom is not the author- is about as misinforming as it gets. If your gonna criticize someone’s claims- best to know what they are first. 2600:100A:B03C:C8D6:48C7:6E51:172E:CF91 ( talk) 10:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That's the "but I was just retweeting!" defense, and it doesn't work here either. If Campbell promotes and supports someone else's bad science, then he becomes a purveyor of misinformation. Zaathras ( talk) 12:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Think of it this way. The ideal Wikipedia article summarizes what makes a person notable on the basis of what other sources have to say about that person. The whole point of the Reliable Sources policy is to represent a consensus of the Wikipedia community about which "other sources" will be trusted. Wikipedia is not a news organization, nor a gossip forum. Dr. Campbell did some good things at the start of his YouTube career - hence reliable sources praised him. But somewhere he veered off the rails and started repeating what amounts to dangerous nonsense. The reliable sources are more focused on what he's doing now as opposed to what he did 3 years ago. As long as they keep discussing him, that makes him notable. But even if he says something worthwhile and sensible it's not going to be included in this article if reliable sources don't elevate what he says to the status of public interest. His notability is based on what ie being said about him - not on what he is saying. Michael Martinez ( talk) 16:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing to be gained by reasoning with partisans. I'm not Campbell's biggest fan by any means, but his Wikipedia page has been skewed in favour of narratives that are sometimes little better (or suspect). Unfortunately, those who insist that they depend only on 'reliable sources' seem to be every bit as uncritical as anybody else. It seems to me that it will be years before we get any sort of unbiased/balanced treatment from either side. 14.201.98.20 ( talk) 13:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:npa and wp:agf. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

At the heart of science is a scientific investigation, which follows the scientific method by planning for asking questions, testing possible answers, and drawing a conclusion based on the results. At no point in Dr. Campbell's videos does he ever make dubious claims and always presents the information as released with no altercations. His motto is "follow the evidence... wherever it leads," and that principle makes good science.

Dr. Campbell offers his commentary based on his expertise, which is considerable given his history in the medical field. He's very keen on reminding viewers to read the sources (all available in each video's description).

More recently, Dr. Campbell has engaged in self-censorship according to YouTube's rules regarding COVID-19 misinformation unless the content discussed is recognized as official and publicly available (generally from authority sources). Most of his videos look for discrepancies between authorities like Finland, Australia, the UK, and the United States.

As a long-time active contributor to Wikipedia, it saddens me to see how far this platform has descended into overt slander. -- Gorba ( talk) 02:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

At no point in Dr. Campbell's videos does he ever make dubious claims, since we follow reliable sources in the Wikipedia, this statement is wholly fictitious. Zaathras ( talk) 02:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Please provide one example where Dr. Campbell made dubious claims that cannot be confused with drawing a conclusion based on the evidence and data he's reviewing. Thank you. -- Gorba ( talk) 16:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

We dont have to, we just have to poitn you to RS that do (please read wp:or). Slatersteven ( talk) 16:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Amen, brother! Dfwlms 22:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfwlms ( talk • contribs)

I see you added a paragraph about "nanomedicine specialist Susan Oliver published a Youtube video debunking false information Campbell has posted". Maybe would be fair to give the same credit about professor Robert Clancy, who agrees with John Campbell on many topics related to covid vaccines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYkN7Gdpl8w Gigi.chelu ( talk) 06:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be Robert Clancy (doctor). Another junky Youtube channel. Bon courage ( talk) 06:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the "professor Robert Clancy". I do not know how you can not consider this as a reliable source, but Susan Oliver is? 89.238.227.100 ( talk) 10:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oliver is not cited. The Atlantic is. Bon courage ( talk) 10:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

How old is Campbell? 2A00:23C6:BA13:4801:9CB6:80B1:67C1:76A8 ( talk) 17:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

We do not know, do you have any sources that give it? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a 2020 article in the Daily Mirror which says he was 62 then so he would be about 65 now, I think. The Mirror is not regarded as a reliable source on here, so a link to it would enable those with an agenda (of whatever flavor) to delete this whole section. 2A00:23C6:BA13:4801:9CB6:80B1:67C1:76A8 ( talk) 17:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

We can't extrapolate a DOB from a source saying how old he is. Was he exactly 62, 62 in 1 day, or were they rounding up? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• See [1]. Bon courage ( talk) 17:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Is it actually important? - Roxy the dog 17:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, I saw it, and I noted the big fuss being made; hence my “so he would be about 65 now”, above. Cheers! 2A00:23C6:BA13:4801:9CB6:80B1:67C1:76A8 ( talk) 17:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither the current link https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.845689 works, nor does manually searching for the paper in any online scientific publications give any results, only results of papers citing the paper.

Should a new link not be discovered, this should be updated to [citation needed] as if the paper doesn't exist anymore, it then doesn't exist. Lafi90 ( talk) 22:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

We have the Wayback Machine for a reason. Link works just fine here. Silver seren ^C 22:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Link works fine. Thesis is inaccessible though. Lafi90 ( talk) 02:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I also checked their new website at https://iro.bl.uk/, and the thesis is nowhere to be found. Lafi90 ( talk) 02:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

And a further ask, shouldn't your link be the one published, as opposed to the one to a website that no longer exists? Lafi90 ( talk) 02:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• One doesn't need to have links to sources, all that is required for Wikipedia is that they should be WP:PUBLISHED. Anybody can go to Bolton University library (where the thesis will be deposited) if they want. It is unlikely to to available in digital form, only hard copy. We don't even need to cite the thesis, because it is not being used to support anything in the article. Bon courage ( talk) 07:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would then contest, and nominate this link, https://prism.librarymanagementcloud.co.uk/bolton-ac/items/172598, to be the one used in relation to Campbell's thesis (Replacing the one referring to the old link at EthOS) as it appears to be the only way of obtaining a copy. Any other ways indicating such are for lack of a better word, bullshit, because even the portal through which Silverseren provided a link won't work because to read the thesis from there requires a user logs in through a server that no longer exists, so any such attempts are completely fruitless.

  I would say and hold the fact Campbell's thesis be accessible at all is a major point. If it were to disappear from public access, one could reasonably attain it'd been retracted, or otherwise purged for reasons unknown. Lafi90 ( talk) 17:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  When you do a PhD thesis, you deposit a bound hard copy with your university library. That is how it works. So far as I am aware this item in Bolton is the only copy of the thesis that exists. If you go there, the librarian will fetch it from storage and you are allowed to read in in the library for two hours at a time, as this library record indicates. Adding the link to the library record to this article does no harm, but is not necessary. Bon courage ( talk) 17:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like i'm headbutting a wall here.

  The problem is the link known as citation 8 in the article is dead. It's not coming back.

  I posted a link to the thesis via somewhere that's actually up, via a library when one can allegedly read the thesis, albeit only in person, but it's better than linking people into a black hole. Lafi90 ( talk) 19:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  To repeat: "Adding the link to the library record to this article does no harm, but is not necessary". So add it if you want. Bon courage ( talk) 19:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fair point. I should've checked for I didn't think I had enough recent activity to edit the article of a living person on the English Wiki.

  I apologize for my tone earlier. I can't tell (properly) if I came off as rude or mildly unhinged, but it feels that way.

  Anyway. I'm adding it. Lafi90 ( talk) 19:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This article oddly references "American comedian" and podcaster 4 times as having referenced a Campbell video to make unfounded claims. Aren't these issues better suited to an article about Jimmy Dore? If, as this article claims, Dore is making false claims, why does it belong here? Flat Earthers have used Flight Aware images to bolster their claims but Wikipedia doesn't include that in the FlightAware article.

If the Campbell videos are misleading, then address them directly, not through a podcaster. The obsession with Jimmy Dore, whoever he(?) might be is bizarre. Jane Digby ( talk) 22:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It is relevant to mention here, as reliable sources noted that Campbell was a source of covid misinformation that other well-known people spread further than Campbell would have been able to do on his own. Zaathras ( talk) 00:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, relevant here. Could also be relevant to the Dore page? Bon courage ( talk) 05:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is this relevant, is mr Dore a qualified doctor? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Because Dore was the vector through which the misinformation reached a larger mass audience (or to give a narrower Wiki-answer, because RS focuses on this). Bon courage ( talk) 12:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure we need to single him out here. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you propose how to unmention him without introducing other issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bon courage ( talk • contribs) 12:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

We do not have to unmention him, just mention him once, we do not need to give his views undue prominence. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added a framing sentence to the 3rd paragraph of the Covid section. I've also added the following - "Others have expressed concern that Campbell's videos have been used by podcaster Jimmy Dore and others to support false claims against the Covid-19 vaccines." This captures the Jimmy Dore concerns while removing the repeated mentions of him. I don't see the need to exaggerate Dore's importance by giving him prominence in an article about someone who has probably never met him. Jane Digby ( talk) 23:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This assertion is poorly sourced: "A popular misconception throughout the pandemic has been that deaths have been over-reported." One post by Poltifact is not definitive proof that this is a "misconception" - especially one published two years ago.

Alleged overcounting has been a source of debate and below are two mainstream US publications asserting that deaths were overcounted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/13/covid-pandemic-deaths-hospitalizations-overcounting/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/briefing/covid.html

I suggest that the opening line be deleted. The rest of the sub-section provides a counter to what Campbell said. Jane Digby ( talk) 22:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Politifact/Poynter Institute is fine for this. Bon courage ( talk) 06:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to appear contentious on this, but I fear we are ignoring a real debate - whether or not deaths were overcounted - in favor of a definitive assertion that, in the past 12 months has been openly debated on sites I believe most would consider mainstream. Jane Digby ( talk) 20:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

RE the NY times link, see this from Politico. For the Post, see the New Yorker, where Wen is called a "quintessential minimizer". You're always going to find a couple of people in the opinion section disagreeing with the mainstream, even in major newspapers. But that doesn't mean there is some kind of debate within the mainstream. MrOllie ( talk) 20:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

More misinformation from Campbell [2]. Bon courage ( talk) 15:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)