Talk:Bret Weinstein/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

BLP violation

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.

---

This https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bret_Weinstein&type=revision&diff=1105118829&oldid=1105117694 is a BLP violation. He did not say that, as verified by looking at the already weak source's source. As this is a BLP, we should require better sourcing than this.Le Marteau (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this your edit? Alexbrn (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I thought about it, realized that BLP trumps "follow the sources" and later reverted it. Should I be discussing this at the BLP notice board? Le Marteau (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Dunno, you reverted my edit so I sort of gave up. Alexbrn (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Your edit did not represent what the source said, and had I to do it over again, I'd handle those edits differently. Anyway this, now, is my attempt to remedy the situation where, right now, incorrect information is in a BLP. Le Marteau (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Beyond this one particular author at Stat's inexcusably sloppy work, I have concerns about the publication in general. Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics and political science at Columbia University, accuses them of conflicts of interest. Then there's ‘A blow to [STAT’s] credibility’: MD listed as author of op-ed praising drug reps didn’t write it. Ghostwriting/PR influence Le Marteau (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Le Marteau could you confirm whether you have seen the entire Weinstein/Carlson exchange (not just the excerpt widely available online)? Alexbrn (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I watched the source the STAT author provided, which is the one I linked above. Are you implying the author's supplied source is insufficient? Because I agree. Le Marteau (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That would be a no then. Is the entire interview (or a transcript) available? Alexbrn (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The author's source not only does not support their assertion, it DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS it. That you continue to defend that edit is astounding. This is a BLP, and exceptionally good sourcing is REQUIRED. Le Marteau (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You would think for such a bold statement, there would be at least ONE other source for it. Le Marteau (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this illustrates the problem when editors decide to go sleuthing rather than follow sources. How can you know what was said if you haven't seen the segment in question? There may be more to it than the linked excerpt. If you can get a transcript then we'd have something more concrete to go on. Alexbrn (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Then there's this, which I was not going to bring up because "Fox", but their account directly contradicts the STAT author, https://www.foxnews.com/media/biologist-tucker-ivermectin-effective-covid-moots-vaccine The STAT source is lame even for a non-controversial, non-BLP, let alone a controversial BLP. It's got to go. Le Marteau (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to say, I take offense to your disparagement of my going "sleuthing". This is the situation: there is no entry for STAT in WP:RSP. And doing a search, I can find no discussion about it on the discussion board (although that may be because the search engine sucks). For every entry in WP:RSP *someone* had to go "sleuthing" to determine if the source is reliable. THAT is what I am doing, and if you want to disparage that as "sleuthing", that's fine. For a controversial BLP about a controversial topic, excellent sourcing is required, and STAT ain't it, PARTICULARLY when it is the only one claiming Weinstein said what STAT claims he said. What seems highly likely is, the STAT author was sloppy in their purport, and if their work is all the sourcing we have for it, including it would require completely ignoring the requirements of WP:BLP Le Marteau (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2022

Original:

He has told Fox News' Tucker Carlson that if ivermectin functioned as he thought it did, then COVID-19 vaccines were not necessary

Proposed Edit:

He has told Fox News' Tucker Carlson that if ivermectin functioned as he thought it did, then the use of COVID-19 vaccines would not be justified due to the terms of the EUA by which they are licensed. Kellerto (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done not in the source cited. Alexbrn (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure the cite supports this, but then it may not support what we had. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the Fox News article linked in the cited source, the exact quote is "[I]f Ivermectin is what those of us who have looked at the evidence think it is … then the debate about the vaccines would be over by definition, because the vaccines that we have so far were granted emergency use authorization". Note that the Fox News article also talks about EUAs, saying

"That emergency use authorization has as a condition that there be no safe and effective treatments available," [Weinstein] said, noting that Ivermectin is old enough and established enough that it is "out of [its] patent" – meaning it can be produced generically – and has been proven safe and effective for other medical conditions.

So the original edit request wasn't exactly incorrect in what they were saying. SkyWarrior 15:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the fantasy is that if ivermectin is "safe and effective" for COVID (as Weinstein asserts) there's no rationale for vaccines. I'm cool with my edit or Slatersteven's; it all amounts to the same thing. Alexbrn (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

 Partially done: @Slatersteven and @Alexbrn have now fixed the discrepancy in a way amicable to all parties. No BLP violations, no misquotes, and it takes what Weinstein says at face value, while not being overly verbose, UNDUE, or FRINGE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2022

Bret and his wife Heather are both vaccinated for covid 19, they were early adopters, but have since stated if they knew then what they do now they would not have taken the vaccine. Source Dark Horse Podcast 206.116.240.96 (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done A source without saying when is not a source Le Marteau (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

That would be a WP:Primary and self-published source about a controversial fact and therefore unsuitable for use on Wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

What's controversial about their vaccination status? Or is it the "but have since stated if they knew what they do now they would not have taken the vaccine." --Kyohyi (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I would say what's controversial is whether or not they are being truthful about 1) being early adopters and 2) their new motivations for regretting it. Personally, I suspect it's more that they've gotten hate mail for having gotten the vaccine because their audience is heavily anti-vaxx, so they've stated this to protect themselves a bit. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Which is why we need RS to pick up on this. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe we need independent sources for this as I don't see vaccination status as controversial. Do we have any reliable sources that doubt that they are vaccinated? --Kyohyi (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but others have expressed a valid reason why it might be seen as controversial, as they are now trying to claim they regret having it. Personally I think they are reliable for the claim they regret it. But we also have to take into account wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I could go to the primary source and see they have a cat and add it to the article. "The Weinsteins often have a cat floating around the set of their podcast, and it is beautiful." Should it stay because no other source doubts it? Requiring other-than-primary sourcing ensures due weight, and that people are actually talking about it. If no one is talking about it, it does not belong in the encyclopedia. Le Marteau (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

That too. Thx. I tend to stop giving reasons for denying edit requests when I come across the first reason which completely disqualifies it. Perhaps I should be more complete. Le Marteau (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

No absolutely agree with your approach. But I was prepared for somebody to come back with a youtube clip, which in and of itself is not an RS :P — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

And TBH, I thought it was a joke request. I mean, them getting vaxxed? GTFOOH. Because if I had any idea they were in any way serious, I would absolutely have gone deeper into it. Anyway... Le Marteau (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Evolutionary biologist ?

Is he one, or was he one, and what's due in sentence 1 of the article? I have raised a query at WP:FT/N too. Bon courage (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we should say he is one. It doesn't overburden the first sentence, and it's a factor in both his main sources of notability (Evergreen affair, podcasting/COVID stuff). I do wish Anastrophe would self-revert pending consensus for inclusion. There's no issue caused by omission that is so major that we couldn't follow WP:BRD (or BRBRBRD) or follow WP:ONUS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Three reliable sources cited in the article refer to him as an evolutionary biologist. I'm unclear what the problem is. I'm also unclear why a revert would cite WP:FRINGE as the rationale. Evolutionary biology is a fringe science? To creationists, I'm sure. For a BLP, no. As far as I know we don't remove a person's known expertise simply because they've moved on to something else, but I could be wrong on that. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources call him other things too, e.g. a person "who has long since abandoned his academic past to become a professional troll".[1] The fringe problem would be in picking some (outdated?) descriptions as assertions while downplaying the knowledge in other (more up-to-date?) sources. Your lede is not summarizing the body, because nowhere in this article is Bret Weinstein described as an evolutionary biologist. Bon courage (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Conversely, there's a lot of effort in this article to downplay anything that does not marginalize him because he's not sufficiently 'orthodox'. I think a piece in the Houston Press that goes to great lengths to smear Mr. Weinstein doesn't quite reach the level of the NYT, Daily Beast, and Media Matters, who all refer to him as stated. Furthermore, my understanding of BLP policy is that the mention and link to the Houston Press here on talk may be a violation. These days, you don't have to work very hard find outrageous characterizations with a moment's googling; that doesn't mean we have liberty to post them here on talk. The Houston Press piece is an endless expression of vitriol about at least (I stopped counting) eight assorted notable people who weren't sufficiently orthodox for the author. I don't see the HP cited anywhere in this article, and probably for good reason. Generally speaking, a person's professional expertise and occupation (past or present) is uncontroversial for the intro. If it's simply intolerable that he be described as an evolutionary biologist, then perhaps simply 'biologist', as the infobox describes his occupation. But - whatever. I don't have a dog in this fight. Do as you will. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

If it's his "past" occupation, why are you making Wikipedia assert it in the present tense? I don't think "orthodoxy" has anything to do with it (unless by "orthodox" you mean "reputable"); we're talking here about somebody who more up-to-date sources refer to as an "evolutionary biologist turned COVID-19 contrarian and conspiracy theorist".[2] Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'll be a little more blunt: I think you need to remove the link and quote from the Houston Press, per WP:BLPTALK. Yes yes, many sources, even reliable ones, say all sorts of things; it's common and easy to label anyone who questions orthodoxy as a conspiracy theorist, disinformationist, etc. - it's a uniquely powerful tool to silence critics. It's all over wikipedia. I'm vaccinated and twice (or is it thrice now?) boosted, never had any interest in ivermectin or other stuff. Open discourse is less dangerous than marginalization, in my opinion. Frankly, I don't think someone who has been a biologist ever ceases to be a biologist. But again - whatever. Not my fight, I'm not going to make any further edits on this article. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 08:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You may believe a scientific moniker is a kind of lifelong title, but this is why this case is like that of Rupert Sheldrake, as I mentioned at FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "biologist" is a job, and one can stop doing a job. The analogy to Sheldrake seems apt. One might also compare Isaac Asimov, who trained and worked as a scientist but stopped and became a full-time writer. Our opening sentence for him describes him as a "writer and professor of biochemistry", which is technically true since he kept his academic title after largely retiring from active participation at Boston University, but Weinstein no longer has an academic affiliation.

The introduction is there to summarize the article, and the article has but one sentence on Weinstein's work as an evolutionary biologist. Accordingly, it's hard for me to say that "evolutionary biologist" is obligatory first-line material. The difference between including that in the first sentence and waiting until the very next to say "He served as a professor of biology" is perhaps small, but I incline to leaving it out. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

When someone is relevant because of their field, the field should be in the first sentence. Example: Donald Prothero, geologist.

When someone is relevant because of something else, it should come later. Example: Gerhard Schröder, lawyer.

Actually, I wanted to use his successor Angela Merkel, physicist, but her first sentence says "scientist" at the moment. That is not how it should be, so, bad example. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This issue was discussed way way back in July 2021 when Hemiauchenia felt that Weinstein was not an evolutionary biologist, contrary to at least 8 sources published since 2020 (so, hardly ancient history) that explicitly referred to him in the present as an evolutionary biologist, evolutionary theorist, or just plain biologist. He co-authored a book just last year using evolutionary theory, and even Stuart J. Ritchie (who we quote in the article), calls him and his wife evolutionary biologists in his review (the Wikipedia article fails to even summarize the book's thesis before condemning it). I realize the resident fringe-fighters don't think highly of Weinstein, but personal views should not distort presentation. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree he should be described as an evolutionary biologist, though I would hesitate to list it first, before "podaster" or "media personality" or whatever it is he does these days. So I like the current order of "podcaster, author, and evolutionary biologist." He still talks about it actively in his current professional output, even if he does it poorly. We could also say "academically trained as an evolutionary biologist" if that gets us closer to consensus. But I think it's a little weasel-y. I could also get behind @Hob Gadling's approach of mentioning it, but not in the first sentence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of modern history, here is a non-exhaustive, non-scientific selection of sources since the last discussion, with how Weinstein is first introduced or described.

• her husband, biologist Bret Weinstein
• Dr. Bret Weinstein and his wife, Dr. Heather Heying, are evolutionary biologists
• the loudest voice may be that of a Toyota-driving Bernie Bro who lives near Lewis & Clark College, an evolutionary biologist with a Ph.D...
• Bret Weinstein, a former biology professor
• Biologist Bret Weinstein said on Rogan’s show in June
• The evolutionary biologists Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein
• commentator and podcast host Bret Weinstein
• Bret Weinstein (no specific descriptors)
• Heather Heying y Bret Weinstein son biólogos evolutivos ("Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein are evolutionary biologists")
• evolutionary biologist and former Evergreen professor Bret Weinstein
• evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein.
• Los prestigiosos biólogos evolutivos norteamericanos Heather Heying y Bret Weinstein ("The prestigious North American evolutionary biologists Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein")
• Los biólogos y teóricos de la evolución Heather Heying y Bret Weinstein ("Biologists and evolutionary theorists...")
• Bret Weinstein, the podcaster and Intellectual Dark Web figure
• Bret Weinstein, an American author and professor of biology,
• Rogan's guest, biologist Bret Weinstein, said...
• los biólogos evolucionistas Heather Heying y Bret Weinstein... ("evolutionary biologists...")
• evolutionary biologist and podcaster Bret Weinstein
• he hosted biologist Bret Weinstein on his show in June
• former Evergreen State College professors and current podcasters Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein

While not all sources use the same descriptors, to me it still seems clear that "evolutionary biologist" is still just as frequent as "podcaster" and "former professor" across the board, and thus should be in the lead sentence, although I'm fine with it not being the first descriptor. "podcaster, author, and evolutionary biologist" seems like a fair introductory summary of how he's commonly introduced and described in the real world. I don't think I've seen any recent sources use "former (evolutionary) biologist". If the body doesn't match the lead, then the body should be corrected (it appears his book may have been released in Spanish over the summer: it may be warranted to include reliable Spanish-language sources). --Animalparty! (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, his LinkedIn says "former evolutionary biologist" [3]....

I don't think Fox News, UnHerd, or Media Matters are reliable sources for the present purposes (we're in that science/politics intersection, after all). "Professor of biology" is just wrong. There's enough variety in what's left over that I don't think there's a definitive picture. And expanding the body's coverage of his book, if that turns out to be possible, would be more weight on the "author" description than the "evolutionary biologist" — a pop-science book for a general publisher doesn't count as doing work in evolutionary biology. XOR'easter (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that clinches it; since we have up-to-date RS saying so and it's how BW prefers to refer to himself, "former evolutionary biologist" is the only respectful wording. I'll make that change. Bon courage (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

From AnimalParty's very astute source review, it looks like lots and lots of older RSes refer to him as a biologist and professor, but newer RSes either just say "podcaster" or "commentator" or say "former ____" e.g. professor, biologist, etc. So I think "former evolutionary biologist" is probably the most accurate given those temporal changes per the RSes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

What changed your opinion from yesterday? "Former professor" is different than "former biologist". Nobody is arguing he is still a professor, at Evergreen, or anywhere (the BBC article above incorrectly states professor in the present tense, but that's why we don't cherry-pick single sources or myopically focus on outliers: the Pittsburgh Post Gazette mislabels him an "evolutionary microbiologist" in passing, in an entertainment article about Meatloaf and Kid Rock). I've supplied many recent reliable sources that clearly state "biologist" or "evolutionary biologist" in the present tense (including staunch critic Gorski from August 2022). Please find one reliable source that says clearly says "former biologist" or "former evolutionary biologist", and then we can start weighing it against all the recent sources that state (or imply) otherwise. We can't apply arbitrary timescales, thresholds, or our own personal opinions as to "what counts" for being a biologist. Is there an official monthly list of all currently recognized biologists and former biologists? If no sources called him a biologist after a year or two, that would be different. But it seems there is a sentiment on this page positively aching to remove the label, willfully ignoring its widespread usage in recent RS. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

What changed your opinion from yesterday? Your source review did. Please find one reliable source that says clearly says "former biologist" - Wilamette Week says "former biology professor".

I would also be fine with saying "and former evolutionary biology professor" or "and former professor of evolutionary biology" as the last list entry. I don't think it's the best possible summary of our sources if we omit the fact that he is no longer a practicing researcher or professor. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

If you can't distinguish between biologist and biology professor, I don't know what to tell you. Not all historians are history professors. Not all journalists are journalism professors. Not all philosophers are philosophy professors. Recent reliable sources continue to explicitly use biologist (as well as podcaster/podcast host, etc.) in the present tense, and professor in the past tense. Why should Wikipedia omit or misrepresent this? --Animalparty! (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

If you can't distinguish between biologist and biology professor, I don't know what to tell you. I can? And actively am in this section? I'm not advocating that we omit biology, but I think it's important to include the context in that first sentence that he is a former biology professor. As that is perhaps what is most notable about him, other than ivermectin. As you readily admit, former biology professors are still current biologists. So changing the list to include "former biology professor" should not give the impression that he is no longer a biologist. It just puts the most notable thing first. It accurately summarizes that he is trained in biology, that he used to be a practicing biologist, and that he isn't anymore. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

What up-to-date RS (besides LinkedIn) say "former evolutionary biologist"? If we're going to use primary self-declarations, on his website he calls himself "evolutionary theorist and professor in exile", so should we use that? why give more credence to LinkedIn? And way to miss the forest for a couple of downed logs: the vast majority of sources that use any form of the word "biologist" do so in the present tense, not former. Don't wanna use Fox News, ok, then let's disregard "commentator and podcast host" and give more credence to Washington Post, ABC News, The Guardian, even David Gorski who call him a biologist. I get a strong sense of "it's not us Wikipedians who are wrong, it's the whole world who's wrong!" If an actor didn't appear in a film last year, are they not an actor? Does a novelist need to pump out a book each year to still be avoid being called "former novelist" on Wiki? I hope that you're not trying to remove, diminish, or qualify the weight of "biologist" simply to lower the chances someone might take his advice seriously. How many RS explicitly saying "is a biologist" will it take? --Animalparty! (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Why don't we split the difference and say "former professor of evolutionary biology". It's accurate, it doesn't mislead anyone, and it includes the fact that he still has the expertise -- you don't stop being a PhD in something, but you can stop being respected for it. It also references perhaps what he is second most notable for, that he resigned from that professorship. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

That still misrepresents common usage by RS. We can say he "is a podcaster, author, and evolutionary biologist. He was formerly a professor at..." Since when has "respect" been required to be called a biologist? You're welcome to your opinions of how good a biologist or evolutionary theorist he is, but they can't trump RS. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

We are talking in circles, and I'm not sure my arguments are making sense to you. I'm sorry for the confusion, but I don't think this is a particularly productive conversation. Until we have some agreed upon axioms, I don't think it's worth continuing this line of reasoning/argument. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Let me try one more line of reasoning: Consensus is about compromise, right? So often, the way we build consensus on wikipedia is by figuring out what is most important to each discussion participant, and finding a version which incorporates as many of those things as possible. In this case:

• it appears to me that Animalparty's most important factor is that we include that Weinstein is trained as an evolutionary biologist (no disagreement there)
• I think Bon courage's most important factor is that we include the fact that he is no longer a practicing biologist (Ap appears to disagree with this point, referencing the recent book and RSes above which variably refer to this as a present tense consideration)
• XOReaster's most salient position, so far, is that people who are not practicing biologists probably should not have "biologist" in the first line, and that Weinstein himself refers to his biographical details as "former evolutionary biologist" on his self published LinkedIn.
• Hob Gadling's dog in this is that the first sentence should be primarily about what the person is most famous for. Their training etc, if directly relevant, should be included then. But if not directly relevant to their fame, should be later in the intro.
• My preference is for ensuring that we describe Weinstein as trained in biology, but no longer practicing it. I wouldn't want to misrepresent his current area, or his past training.
• anastrophe references many similar positions to the above, but takes no position firmly.

To combine all of these would have us A) make sure to include a reference to biology in the first sentence in some form, B) not describe him in a way which implies he is a "practicing biologist" still to this day, and C) accurately describe what he is known for.

To me, reading these many different positions...I would say the best amalgam and compromise is to say "former professor of evolutionary biology". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Like everyone here, I'm sure I have my own cognitive biases, opinions, and inclinations (if it needs saying, which it needn't, I'm neither a fan nor follower of Weinstein, but don't disagree with everything he's ever said). I know little more than what I've read in RS, and from RS simply know that he is often referred to as a biologist in the present tense. I don't know exactly why outlets use this term, but they do. Maybe they mean "biologist" in a broad sense, including talking and writing on the subject, rather than a narrow academic sense invoking actively pipetting and dissecting. Maybe he discusses biology on his podcast (apparently it's weekly, but as there's no ivermectin-outrage news story each week, we won't know the mundane, non-controversial topics: here's him opining on crocodiles). Maybe he lectures on biology at events, in between discussing free-speech or social issues. His LinkedIn self-characterization is disputed by his personal website's (do we know which was updated most recently? Should it matter?) But virtually zero sources call him a "non-practicing biologist" or "former biologist", and few introduce him with qualifiers like "biology communicator" or "guy with biology PhD who previously held a professorship but now mentions biology while livestreaming" or whatever. Thus, neither should Wikipedia introduce or frame him as such. The first sentence should be as straightforward as possible. All the messy nuance of how, what and why, and who said what about whichever can be piled onto the rest of the lead and/or body of article. I don't like the idea of a handful of Wikipedians metaphorically stroking their beards and implicitly declaring that every source that introduces the subject as 'biologist' in the present tense is wrong and can go kick rocks. But that's what I see going on here. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The phrasing former professor of evolutionary biology sounds justifiable. It's important that we not mislead readers by creating the impression that he is currently doing what biologists do. (I think the comparisons to actors, etc., are misleading in this regard. If we call someone "an actor" even if they haven't been in a movie or a play all year, the reader likely assumes they are doing what actors do in between roles — trying to land the next gig, etc. We'd say "former actor" or "retired actor" if the fact of their leaving the profession was well-documented, significant, and not likely to be inferred from other data, e.g., the person being dead. Saying "actor" or "author" without modification is often fine, but here we have a career change, which the description needs to reflect.) In other words, I'm happy with the current phrasing ...is an American podcaster, author, and former professor of evolutionary biology. He served on.... XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Bret Weinstein does have renonunced and separated himself from a traditional carreer as a paper-publishing academic professor, which seems to be the point bthat bogus some editors about leaving "evolutionary biologist". Nonetheless, he has a PhD in evolutionary biology, and those titles don't have expiration date. He has not renounced nor relegated his area of work because he writes books in evolutionary biology and communicates about it weekly in his podcast, columns, and speaking events. Practically every 5 sentences he says (paraprashing) "I'm going to frame this opinion in evolutionary biology because that is what I do". He introduces himself all the time as an evolutionary biologist in interviews, and secondary RS also do so as AnimalParty showed above in this thread. I strongly support leaving "evolutionary biologist" in the lead with a note in the body referencing his rebellious position on the traditional academic pathways of PhD in Biology.Forich (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Weinstein was employed at a teaching rather than a research university, and has produced very little research output. Mainstream evolutionary biologists who've commented on his recent musings on evolutionary biology, which haven't been published in scientific journals, have generally dismissed them. [4] If we are going to call him an evolutionary biologist, the weight of that lies on only two (admittedly highly cited papers) published in the early 2000s The reserve-capacity hypothesis: evolutionary origins and modern implications of the trade-off between tumor-suppression and tissue-repair (2002) and The better angels of our nature: group stability and the evolution of moral tension (2005). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This is an extremely good point. When other experts in your field often say you aren't very credible, then we should probably note that and avoid giving them that credibility. Is he still an evolutionary biologist? Clearly, yes. But doesn't mean it needs to be in the first sentence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't this all just fit with how he calls himself (on linkedin anyway), a "former" EB? Bon courage (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Why cherry pick his LinkedIn when it contradicts his website. Why use Gorski for criticism but ignore him when he uses the word "biologist" or "evolutionary biologist" in the present? I can understand wanting to frame the intro and article to undermine Weinstein's credibility out of moral concern. But if that's the goal, just be honest. Someone can be a controversial X or a poorly regarded X, but if reliable sources continue to call them X, so should Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep presuming the goals of everyone else, @Animalparty? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Because they seem apparent. But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Education

You have to love a wikipedia page that has an 'Education' section but does not actually specify what he got his degrees in. The answer is 'biology' - and it is proposterous that this is not specified in the 'Education' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.203.143 (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing, will check our sources and make sure they say the same thing. If they do, I'll go ahead and add it — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Is his thesis DUE for the article body?

Not sure his thesis is WP:DUE for the education section. His degrees clearly are given they are covered in multiple RSes. But are his thesis and his advisor due for the body or only for the infobox? I'm not sure how these things are typically handled, and would appreciate input. Thanks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Removing since nobody seemed particularly concerned — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Weinstein's falsity?

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.

---

How do you know that Bret Weinstein professional understanding of potential risk of Covid vaccine, is false.? 72.80.71.202 (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, and in particular has a policy which requires it to call out fringe BS. Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not an answer to the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:A17F:E3C0:0:0:0:6C4C (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Use of adjective that is unnecessary

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.

---

The use of the word “fringe” to describe the Odysee website does not inform, but rather serves two purposes antithetical to the pursuit of knowledge and truth. The word inspires a disgust response in readers and it signals that the website attracts persons of low class status. It tells us nothing about the truth or falsehood of the content on that website. It does tell us that the author dislikes the website, which is completely irrelevant to readers, like myself, who are capable of making up our own minds. This should be an easy consensus target - remove “fringe” from this (Bret Weinstein) article. BleedingKansas (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Comment on the Heather Heying's and Bret Weinstein’s book

The only comment cited about the quality of the book is by a Guardian reviewer. The citations sounds irreverently superficial and standing alone like it is, adds to the otherwise well-balanced article a biased look.

To improve and make the article more balanced, I suggest to add at least another citation by another reviewer. For example this one that says: "the book has been excellently written, deftly distilling complex ideas for the non-scientist, and at times it rises to a Dawkinsian level of prose-poetry." https://areomagazine.com/2021/10/27/the-lessons-of-evolution-a-review-of-a-hunter-gatherers-guide-to-the-21st-century-by-heather-heying-and-bret-weinstein/ Tonisarro (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Who is Daniel James Sharp? Seems like he's published something in his own magazine, so not due or reliable. Bon courage (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The current guardian book review goes against allegedly conservative talking points, rambles on, mentioning, not explaining, problems, ending on the lab-leak hypothesis. It presents the latter as part of the main reason to refute the worldview the book represents, even though it is by now clear the lab-leak is seen as probable by many if not most experts. (https://www.nytimes.com/article/covid-origin-lab-leak-china.html) Meaning at the time Stuart Ritchie didn't understand his closing point well enough for it to hold up longer than a few months.

The line about the review, looks valuable, it's well selected, well integrated, seems necessary. It's just obviously distasteful, spiteful. Please read and think for another minute about how the line looks, not if it can be justified, if it is justified. Wikipedia's spirit vs a low quality book review. Find a solution or delete both line and source.

Have a good one. PleaseInvestIntoFusion (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

the lab-leak is seen as probable by many if not most experts Not true, and not to be sourced to a journalistic source. Find a scientific source for that (you can't, because it is not true).

The rest of your contribution is hard to parse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

even though it is by now clear the lab-leak is seen as probable by many if not most experts.
This is absolutely not true. Which experts? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Read the article I've linked. Expert opinions don't vary widely enough that I cannot take a well researched (arguably even biased in favor of natural origin) NYT article as proxy. 'Four other intelligence agencies and the National Intelligence Council have concluded, with low confidence, that the virus most likely emerged through natural transmission.' - 'Conclude' with 'low confidence'. It means even to believers in natural origin a lab-leak remains well possible. Experts using the scientific method must arrive at the conclusion it is possible/probable, because there's no evidence against it. And of course quality of evidence in favor of lab-leak is bad, because the CCP hid and destroyed whatever they could. In such a case evidence missing is evidence too. Why die on this hill? Viruses escaping Chinese labs is nothing new. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-spotlight-20040427-03

It seems you want to ignore my point and you'll likely keep ignoring it. I'm not suggesting an addition to the article about Bret Weinstein, but caution when it comes to using bad sources. I've shown the current source is to some extent incoherent. It's making fun of an opinion which is in fact taken seriously by most of the scientific community. Do you think the review is coherent on that point? If it isn't, the rest of its content loses credibility. I don't even care about bias at this point. As it stands the article about Bret Weinstein is a frozen building site or a sad joke. Just compare it to other, better researched and written articles about more prominent people. Whoever is working on this needs help.

Find a book review which makes it seem like Wikipedia cares about a minimum of coherence, replace or delete the line mentioning the current one. Do your job, or somebody else's I don't care. PleaseInvestIntoFusion (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Read the article I've linked. Expert opinions don't vary widely enough that I cannot take a well researched (arguably even biased in favor of natural origin) NYT article as proxy

We typically don't use news sources to assess scientific consensus. Peer reviewed secondary review journal articles published in topic-relevant journals are the way we do that, per WP:MEDSCI. Those articles (e.g. Holmes et al.) say there is no evidence in favor of a lab leak.

'Four other intelligence agencies and the National Intelligence Council have concluded, with low confidence, that the virus most likely emerged through natural transmission.' - 'Conclude' with 'low confidence'. It means even to believers in natural origin a lab-leak remains well possible.

This is original research. You are drawing your own conclusions from what is written, probably based on what you would like to be true.

It seems you want to ignore my point and you'll likely keep ignoring it. I'm not suggesting an addition to the article about Bret Weinstein

Then why are you commenting here? Your comments should be made elsewhere, where your points are relevant.

I've shown the current source is to some extent incoherent. It's making fun of an opinion which is in fact taken seriously by most of the scientific community

Where have you shown it's taken seriously by most of the scientific community? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The following could be added foe the sake of balance:

In his review of the book, psychologist Jonathan Haidt, Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at the New York University Stern School of Business and author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012) said “Razor-sharp and fun to read, A Hunter Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century secures Weinstein and Heying’s reputation as heroes who stand up not only for academic freedom, but also moral principles”.

https://swiftpress.com/book/a-hunter-gatherers-guide-to-the-21st-century/ tpof1 (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This review firmly secures Jonathan Haidt's reputation as a shamelessly opportunistic ideologue. 2600:4040:7ED2:BE00:6D22:909:AB98:BAD (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"alternative/fringe" to "fringe alternative"

I've changed the wording that seemed to be contentious from "alternative/fringe" to "fringe alternative". It seems to match what appears on LBRY (Video platforms built on LBRY, such as Odysee, have been described as decentralized, fringe alternatives to YouTube.) and gets rid of the slash, which annoyed me for MOS' sake. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

He knew his wife in High School, they didn't meet in College

The article claims they met in college when he transferred. But I was watching an interview with Dave Rubin, and he said that he knew his wife in high school (around the 5:30 mark).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YpFTqB7qN4 Kolg8 (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

conspiracy theory on the hamas attack 2023

in is new podcast he is spreading conspiracy theorys about the hamas attack on isreal: https://rumble.com/v3oewxb-the-israel-attacks-beyond-the-obvious-with-efrat-fenigson.html Fraxs (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

If/when secondary sources appear, might be worth considering for addition. Bon courage (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

this comment is so incredibly unhelpful. Are you truly unable to even identify a "conspiracy theory" you accuse his of "spreading" or are you just a typical radical liberal using the shotgun approach? So juvenile. 2601:601:A580:2980:BDA7:4A8E:D4DE:483A (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)