Jump to content

Talk:Great Barrington Declaration/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

AIER

What is the relevance of "Controversial research funded by AIER in the past includes a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them," to the topic of this article? Seems like a coatrack. Kenosha Forever (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Gives our readers a little background into the nature of the organisation. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
But this is not an article about the organization. The nature of the organization is adequately described as "a libertarian think tank based in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.", and it is wikilinked, if people need more information. Its positions on sweatshop labor has absolutely no relevance to the topic of this article. Kenosha Forever (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Coatrack_articles#All_About_George and tell me how this section is different. Kenosha Forever (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't really see the similarity. In the GBD article, we have multiple sources discussing the AIER - including all the points made in our article - as part of the context in which these sources suggest the GBD should be interpreted. In your "All about George" link, the would-be article is seizing on a "GW slept here" location to slag on the former slave owner president. I don't really see the similarity: the latter is a COATRACK; the former isn't. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
You don't see the similarity? This article is seizing on a "AEIR sponsored GBD" mention to slag on AEIR as a supporter of sweatshops and a climate change denier. It is exactly the same - neither issue has anything to do with GBD Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
If you think the point of that paragraph is to "slag on the AEIR", rather than to provide context for the GBD, then I'm not sure we are reading the same paragraph. The paragraph's sources suggest that this is relevant context for understanding the declaration, and that's how I see it as well. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
All the sources for that section, except two, are from the same person - Nafeez Ahmed - who seems to be on some sort of crusade against AEIR. The two other sources are actually criticizing him for misrepresentations in his articles, which is a viewpoint not preesnt in the section, violating NPOV. This is a massive undue coatrack. Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
We are definitely not reading the same section. My reading of The Guardian and the Berkshire Edge pieces are not reflected at all in what you just wrote. Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial, The Edge piece say this "Investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed wrote in the Byline Times, an alternative investigative newspaper in the United Kingdom, that the “think-tank behind the Great Barrington Declaration is part-funded by right-wing American billionaire Charles Koch...Ahmed did find a $68,100 donation from the Charles Koch Foundation to AIER. ....The Koch gift, however, makes up a fraction of AIER’s total revenues of more than $2.2 million for that same period." - you don't read that as criticism of the claim that AIER s fund buy Koch, when it amounts to just 3% of the funding? Kenosha Forever (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I would call that context, rather than criticism. You also neglect to mention the paragraph in the Edge about the climate denial pieces on AIER's website, which I see as validating the GBD's critics. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
What is the context in which $68K out of $2.2M would be considered "funding"? If I gave a dollar to AEIR, would I be considered "funding" them"? Technically I am , but any "investigative reporter" who reported it that way is a disgrace. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

And what are your sources for disgrace? I don't see that in the Edge. Anyway, the Koch bit is only one element in the paragraph. You seem to be objecting to the whole AIER section, which is absolutely do for the article - no AIER, no GBD. Period. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

What I object to is the massive undue weight this places on something which is not the topic of the article, to the point of it being a coatrack. I am ok with saying AEIR is a sponsor (even though that's' not completely clear), I am ok with briefly describing it as libertarian, and I'd even go as far as saying that its critics called some of its research controversial. But the current section is not appropriate, violates NPOV, and it doesn't look like you have consensus to include it.Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Have you read the previous discussions? The Koch funding bit was controversial as part of the lede and so was moved to the body, but I haven't seen anyone contest the relevance of the AIER context on general, until now, and we've had quite a lot of discussion...Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Just read the comment below this one, where JBchrch says "I would agree that excessive WP:WEIGHT is given to the AIER's activities. A note/sentence in passing would be sufficient IMO.". You do not have consensus for this massive undue coatrack. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
And you have no consensus that it is a massive undue coatrack. Please read the previous discussions before continuing your crusade. Newimpartial (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The onus is on those wishing to include disputed content to show consensus for it, not the other way around. Kenosha Forever (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
And I am saying that we have express consensus from previous discussions to maintain the AIER content. Newimpartial (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Consensus can change , and you don't have it now (assuming you ever had it). Kenosha Forever (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
One or two editors now do not outweigh the consensus previously documented, e.g., in this discussion. The article is more balanced now, with the longer discussion of AIER's role in the body and a short mention in the lede. But if you think the community's views really have changed, NPOVN is that way. Newimpartial (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
that discussion was about AEIR in the lead, and ended with a decision against it. There is no discussion I can see that supports the current "Sponsors" section, which as can be seen here, does not have consensus. Kenosha Forever (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Once again, what you are reading and what I am reading are very different. I recommend NPOVN. Newimpartial (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Since the disputed content is just one sentence long, I think an RfC is more appropriate. Kenosha Forever, if you want to do it but don't know how to just tell me.--JBchrch (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch, I haven't done it before, so yeah, you could start one Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources the article is based on generally mention the AIER connection, including its activities and track record. However, I would agree that excessive WP:WEIGHT is given to the AIER's activities. A note/sentence in passing would be sufficient IMO. JBchrch (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I don't have an issue with mentioning AEIR as a sponsor, and describing(as currently in the article) as libertarian think tank, perhaps with a note that it is has controversial views or has been criticized. But as it currently stands, there are 3000+ bytes of irrelevant content, a massive coatrack. Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

To my mind that quote institution embedded in a Koch-funded network gives the game away, viz: there is nothing substantive. Weasel words to obscure that the dreaded Taint of the Koch is by transitivity, AEIR collaborates with other institutions that received Koch funding. I think at one point that embarrassing line was run into the article. After a lot of dispute it is retained as a quote. Only the lede part was put to a vote, where it lost by a large margin. Personally, I've given up arguing the Koch issue, but very happy to see it out of the lede. The there are numbers of editors on both sides, and the faction who see it as important context are more persistent.

Regarding that longish 2nd paragraph in the Sponsor section, I'd cut everything in that paragraph before the sentence Controversial research funded by AIER in the past.... That sentence to the end leaves a brief mention of the sweatshops and a bit longer mention of climate denial. To me, that provides just enough taste of context and eliminates the ridiculous Koch fixation. -- M.boli (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Including criticism of this declaration makes complete sense - yet referring to the declarations sponsor as supporting climate change denial seems, in my eyes at least, an Ad Hominem, which doesn’t seem entirely appropriate for an impartial page. Especially when the relevancy of climate change to covid is somewhat dubious. Raidiohead55 (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: "Controversial research funded by AIER in the past includes a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Although closers are instructed that assessing consensus is not merely a matter of counting noses, it is clear that the editors expressing a preference to retain the contested text are in the majority. The editors in favor of removing the contested text do not present arguments that can be considered to overcome this disadvantage on strength of argument grounds nor on policy grounds and so there is a consensus to retain the challenged text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Edited to clarify:After updating the close requeest at WP:ANRFC, I think it important to note that consensus has never been held to require 100% clarity Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

In § Sponsor, should the sentence Controversial research funded by AIER in the past includes a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them,[1] be removed?--JBchrch (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • Remove, and also remove the subsequent paragraph - This article is not about AIER, but about Great Barrington Declaration. AIER's only connection is that their website hosted the declaration. Any work AEIR has done on Climate change or sweatshops is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and only serves as a coatrack - associating presumably negative aspects of AIER's work with the GBD. We should briefly describe their role (sponsor/ web host), but without this undue content. Something along the lines of "The declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), a libertarian think tank based in Great Barrington, Massachusetts" , and maybe add ", that has conducted research that was considered controversial by critics". But right now we have a 3000 byte paragraph that describes all sort of irrelevant AEIR materiel. Kenosha Forever (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kenosha Forever: WP:COAT is not a policy/guideline. It's an WP:ESSAY so it may or may not be honored. It depends entirely on consensus. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Meta-discussion about the wording of the Rfc question; now resolved.
  • Comment (edit conflict) : Kenosha Forever, can you say whether the Rfc question as stated above, is the issue you are trying to resolve? My concern is that you mentioned in the AEIR discussion above that "there are 3000+ bytes of irrelevant content" but this Rfc question seeks to remove a sentence of ~ 140 characters. Is this a faithful representation of your issue? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    Reping: Kenosha Forever this question was directed to you; sorry; repinging. Mathglot (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    Mathglot, In the discussion abode, I was trying to solve a bigger problem. I think the entire "Sponsors' Section should go, save for a singe line description of AEIR which could go into the section right above. But this is a good first step, which might be easier to get agreement on. Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) @Kenosha Forever: Based on your comment of 17:51 above [reinforced by your 18:08 comment], the Rfc question clearly does not state your concerns. I recommend that you change the Rfc statement (starting, "should the statement...") above, so it corresponds with your concern. No one else has responded with !votes yet, so the Rfc question may still be changed. Ideally, make it a yes-no question, which doesn't make an argument for your PoV, but just states the question that you would like to see answered. "Should the statement (section/paragraph/four sentences/whatever) starting with "FOO..." and ending with "...BAR" in section BAZ be removed from the article?" would work. Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    Missed that last part; if you think the question as stated is satisfactory because easier to get consensus on and you're good with going ahead with the Rfc as stated, that's fine; feel free to leave the Rfc as is, if you're happy with it, or change it, if you're not. Up to you. Mathglot (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Kenosha Forever: if you feel like I've misunderstood your concerns, first of all I am sorry, and second go ahead and edit my question as you please. --JBchrch (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    I had a bigger concern, but I am ok with the question as is, let's see if we can get agreement for that. Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    Good, so we can proceed with the current Rfc question as is; thanks for your feedback. Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment collapsed meta-discussion about wording. Rfc remains open for !votes and comments. Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Fuck no! If a text attacking a scientific consensus in order to protect the Holy Free Market comes from a pro-free-market organization that has in the past attacked another scientific consensus as well as attempts to protect poor people from being exploited, both in order to protect the Holy Free Market, and both to the detriment of the well-being of humanity in general, that is very much worth noting. It puts the whole thing in a perspective similar to WP:MANDY. The GBD is just what you would expect from a pro-greed organization, and the reader needs to know that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No This declaration did not fall out of the sky, but was sponsored by an organisation who's sketchy past is highly relevant to the sketchy declaration that is the subject of the article. The ideological context that stood behind the writing of this document should not, and can not, be ignored. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep the said statement (it should be probably moved to «Controversy» sub-section). --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove. It is too far-removed from the declaration to deserve inclusion (per WP:DUE), and was only brought up by one source. In response to Hob Gadling, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or to prevent readers from accidentally becoming paleocons: as I am sure you know, we have to write articles from a neutral point of view. JBchrch (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The credibility of a source is important information. Not mentioning it would help the propagandists spread their lies. Wikipedia needs to supply context that allows the reader to categorize standpoints: "this is what the top scientists say, and that is what the loons with an ideological agenda who have spread misinformation about other subjects say". This is not righting great wrongs, it is supplying necessary information. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Note for eventual closer: because the Rfc was worded as a "removal" question, no and keep votes are on the same side of this question. Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The editor Kenosha Forever is a sock. Their vote should be disregarded. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Greenhalgh, Trish; McKee, Martin; Kelly-Irving, Michelle (18 October 2020). "The pursuit of herd immunity is a folly – so who's funding this bad science?". The Guardian. Retrieved 18 October 2020.
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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Great Barringhton declaration

Who owns Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.234.234 (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You do! That remark totally pwned Wikipedia. -- M.boli (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverting of edits

@Hob Gadling: Please could you explain what about my edit you feel was previously rejected on the talk page, it was checked before any edits were made. This article reads more like an opinion column in a newspaper than an encyclopedia at present, the purpose of the edit is to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:Tone. There are even original interpretations in the article that go beyond any sources "For instance it could..." sic The only material removed was entirely off-topic and still easily accessible from this page in the the linked articles. Mainline421 (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

We're not going to countenance any WP:FRINGE editing especially on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Nomoskedasticity: What exactly is it you object to in the edit, and who is this "we" you're speaking on behalf of? The article still shows undue bias in the same direction even afterwards I'd argue. Mainline421 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
"associated with climate change denial" has been discussed extensively, and "numerous academic and public-health bodies" do not "WP:CLAIM", they state. After I saw those two changes, I concluded that the rest was probably WP:PROFRINGE too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling:Hi there, this is not correct usage of the revert feature please WP:Revert only when necessary. Wikipedia is not biased towards the status quo and nor is it owned by any group as Nomoskedasticity appears to suggest. If you wish to make changes to improve the article please do so, but laziness and gueswork about the content are not a valid reason to make an edit to article content.
The edit in question is not pro-anything. I have changed "claim" to "say" however authoritative a source may be, "state" is not grammatically correct here as it is a *claim* about what could happen if the recommendations had been implemented i.e a statement of a prediction, and I don't think it would be necessary to increase the length of that sentence. The history of AIER was not removed from the article, only the sentence at the end of the introduction, since it duplicates the content further down, and AIER is already mentioned in the opening sentence. The only reason I can see for it being repeated there is to give it undue prominence. Mainline421 (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a misunderstanding of WP:CLAIM. Claim is a word to watch if it introduces doubt in the Wikipedia voice that is not present in the sources; however, it is appropriate when we are reflecting a source that already expresses doubt. The same applies to eg. MOS:SCAREQUOTES. The sources are extremely skeptical of the Declaration, so we need to reflect that skepticism to avoid falling afoul of WP:PROFRINGE. Most of your other changes have been extensively discussed and rejected in the past, so you should review those discussions before re-adding them; for instance, the fact that they were sponsored (not merely supported) by AIER is emphasized in the source, as is the bit of AIER's history that makes the significance of that sponsorship clear. Likewise, I don't agree that it was redundantly repeated - it is mentioned briefly in one section where it is relevant, then given more elaboration further down in a section devoted to it. You also, as far as I can tell, removed AIER's history in both places even though sources have constantly referenced it in relation to the Great Barrington Declaration. Even if you feel the article has sweeping problems, I suggest you go more slowly, breaking your points down and getting consensus for one change at a time or starting with less-controversial things; a single sweeping series of edits that overturns the result of months of talk page discussions all at once is going to be a hard sell all at once. --Aquillion (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, stop edit-warring. See WP:WAR and WP:BRD. And do not ping me - I have a watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
It's peculiar you felt the need to link that since that procedure has been followed to a tee actually, I suggest you review your own links. "Sponsored" is a disputed claim with contradictory sources while "supported" is universally agreed upon. If anyone feels changes are against any previously established consensus please link the relevant discussion, if you take issue with anything please make an appropriate edit. Wholesale reverts are not appropriate here. I have restored the word sponsored but it appears that AIER are not an 'official sponsor' per themselves or anyone involved so I think this needs noting. Mainline421 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Surprised to learn it isn't clear yet that repeated efforts to make these changes won't succeed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
That isn't how this works, Wikipedia is biased towards new, not the status quo. It is impossible to obtain consensus when editors like yourself continuously refuse to engage or collaborate and instead resort to repeatedly abusing the revert function. Furthermore is is not appropriate to try and force users to "seek consensus" for any and all changes, it seems you effectively wish for no changes to be made without the consent of certain editors who frequent this page. I have repeatedly made changes and addressed all objections raised. I do thank you for your transparency in admitting WP:IDONTLIKEIT as your reason, allowing me to revert your disruptive edit. Mainline421 (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Your addition of the word previously before the phrase associated with climate change denial is not supported by any of the sources. Your edit also duplicated the primary-sourced WP:MANDY denial (however, Kulldorff has repeatedly stated that the authors 'received no money to write the Declaration' and that 'no organization influenced its content.')

Your removal of AIER's funding of a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them is at odds with the recent RfC. Kleinpecan (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

[edit conflict] You are talking to people who have many years of experience here. And not just a few hundred edits, but many thousands. You will not succeed in bluffing us with blatant falsehoods like Wikipedia is biased towards new, not the status quo or admitting WP:IDONTLIKEIT as your reason. Wikipedia is biased towards accuracy, not "the fake of the day". You will not find a shortcut that allows you to force your opinions into the article, you need to go through the discussion. So, stop the bad wikilawyering and start searching for justifications that will hold water. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Can we include AIER's approval of The War on Christmas? ? It seems as apropos to add that as mention any position on Climate Change (which is completely orthogonal to any position they take on COVID-19). Or how about the progressive destruction of the Constitution in The Fall of the Dominoes? Or the coming collapse of America in Dear America, it's time to break up. There are plenty of off-topic positions we could cite. I am sure that somebody with a non-NPOV could find plenty of articles which shows that AIER supports their POV. You might reasonably conclude that AIER is purposefully stirring the pot, so that people talk about things that need talking about. RussNelson (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Climate change denial not "completely orthogonal" because of the alignment of science-denial tactics. Hence sources bring up the connection and Wikipedia dutiful reflects sources, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Agenda

As a frequent reader and contributor to Wikipedia, I am very disturbed by the overall result of this article. It is clear the author is a supporter of current and past government policies regarding the Covid 19 pandemic. The beginning of the article informative, but quickly devolves into a hit piece. The opposing opinions, are almost entirely government officials who have a vested interest in defending their actions. It would more appropriate for this to be two articles, the second being "Opposition to the Great Barrington Declaration", linked to this article. 75.97.182.173 (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The article has 187 authors and is the result of consensus. Your suggestion is to create a classic WP:POVFORK. Wikipedia doesn't do that. Alexbrn (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for the 187 count? Does it include editors whose contributions were immediately reverted? RussNelson (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
It's 197 now.[1] And yes, a lot of them are just waste-of-space POV-warriors, WP:SPAs and WP:PROFRINGErs who are WP:NOTHERE. That's inevitable for any topic about US politics (in particular). Alexbrn (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to that. Don't you think it's unfair to cite "197" editors as if they help to form a consensus? Almost 90% of the article is written by just 10 editors. Don't think think it would be more accurate to say "The article has 10 authors and is still getting edited and reverted"? But that wouldn't help you to dismiss Mr. 182.173's point (or should I call him 75.97?) RussNelson (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
No, it's accurate. Consensus is not just formed by authorship (which has been done by about 50% of the editors) but also by discussion. But again, a lot of that discussion is pointless coming from users without a WP:CLUE. Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a remarkable parallel to the Declaration itself, where people who do not understand how science works concentrate on the one thing they think they understand - the number of signatories (and sometimes on the fact that a medical layman who earned a Nobel for an unrelated subject signed it). Here, people who do not understand how Wikipedia works concentrate on the one thing they think they understand - the number of editors.
What matters is that the reasoning behind the Declaration is crap and that the reasoning behind rewriting the article into a fringefest is crap. Both manifest in the overwhelming consensus against, but that is incidental. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Speaking of hit pieces, it has become clear from the FOIA-ed emails that AIER obtained that Fauci and the NIH were determined to dismiss, without serious consideration, the ideas presented in the GBD. Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? RussNelson (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
If secondary sources mention it, maybe ... assuming "real scientists dismiss political BS" is worth mentioning. Alexbrn (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Signatories

I am sure nobody needs me to run down all the reasons why listing, or boosting, or characterising, the signatories, based on AIER's own website, is a truly terrible idea. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. We do not give undue weight to fringe ideas.

In fact we should avoid all self-sourced content here, per WP:PROFRINGE. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Again, serious scientists from prestigious institutions have signed and endorsed the declaration so saying that it is WP:FRINGE, akin to climate change denial and political stunt rather than a scientific document (as you have argued above) is absolutely baffling to me. This information is clearly WP:DUE and the source is acceptable per WP:SELFSOURCE. Besides, we have an entire § Counter memorandum section with the names of its signatories. Just like with the credentials issue, either we keep both or we remove both. The alleged WP:DUE issue (i.e. the idea that critics should be given more weight than the declaration itself) is still safeguarded by the long, (borderline WP:NOTEVERYTHING-non conform) § Reception section.
In any case, you should follow the WP:BRD process and not edit-war [2][3] your preferred version of a page of which there is significant dispute — admin or not. JBchrch (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch, See fallacy of misleading vividness. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming for an excellent summary of why it does not matter how illustrious the associations of a proponent of a fringe view, when that view is fringe.
Oh, and self-sourcing it is WP:UNDUE anyway. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the logical fallacy! I'll keep it in mind next time I am short on arguments. JBchrch (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch, you already are... Guy (help! - typo?) 20:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
See my repliy above. AIER is not a reliable source; they are usable only via the very limited restrictions of WP:ABOUTSELF. Claims that third parties have endorsed their position are obviously unduly self-serving (especially given the secondary sources casting doubt on the accuracy and fact-checking given to the content of their list), so we need secondary sourcing before we can describe any individual person as having signed it per WP:BLP, or at least sources directly from those people rather than via AIER; and more generally, any descriptions that characterize the list or its supporters in a self-serving way also cannot be cited to AIER. If you think it is notable that a particular individual has signed (or not), it should be easy to find secondary sourcing stating it; if all you can find is AIER claiming they signed then they obviously cannot be listed here. Note that while you object to the idea that the idea that critics should be given more weight than the declaration itself, you are understating it. The declaration itself and its websites are primary sources, which means that for self-serving claims or claims about third parties, they have zero weight. None. Their position can be cited via secondary sources that cover it, but when they start making self-serving claims we cannot cite them directly at all, and if nobody else covers those claims then they are both WP:UNDUE and fail WP:V, meaning we cannot include even a single word hinting at them. Due weight is about giving sources weight appropriate to their notability, significance, reliability, and so on; it is not about giving everyone equal weight, or about giving every organization the freedom to write large swaths of any article they're involved in. --Aquillion (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
This is not my interpretation of the policies. [4] is reliable because these individuals have accepted to sign the declaration and to associate their names with it. This is very different from a news article at ilovepseudoscience.com which claims that according to Matthew Walker you can in fact sleep 2 hours/night: this is the kind of problematic material that WP:ABOUTSELF was meant to address. When individuals associate themselves publicly with a project — and always provided that this is not disputed by them — I would argue that the primary source is reliable. Whether it is WP:DUE is, of course, a completely different matter.
Regardless, though, here are a few sources. I have to get off for a while, but I may have the time to look for more tomorrow. According to Infection Control Today, a specialised publication whose editorial board is made up of MDs and MPHs working at big hospitals, The cosigners represent a host of scientific disciplines such as public health, biostatistics, finance, and psychiatry. They include Michael Levitt, PhD, (who received the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2013), Jonas Ludvigsson, MD, Angus Dalgleish, PhD, David Katz, PhD, and Mike Hulme, PhD. [5] Regarding Mike Hulme, see also [6]. According to the Independent, It has won the support of UK scientists including Professor Karol Sikora [7]. And Prof. David Livermore has written about his involvement on The Telegraph [8]. JBchrch (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The idea that ideas get credible by being signed by serious scientists from prestigious institutions is seriously misguided for several reasons, some of which have been pointed out above:
  • This century, and last century, a typical scientist is someone who specializes in one specific part of one field, who may know next to nothing about other fields or even of other parts of the same field. So, when the idea is about a pandemic caused by a virus, the opinion of every scientist who specializes in something else than that is as good as the opinion of some random person from the street. Using the category "scientist" for such purposes is therefore ignorant or dishonest.
  • The source for the list is some organization which has spread other misinformation about science in the past. It cannot be trusted.
  • Lists like this have never, ever, been instrumental in lending credence to an idea among scientists. Instead, ideas gain a standing by sound reasoning based on solid data, published in peer-reviewed journals.
  • Lists like this have instead only been used by anti-science clowns like creationists, climate change deniers, opponents of Einstein, and such.
  • The most essential one: Confusing opinions and expertise. A science degree does not make your opinions more valid. It does not turn them into knowledge like the Philosopher's Stone turns lead into gold. Instead, it teaches you methods which, if you actually use them in designing your studies, prevent your opinion from influencing the result too much. That is necessary because your opinion is, as likely as not, unrealistic crap. If someone asks a lot of scientists to sign some random unrealistic crap, there will be quite a number whose unrealistic crap opinions agree with it.
Every one of these reasons alone would be enough to reject the list, and anybody who suggests that such a list should sway people, clearly does either not understand how science works or hopes that his audience doesn't, and should not be taken seriously until he starts using good reasoning instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that makes the point pretty well, Hob Gadling. XOR'easter (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to bludgeon the conversation, so I will keep this one short and informal. I agree with everything you said. Hell, you know — I don't even think the GBD is good policy. I just think we have a duty to our readers to give them an important element, i.e. the name of its notable signatories. What is currently happening feels like withholding information. A lot of conspiracies are actually born this way: people find out some stuff (here, for instance: the fact that a Nobel prize winner has signed it 😨) and then begin to think that everybody is lying to them. JBchrch (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
If someone actually signed it (as AIER claims), and if the fact that they signed it is notable, then it should be easy to find high-quality WP:RSes saying that they signed it. If no such sources can be found, then we have no way of knowing if they actually signed it or not, since AIER performed no verification and is not a reliable source in any case... and even beyond that, even if we were to accept AIER's unsubstantiated claims about who signed it at face value, the fact that they signed it is probably not as notable as you claim if no high-quality sources took notice of that fact. (This double-whammy, where the fact that a claim is not validated in WP:RSes shows that it is both unsubstantiated and would not be notable even if we were to accept it, is extremely common when dealing with WP:FRINGE topics.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Aquillion, and we do know that other petitions run by right wing think-tanks have attracted fake signatures. When AIER actually have to have a page explaining how all the signatures are genuine, honest, despite it including Johnny Banana and Mickey Mouse, then I think we know we can't trust the primary source. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
What is currently happening feels like withholding information Imagine a Wikipedia which tries to make conspiracy theorists happy by supplying every piece of "information" that could, if withheld, make them "think that everybody is lying to them". That Wikipedia would be very, very different from what we have now. I guess Larry Sanger would like it though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch, no, you are wrong. We can self-source uncontroversial facts. The canonical example is birthdays and founding dates. In this case, we would be using a primary, affiliated and unreliable source to elevate a WP:FRINGE agenda. That's not how Wikipedia works. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
JzG, I have dropped the issue and took note of the consensus. So what's the point of patronising me with sentences like That's not how Wikipedia works? I have not breached any policy on the mainspace and I am not editing disruptively. JBchrch (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch, it's not patronising, I am explaining. You have much less experience than I do in fringe areas. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
[9] is reliable because these individuals have accepted to sign the declaration and to associate their names with it. No, AIER itself is not reliable (in fact, they specifically said, in as many words, that they did not fact-check the names that were submitted on their online form - anyone could input any name with no efforts at verification.) Their claim that someone signed something controversial or took some controversial position - especially one that is self-serving from AIER's perspective, as this one is - is completely unusable as a primary source. This means that no, you have not established that those people have signed the declaration. You need a WP:SECONDARY source for that fact - and, in fact, a high-quality one, because stating that someone signed the declaration, as fact, is clearly WP:BLP-sensitive given its controversial nature. And, at a glance, "infectioncontroltoday.com" is unlikely to qualify either - it looks like a personal website of no particular notability (note that even being written by a subject-matter expert itself would not qualify for what you're trying to use it for, since you're trying to cite sensitive claims about third parties - you need an actual high-quality WP:RS for that.) As I said, we could theoretically cite someone's own website, if we know it is unequivocally them, where they say "I signed the declaration" to establish that they did so (although yes, WP:DUE might also be a concern at that pint.) But we aren't even at that point in the discussion yet - WP:DUE is debatable, but WP:RS and WP:BLP are a hard stop. We absolutely cannot use a primary cite to the fact that AIER claims someone signed the declaration for anything, fullstop, because AIER itself is not a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
No Aquillion, Infection Control Today is certainly not a personal website of no particular notability, it's a monthly print magazine, written by health professionals, with a wide readership. You know, even a Lancet outlet writes the GBR has since been endorsed by thousands of medical practitioners, researchers, and public health scientists. [10]. But surely, we at Wikipedia know better and we have determined that all of these people have WP:FRINGE views and have clearly no idea what they are talking about. JBchrch (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
For some reason, the "Infection Control Today" site isn't loading at all in my browser, but I do recall it came up at RSN a while back, and overall people were not impressed. The Lancet item gives no details about who the GBD signatories were. XOR'easter (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
XOR'easter, yup. Also, as noted above and especially when we deleted the article on the list of "scientists" opposing the consensus on global warming, which list and topic has vastly more coverage than this dreck, to include lists of signatories of fringe petitions run by think-tanks is a fundamental abrogation of NPOV. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I am an actual signatory to the GBD. Unlike for the GBD, I will not sign in to establish that and reveal my identity because of the severe left bias herein. Yes, bias. Here, people with monikers like "GUY" can comment with impunity about a small fraction of people, who might even include "GUY," who make up false names to discredit those who are sincere, qualified, and GBD signatories. So have you completed any fact checking to establish what percentage of people are real signatories? Also, criticism has been leveled because the signatories are petitioners. So what? Does that invalidate signing petitions? The rule here seems to be that if the petition is left leaning, that is good, but if it can be interpreted as right leaning, the petition is "obviously" invalid. I would suggest that the last hair on the tail of a dog does not even wag the tail, never mind the dog. I support eliminating the statements about funny names in the GBD, that is, unless you will equally accept that funny names for contributors here also invalidates this article.207.47.175.199 (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
And I'm the Queen of Sheba. Regardless, this is a collection of contrarians motivated by the usual political BS. See also Project Steve. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Counting the absurd while discounting the genuine is a bit like advertising that you are the Queen of Sheba, it doesn't help your cause and turns people off. It may feel good to vent, but sources such as (read it->) https://www.allsides.com/news-source/wikipedia who recently decided they no longer even want to rate Wikipedia on the left/right political spectrum because this site doesn't "fit", are increasingly questioning Wikipedia's neutrality. Despite have good articles on statistics, mathematics, and the like, please note that Wikipedia is losing credibility on political issues. If you wish to damage your own arguments further keep dealing with non-issues, like those few people who disingenuously signed the GBD petition. It detracts from, and does not help your presentation.207.47.175.199 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
The very existence of the absurd calls into question the genuineness of the allegedly genuine. This underlines the wrongheadedness-from-the-start of the whole thing and is therefore important information. That you seem to categorize this subject as a political issue shows that your opinion on it is not motivated by scientific facts and that, if you are indeed a signatory, your signature carries as much weight as that of Dr. Person Fakename.
We are used to people whining that Wikipedia is somehow less credible because it does not embrace the opinion of the whiners. Well, that's what happens when your opinion is not good enough to gain support from real science. Suck it up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me, but it is the absurdity of arguing that because some activist interlopers provided fake names that could not be removed quickly enough as the GBD website was literally swamped with signatures that is at issue here. Then, because you are apparently hopelessly biased yourself, you ironically latch onto those whose views likely echo your own as proof of disingenuousness. Yes, but whose disingenuousness? Certainly not mine, and your argument is circular. Yes, you have identified the absurd, and it is your argument. Calling me names doesn't look good, and does not make a silk purse of a sow's ear. This is really so basic that I am taken aback, how can you not see that the lunatic fringe signatures in a lengthy petition were put there by people acting out lunacy and not by people who believe the tenants of the GBD? Remove the argumentative spurious text or own it, and if you own it, be aware of the nonsensical appearance it creates. It is true that I have identified the vitriol herein as political theater. I see "GBD is bad, because the only people who matter say so. And, if someone doesn't agree with us brainiacs, they are 'whiners' who don't know actual 'science'." Do tell, science requires the acceptance of hypothesis in order to disprove it. We aren't there here, this piece isn't science. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Someone made a dumpster available for people to dump their opinions in, and they did. Result: a heap of something, most of which is definitely worthless crap and some of which may have come from people who have shown that they are, when they are not occupied with signing Declarations, capable of doing science. Now what? If they can do science showing the Declaration is right, why aren't they doing that instead?
Just commenting on a few parts extracted from this rant:
  • GBD is bad, because the only people who matter say so Exactly right. The people who matter are those who are qualified to tell good reasoning from bad reasoning - the experts. And they publish their conclusions in venues where they are checked by other experts. Science is not done by guessing followed by voting.
  • if someone doesn't agree with us brainiacs, they are 'whiners' who don't know actual 'science' No, a whiner is someone who whines. If his reasoning reveals that he does not know how science works, then that is another, independent property. Calling scientists "brainiacs" is another sign for that second property.
  • science requires the acceptance of hypothesis in order to disprove it This does not make any sense. It sounds as if you had read parts of sentences in a text about Popper and put them together at random.
I do not think useful material for improving the article is to be found in any further exchanges, and we should stop here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree, I will stop trying to convince you because your language and ability to reason are too flawed to continue. Such language: "Someone made a dumpster available for people to dump their opinions in, and they did," is actually more appropriate as a description of the poppycock here than of the GBD, as you are not in the least concerned with appearances, language, or reasoned argument and confine yourself to regurgitating opinion rather than developing ideas. I do give up on you for now, at least. Perhaps someone else can convince you to keep a civil tongue in your mouth and stick to facts, but apparently that is not I.207.47.175.199 (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
dude, if you had any idea how many homeopaths have made near-identical arguments, you'd shut up. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
In light of the recent discussion on this talk page, I just wanted to say that I have realised that my reasoning above was wrong. I did some additional research on the GBD, the scientific consensus around these questions and the way this type of texts are written and published (see e.g. Merchants of Doubt), and figured that JzG and Hob Gadling were actually correct. Thanks for the enlightenment. Cheers. JBchrch (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch, thank you, I applaud you for your patience here. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Same here. It is also nice when people not only listen, but acknowledge that they did. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I added one sentence with AIER's response, viz AIER says the flood of fake signatures was promoted by a hostile British journalist, and they were largely removed very quickly.[1] Sadly and predictably, some editor tagged this as non-primary source needed (which isn't true for a statement from AIER) and later the sentence was deleted. -- M.boli (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Magness, Phillip W. (October 15, 2020). "The Fake Signature Canard". American Institute for Economic Research. Retrieved 2021-10-21.
And again reverted, on utterly specious grounds of self-published or self-serving. By that standard not even a press release could ever be cited in Wikipedia. An AIER official wrote a response explaining their view of the fake-name attack. If the fake-name attack is significant enough to warrant a paragraph of coverage in Wikipedia, then a one-line summary of their response certainly deserves to be included also. -- M.boli (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
M.boli, can you cite a reliable secondary source mentioning the AIER's statement? That would make it not WP:SELFSOURCE. Llll5032 (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
How is a response from an AIER official not a reliable source for AIER's claim as to what happened? I repeat, following this idea no press release would ever be referenced in Wikipedia. -- M.boli (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:SELFSOURCE has a five-part test. Does this pass it? Llll5032 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Why on earth would we want to use press releases? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Any open letter, petition or declaration that opens itself up to signatures from the public is going to include a number of fake ones. In light of this are the fake signatures on the GBR widespread to the degree that they're particularly notable? The section only says that there are "numerous clearly-fake names" (an example of weasel language) and that there are "more than 100... non-relevant people". --Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 12:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Depends if it's picked-up by sources. In this case, it was. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Normally, an open letter using signatures from the public would not attract attention at all; AIER's hefty funding is the only thing that called attention to it in the first place. And beyond that, AIER has made claims about it that imply the expertise of the signers is what lends it weight (rather than the raw numbers, which are otherwise completely unimpressive and non-notable for an internet petition), which naturally invites the type of scrutiny we see from the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"Instead, it teaches you methods which, if you actually use them in designing your studies, prevent your opinion from influencing the result too much. That is necessary because your opinion is, as likely it as not, unrealistic crap. If someone asks a lot of scientists to sign some random unrealistic crap, there will be quite a number whose unrealistic crap opinions agree with it."

Indeed. That being the case, instead of promoting the unrealistic crap opinions turned religious beliefs of incompetent policymakers, you may want to turn your attention to the data published by the John Hopkins Website and see for yourself that the number of Covid19 cases spikes spectacularly following mass vaccination. In the case of Australia, the number of weekly cases shot up from virtually 0 to 552.78K following the injection of 45,423,554 doses of vaccines. The same can be seen in South Korea with 110,959,467 doses of vaccines injected followed by a peak of 47,326K weekly cases. Same in Israel that must be the most vaccinated country in the world. Meanwhile, the exact same pattern can be observed in every country. Source: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html 2403:6200:8856:A97A:28DB:F613:CFEA:30CF (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

See wp:or, you need an RS saying there is causation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Also where does the Declaration talk about vaccinations?Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It is disingenuous for a website that allows editing by individuals identified by pseudonyms to criticize pseudonym signatories to a deceleration, which declaration was written about epidemiology by epidemiologists, and then to criticize based on the opinion of conflicted virologists, and others with limited or no training in epidemiology. You should follow the money for the critics of the GBD if you want to see special interests. What I do not see here is any discussion of epidemiology and quarantine, and the topic is not simple, e.g., see https://www.academia.edu/download/37751556/2002MathBiosci.pdf, Failing that, there is no scientific content in this post. What I want paid attention to is just how nuanced epidemiology and quarantine are in the 1986 article cited above, and cited in the literature 416 times to the effect that the majority of quarantine models have no solutions. Failing that, this post is just axe-grinding.207.47.175.199 (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

We are not, we are repeating RS that do.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Dismissal of the Declaration's suggestions

I think we should include mention of Fauci and Collins' dismissal of the Great Barrington Declaration without consideration. How Fauci and Collins Shut Down Covid Debate. Given that lockdowns "Travel and trade are essential to the global economy as well as to national and even local economies, and they should be maintained even in the face of a pandemic." and distancing Social distancing born in Albuquerque teen’s science project were the new idea, and relying on herd immunity and vaccines is the standard idea, it seems out of bounds for them to dismiss what has always been done in favor of something completely untried and unwarranted. We know they dismissed it because they said in FOIAed emails that they intended a "quick and devastating published take-down" of it with a public relations campaign. Collins said the three authors were "fringe epidemiologists", and noted extra concern that Michael Levitt (a Nobel Prize winner) was one of the signers. RussNelson (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a shame for that idea that social distancing was used in 1916, and again in 1918, and again in... well a few times before 2015. So no if anything that student just claimed credit for an old idea.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that your link is to an opinion piece - our comment at WP:RSNP for the WSJ is use WP:RSOPINION. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

There are now multiple news sources that confirm the response of Collins and Fauci to the GBD, including last week's congressional testimony by Fauci. Examples here:

Whether you agree with Collins & Fauci's position or not, the fact that they called for a "takedown" of scientists that they labeled "fringe epidemiologists" in the media is absolutely a part of the Great Barrington Declaration's history and needs to be included in this article. FranciscoWS (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Article appears to support false narrative of balance between public health and the economy

For what it's worth, as a mere editor with no qualified expertise, I agree that the GBD "ignores sound public health expertise", which is what the public health groups said. However, I disagree that it does this "despite public health experts agreeing 'better balance must be found between protecting public health and helping the economy.'" It seems to me that public health experts do not agree this and that either there is a significant division of opinion among these experts or that the consensus between them lies elsewhere. I note that the quotation about a balance between public health and the economy appears to repeat a false narrative often platformed in UK media that there is such a balance and that the quotation does not appear to be pf the public health experts but instead is a claim made by the article on the Hill website. It claims "Public health experts generally acknowledge the negative impact of the restrictions and agree that a better balance must be found between protecting public health and helping the economy, especially with regards to children who have been kept out of school." This is a false dichotomy: acting on public health grounds to bring down the levels of infection of the virus helps protect and keep open the economy. There isn't a balance between the two, some respected scientists agree with myself on this and I dispute the claim by the Hill website article. I await evidence to show that public health experts do agree on the better balance which pits public health, in my view falsely, against the economy when the two in fact support each other, as acting on public health also protects the economy (as agreed by some or perhaps even the consensus of experts, or the consensus of experts that are not potentially compromised by being part of official bodies that support governments that claim there is such a balance).

As there may be some matter of dispute over what I say here, I have not taken it to edit the article, instead I consider the claim on the Hill website to be disputed, as I dispute it, and that it is not substantiated at present. Yet it is repeated in this article: it is not a fact, I see that public health experts either do not agree that there is a balance between public health and the economy or else that public health action supports the economy (by keeping infection levels low so that the economy can function more, as opposed to being disrupted by self-isolation being needed by vast numbers of people due to infections being out of control due to failure to take public health action). I agree that a false political debate has been created about this matter, supported by a complicit media in the UK, so that what I say may be polticially controversial. I dispute the Hill's assertion that public health experts agree on this balance between health and economy. I believe the 'balance' argument to be false when the two support each other and think many public health experts support me on this. This Wikipedia article therefore currently falsely claims, on the basis of the unsubstantiated assertion at the source, that public health experts agree about a balance when in fact they either don't agree on this or there is significant dispute by many of the experts who see health as supporting economy and it therefore not being a case of balancing the two as if the two are to be weighed up against each other - a false argument. I note this is not a quote from what the public health groups said but is instead the Hill's own claim and one that provides no evidence to me to show that it is true. It ought not be here, because we should not be including unsubstantiated claims, in this case about public health expert alleged agreement, within a Wikipedia article. Those that disagree with me are politically biased on the matter in my view as the issue has been politicised (which is another reason why I object to it as it is a political point in the Wikipedia article and not Wikipedia neutral). But, given that this last point by me is controversial, I have not taken it upon myself to delete the objectionable material from the article. aspaa (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I read the first part of this and do not understand what exactly you see as incorrect and what you want to replace it with. Can you be clearer and especially more concise? More importantly, we will not change the article just because you disagree with it. You need reliable sources. See WP:RS and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Biased

This is a laughably biased, editorialized article. Why is so much commentary included? The clear and substantial bias presented here goes to discredit wikipedia as an objective source of information. Most of this article should be deleted. A description of the Declerarion, list of authors, and link to the website is really all that's needed. Any editorializing or criticism of it belongs in a seperate section titled "Criticism." As it's currently written, 95% of this article is subjective criticism spread throughout nearly every paragraph. Regardless of how many contributors there are, this article is anything but objectively written. Save your opinionated blogging for an external site. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 2601:285:8080:A560:B9DD:FC94:2158:CF9F (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  • For the "biased" part, see WP:FRINGE and WP:YWAB.
  • For your suggestion to ghetto the criticism into a single section, see WP:CSECTION.
  • For your opinion on what belongs on Wikipedia and what does not, see WP:CIR.
You are wrong on all points. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. In the introduction to analysis of the SARS-CoV-1 contagion, where Covid-19 is SARS-CoV-2, "The use of quarantine for contacts of diseases in modern society has, however, been essentially abandoned for more than a generation." See Understanding, compliance and psychological impact of the SARS quarantine experience[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.175.199 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
A source from 2008 pre-dates COVID. Alexbrn (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Precisely, so it predates current political bias. The evidence in favour of abandoning classical epidemiological wisdom would have to be stated much more strongly than it is in the post here. In particular, what is lacking is any discussion of epidemiological models for disease, and instead we are treated to a discussion of "Who says what, when, and who are they?" which begs the question. For more recent analysis, please consider the first sentence of the Discussion section of LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON COVID-19 MORTALIT[2] "Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic." This study from "Researchers at Johns Hopkins University" was widely reported by multiple news media, e.g., Health News Florida[3] 207.47.175.199 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
How does a source that predates CXovid (and therefore cannot know about Covid) tell us anything about Covid?Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Asked and answered. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOR is policy, and these sources have no relevance to the article unless there are reliable sources saying so. Alexbrn (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
And per this and wp:synthesis we can't draw conclusions from sources, a source must EXPLICITLY support a text. So if it does not mention Covid its, not about Covid.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The report being advertised is a meta-analysis of about 2 dozen papers that studied "non-pharmaceutical interventions" and their effect on Covid rates. It is a meta-analysis in the sense that the authors read all the papers, summarized common results. (It isn't a meta-analysis in the statistics sense of mathematically combining the results of multiple statistical studies.) They seem to be enamored of the "stringency index", which is supposed to be a quantitative measure of lockdown severity. The third (final) author is Steve Hanke, a bright and accomplished economist who is also a raging libertarian and leader of the libertarian-oriented institute at Johns Hopkins institute which issued this report. Conceivably there are Wikipedia articles where this report could be a reliable source of information.
Having noted that, note this Wiki-page is about the Great Barrington Declaration, Not A Forum about lockdowns. The report in question appears to make no mention of GBD. Connecting this report to GBD is possibly Original Research, it is likely not useful for this Wiki-page. -- M.boli (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a very limited discussion in "fact-checked" sources on GBD that is unbiased, and this post has contributed to that substantially. Here is one that applauded the GBD in the Toronto Sun [4]. The Toronto Sun is rated by https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/toronto-sun/ as "Mostly Factual" and "Highly Creditable." Now let us consider what "Mostly Factual" means. Quote: "Overall, we rate the Toronto Sun, Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that favor the right and Mostly Factual for reporting, rather than High due to a lack of sourcing and scientific positions that do not align with the scientific consensus. (7/28/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 05/24/2021)" So let us check what the fact checkers said. Cited in mediabiasfactcheck is https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/08/south-west-news-service/Evidence-lacking-that-cats-eaten-as-COVID-19-cure/ as "Failed Fact Checks: Black cats in Vietnam are being killed and consumed as a COVID-19 cure. – False" which appeared in the Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11418545/sales-dog-cat-meat-surge-food-apps-doctors-coronavirus/. Now try to follow this, mediabias cited politifact which cited an article in the UK paper "The Sun" to fact check the "Toronto Sun." I can't make stuff like this up. I would urge you to consider fact checking dialogue as unsubstantiated until proven otherwise. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


You found a Toronto Sun newspaper article that says 2 physicians in Canada support the GBD. Conceivably this could be cited in this Wiki-article, if people judged it to be sufficiently significant or representative.
Regarding a long rambling claim about fact-checking: I disagree, but it is irrelevant to this discussion so there is no point in litigating it. -- M.boli (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
What percentage of Candian physicians is this, 50, 10, 1? if it is less than 1%, no it would not be relvant.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Note, the topic here is potential bias, not Canadian physicians' views. "The Epoch Times" is said, in Wikipedia https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-wikipedia to be "far-right" whereas "The Epoch Times" behind a sign-up wall says this very post in "Wikipedia" is in effect "far-left". [5] Of "The Epoch Times" AllSides rates it "Lean Right." [6], i.e., between Center and Right. Thus, many people do not see "The Epoch Times" as biased. AllSides has noted 5 studies that cite Wikipedia as biased with the pertinent accusation being the exclusion of information sources. [7] Please open this discussion up to include sources that may not agree with your POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.175.199 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Doug Weller has mentioned uses of allsides.com in this page on WP:RSN]. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
It does not matter what "many people" think. Many people are stupid. What matters is the categorization of a source in WP:RS, specifically WP:RSP. If you want to recategorize, you'll have to convince the people there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Of the "5 studies" that you refer to only two are actual studies. The rest are a blog post and a forum thread on Wikipediocracy and an article in Breitbart News written by an editor who has been banned for harassment regurgitating an article in a "contrarian conservative" magazine written by two pseudonymous authors (see also Newslinger's analysis of that article).
I suggest that the next time you want to whine about Wikipedia's biases you actually do something more than type "Wikipedia left-wing bias" into your favorite search engine, pick random low-quality articles and hope some of them turn out to actually be somewhat accurate. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
"It does not matter what "many people" think. Many people are stupid." ---Good grief, what you consider important is not science but what scientifically untrained journalists think, because those are the rules you accept, and anything else is "primary research." Gee, low quality articles---what do you think this post is---high quality? I must convince you? Funny how smart you are, so smart that no one's evidence is admissible. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia has rules. I linked a few of them. So you want to ignore them? That is your problem, not ours. Another rule is WP:TALK. Your contribution is just chitchat, it does not help improving the article. If you want to do that, do it somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
According to arbitration of the attack on my person I have not broken any rules, at most bent a few. I understand that you do not like me because you do not like my POV. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that this post is fringe theoryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories, with evidence as follows: You cite people, e.g., like Fauci, to make your arguments whose opinions are increasingly distrusted. Take for example the centrist rating for WGN https://www.allsides.com/news-source/wgn-media-bias, and its centrist reliable publication newsnation now https://adfontesmedia.com/newsnation-now-bias-reliability/. In particular, they, and many other sources show eroding confidence in Biden, and by name Fauci https://www.newsnationnow.com/polls/newsnation-poll-voters-trust-in-biden-health-officials-eroding/. Quoting that
"But when asked who they trusted, only 31 percent (Sic, of people surveyed) chose Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease; and 16 percent chose Biden, according to the NewsNation/Decision Desk HQ poll.
In addition, only 10 percent trust information from the news media."
So far, anyone who disagrees with you, and I quote you, is "stupid." And yet, your narrative is failing, and that failure is becoming increasingly obvious with elapsing time, and that is because it was media promulgated fringe theory to begin with, and eventually the truth will out. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I did not know that a list of quotations from you constitutes an attack on your person.
The first paragraph of the fringe theories guideline is: "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Note the last four words: it's only the view of relevant scientists that matters, not the view of general public. And even if we assume that Anthony Fauci is a fringe figure, the article cites many other people and organizations, so the claim that the entire article violates WP:FRINGE because of several sentences that cite Fauci is ridiculously farfetched.
Wikipedia is not interested in The Truth©®™. It is only interested in that which can be verified through reliable sources. If you want to preach The Truth™, I suggest you go to Conservapedia. Kleinpecan (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
This article is a biased reading of "highest quality by a consensus of experts in any field of science or scholarship." The GBD, a classical epidemiological approach, has only echoed the fact that for decades the field has dissuaded the use of quarantine as ineffectual. That a collection of compromised, but well-positioned activist recipients of questionable funding, 80 of them, can get any garbage printed in Lancet says nothing good about the quality of science in Lancet. Moreover, every time I have quoted good research in this post, someone comes along and finds a fringe theory interpretation of it. What we have here is not some type of scientific consensus, but a hit piece, which being based on activist media reports, has hurt trust in that media, and hurt the public in general by delaying cancer therapy, increasing suicide, increasing death from non-Covid causes by 40% in the USA in the 10 to 65 y/o age group, and in general has done so much harm that it is forcing people like me to do things they never ever considered, like running for political office. That you still consider this post to be any type of consensus opinion is OK by me, let it stand as is as an example of political embellishment for all to see in perpetuity. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Please read wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, read it. For me, the GBD Wikipedia post is soap. Perhaps there is not the scientific consensus the article purports to present? 207.47.175.199 (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Maybe the moon landings were faked. Maybe the Royal Family are Lizards. Many drinking bleach cures COVID. Who can say? Yeah, right - the aim of the GBD is to create the illusion[15] of scientific dispute, and it's suckered a load of people in - some of whom come here as we frequently see. Wikipedia is no so gullible. Alexbrn (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, provide one RS that says the BGD does not go against the scientific consensus. Note (per wp:OR the source had to actually say that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
https://magazine.scienceforthepeople.org/online/public-health-lockdown-covid-19-great-barrington-declaration/ First one that popped up, there are many many more, but it is pointless to cite anything here. If I said Biden was great, the authors here would say he is terrible. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I could not find the place where your source says the GBD does not go against the scientific consensus. Could you please quote the sentence where it does? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
"Supporters of the GBD played an outsized role in the discourse,", that says (in effect) they in fact have an inflated footprint. However this does seem to call it a right ring, libertarian publication.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Rather than read selectively, take the second sentence in the article having GBD in the title: "Despite these efforts, a consensus among scientists, policymakers, and the general public on how to collectively fight the pandemic and its disparate impacts has failed to emerge in the United States." Now regarding "left versus right," for citing sources, it is irrelevant. In particular, in this case, the "left" claims divine omniscience. The "right" begs to differ. It you read only the left's opinion, that is all you are left with, in this case a biased left-wing article that ignores the basics of epidemiology, makes up new rules using virologists' proclamations concerning epidemiology, and prefers that to established science, all the while claiming that all of history is not repeating itself. Quarantine, the medical community, the media and the gov't didn't stop the Spanish flu, the virus mutated into a less harmful form and that stopped it. Ditto for SARS-CoV-2. I do not have to prove anything here, it is up to the proponents of masking, quarantine, "vaccination" passports and the like to demonstrate that any of those measure did more good than harm. Nowhere in this argumentative document do I see anything substantial presented, and in its place we see assertions suggesting that the GBD is insufficient and that we should panic and preform arbitrary action. I see an assertion about "climate denial," which is irrelevant. It does have one thing in common, and that is the assumption that just because some arbitrary measure is taken by a bleeding heart, that by the addition of "magic sauce" that will achieve an effect that is more beneficial than harmful. Don't ask me to make my case, make yours less laughable, or don't, and leave this nonsense for posterity to judge. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Rather than engage in original research, take this sentence that also cites another source: "Despite its popularity with political actors and some scientists, the views of the GBD represent a minority opinion among public health researchers, some of whom have been critical of its ideas in the press.[8]"

The article mentions AIER's climate change denial because reliable sources mention it. Reliable sources mention it because if an organization denies or distorts the consensus in one scientific field (climate science) for ideological or political reasons, that organization is more likely to deny or distort the consensus in other scientific fields (epidemiology).

The rest of your comment is blabbering that is irrelevant to the article. Please focus on the article; the signal-to-noise ratio of your comments becomes worse and worse every day. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, the USA is not the only place that has Covid measures in place, also we say asked "provide one RS that says the BGD does not go against the scientific consensus.", "policymakers, and the general public" are not scientists.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


I repeat: I could not find the place where your source says the GBD does not go against the scientific consensus. The sentence Despite these efforts, a consensus among scientists, policymakers, and the general public on how to collectively fight the pandemic and its disparate impacts has failed to emerge in the United States. does not say that. It does not even say there is no consensus among scientists. It says there is no consensus

  • among scientists, policymakers, and the general public
  • in the United States.

That is obviously correct because almost half of the general public in the US cannot tell science from a hole in the ground, making them unlikely to agree with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Calling people out for having opinions is a clear symptom of a losing argument. My reading of the scientific literature is relatively unbiased, and I frankly don't see what you see. I do see smear techniques for articles that make sense, and they tend to be as laughable as the write-up here, but primary research that supports your POV is in short supply, opinion pieces like you quote here, not based upon research are not considered primary evidence for scientists. Opinion pieces that smear research without any confirmatory review, data collected, analyzed, presented and discussed is not science. Citing opinion pieces without any independent data-based validation effort is not science. All this is remote to what is considered evidentiary here, which does not allow science to be cited, so I cannot buy your equivocations and arbitrary opinions with anything beyond crediting you with misplaced wishful thinking. And it is evil, hatred for the common man is not a good way to make friends or influence people. When you hate someone, you do not punish them, only you only suffer from your own antipathy. For you own health and well being, don't do that, and for the rest of us, think twice before sharing vitriol, please. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I repeat: "I could not find the place where your source says the GBD does not go against the scientific consensus."
Maybe it is time that you admit that the link does not say what you claimed it does? Maybe you should even admit you do not have any sources that say it?
It would be more honest than the dodging and deflecting you have been doing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I could not find the place where your source says the GBD does not go against the scientific consensus.-Well, you are asking for something that doesn't exist--there is no scientific consensus--so obviously I can't find it--it only exists as an assumption that you have made but not tested. Prove that any such thing exists, please. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Then you should not have given that source as an answer to the question. Since you now claim that there is no scientific consensus, give a reliable source that says that. The source you gave does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
"My reading of the scientific literature is relatively unbiased"—see Meta:Megalomaniacal point of view.
"Opinion pieces that smear research without any confirmatory review, data collected, analyzed, presented and discussed is not science."—see WP:PARITY. The Great Barrington Declaration is also not science—it is a 500-word opinion piece written by three people. It is unreasonable to expect a dozen peer-reviewed papers in response to every claim made by randos sponsored by science-denying think tanks.
The rest of your comment is the same useless chitchat. Kleinpecan (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
If you wish, I can stop writing here for now. It is obvious that your POV is losing ground. It is also obvious that when I quote anything, even explicit text from reliable sources, you will counter that because of your biased interpretation, not because of the facts, or science. As for opinions, read The Epoch Times article "Pandemic Lessons Learned: Scientific Debate Silenced, With Deadly Consequences" by Joe Wang [9]. To put is succinctly, Fauci's correspondence (Andersen's flip-flop on Covid-19 origins and the subsequent payoff of $8.6 million in grant money) and the money trail he is interpolated into give good evidence of corruption. The epitome of this is his Nov. 28, 2021 statement on CBS's "Face the Nation" in total, "It is easy to criticize [sic, me], but they are really criticizing science, because I represent science." And herein, I have been ridiculously accused of megalomania because I require that scientific conclusions be data-based. In the article it is written "For example, the prestigious British Medical Journal published an editorial on Jan. 19 [sic, 2022] titled "Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now." That's right, to make your point the authors herein reject anything not within their bubble as biased. However, missing from this debate are references to any secondary material that positively reflects upon data based studies, and in its place, we are treated only to ineffectual secondary negative opinions of primary research. Where are the results of data-based scientific studies that support your POV? The extraordinary damage done by this one-sided presentation is largely accomplished, but your narrative is falling apart as actual data is being published to show the excess deaths opposition to the GBD has contributed to, and I will return at some future date when more data becomes available to more soundly condemn you for your irresponsible opinions. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
You wrote 345 words yet not a single one of them is relevant to my comment. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Can people please read wp:or, it does not matter what you think, we go with what RS think.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

No you do not do so. First you find only RS that supports your POV, and then discount everything that does not fit your narrative. So what difference does it make to insist on RS? 207.47.175.199 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:EPOCHTIMES Riiiight. We have now entered orbit around the crank-o-sphere. Alexbrn (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see, and this post is not from the "crank-o-sphere"? Show us a positive result write up of your POV that refers to conclusive primary research based on open data. What the "crank-o-sphere" is, is baseless opinion, and you offer only that.
Stop with the insults, and start making sense or better just drop it. I am perfectly willing to stop writing here, it is obvious you minds are largely made up, because you largely get information from sources that ignore or try to dispute data analysis. Time will continue to erode your narrative. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
The authors here should at least be aware that there is an alternative reality out there. For example, see this GBD review article in "The Pulse" which summarizes a lot of the objections raised in this article's talk section. [10] Now before you holler "fake news" please be aware of three things. First that fact-checking can be fact-checked and with respect to "The Pulse" fake fact-checking and retractions of same have happened three times. [11] Second, that narratives like the one here that use "Appeal to Authority," which in formal logic is considered inadmissible, desperately also need fact checking, and authoritarian sources do not seem to do that well, e.g., [12] Finally, there is such a mass of evidence that calling people "stupid" just because they do not believe what you do just will not last. The World Health Organization claims 1.5 million people died in 2020 from tuberculosis, that the number is rising, investment in it is falling due to attention paid to Covid-19 and a lot of other really grim facts [13], this is not dissimilar to the number who died from Covid-19 with the difference being that Covid-19 will mutate itself into viral cold symptoms, and tuberculosis will not. I could go on listing a lot of diseases that WHO claims have been affected by Covid-19 policy, and even then, in my book, WHO is not trustworthy for multiple reasons including that they actually do fail at least some fact checks, see. [14] It is possible to ignore these things, increases in cancer treatment from neglect, etc. but doing so is a public disservice. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
That alternative reality out there should be handled by the alternative Wikipedia in the alternative universe where it exists. It does not concern us here in this non-Bizarro universe where the GBD suggestions do not work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I will add wp:npa even protects them, either do not respond on reply without the snark.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You know, I reverted changes that were in effect a refusal to listen. I was willing to stop, but I simply refuse to give the last word to someone vandalizing text, and deleting points that are strong rather than dealing with them fairly. The authors here should not hide under a rug and try to ignore what is going on by refusing to realize that we have a major division in society that centers on the GBD. It is what one doesn't know that is dangerous and coins with two identical heads tend not to be fair currency. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

New source, on signatories and their "pillorying"

From the Telegraph, not an op-ed as far as I can tell:

"Yet as Britain’s epidemic begins to fade away, it is becoming increasingly clear that many influential scientists were ignored, ridiculed and shunned for expressing moderate views that the virus could be managed in a way which would cause far less collateral damage.
Instead, a narrow scientific “groupthink” emerged, which sought to cast those questioning draconian policies as unethical, immoral and fringe. That smokescreen is finally starting to dissipate.
Take scientists who supported the Great Barrington Declaration. They, not unreasonably, believed that it would be sensible to shield the most vulnerable while allowing those at very low risk to carry on their lives, thereby preventing cataclysmic damage to the economy, mental health and education.
Instead of the idea being sensibly debated, the signatories were pilloried and made to seem as if they were in the minority. A recent study by Stanford University revealed they weren’t; they just had fewer social media followers and so struggled in the face of more organised opposition."

-For your consideration [15] - SmolBrane (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, about the study mentioned above - [16] - SmolBrane (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm typical complaining from a so-so source (see controversies at its article page and the note at RSP about politics)... Could perhaps be attributed as opinion, like the dubious claim that epidemiologists did not consider many scenarios for "groupthink" reasons, that the passing of a wave is the "epidemic fading away"... —PaleoNeonate – 21:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree it can be cited with clear attribution to the Telegraph. Flipping economists making out they know better, particularly ones with a strong political bent. I like the old joke about an interview of a mathematician, acountant and economist where they were asked what two plus two equals. The economist closes the door and whispers 'What would you like it to equal?". NadVolum (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Some editors note political biases with this source, I don't see any serious deprecation in the recent archives and this issue is not very political. Not grounds for exclusion here unless you can be more specific with your objection. Not sure who the economist is here that Nad is talking about? John Ioannidis is a well published and well regarded researcher in this area, aside from recent criticism with COVID opinions. SmolBrane (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Ioannidis: Depends on what "this area" is. If the area is COVID-19, he has consistently been proven wrong, and he has heavily damaged his own reputation by writing false things about COVID. Quoting him as a COVID expert would be inappropriate. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Great Barrington is an economic research institute which has been involved in climate change denial and extolling the benefits of sweatshops. Jay Bhattacharya PhD i economics as well as being an MD and all three are now as far as I know employed by the Brownstone Institute for Social and Economic Research, an offshoot of the American Institute for Economic Research. Par for the course I guess, in reality I was just annoyed by looking at the 'John Hopkins Study' about 'lockdowns' which is a total load of rubbish. NadVolum (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Context: [16]
And the "economic research institute" is called AIER; Great Barrington, Massachusetts is the place where the institute is situated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I think it'd be WP:UNDUE. We already cite the opinion of numerous high-quality experts; the author of this piece doesn't seem to have any sort of relevant expertise, so what would her opinion on the topic add, and how could we justify weighing it equal to theirs? --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps undue, the language here is fairly pointed. Definitely warrants attribution. What's notable though, is this is a well regarded RS(cited three times already on this article, and the Telegraph is used widely on wiki and well regarded as a leading news source in the UK) and this is not an opinion column. Over 90% of the sources on this article are from 2020, some updating is probably worthwhile. I'll be sure to keep you guys updated if the tone of RSes continues to change :) SmolBrane (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

On the matter of updating the article, another RS non-opinion source [17] that should be included. This one's pretty nuanced and perhaps difficult to include. My thanks to the editors that have the time and dedication to maintain and edit this article; I just don't have the time or the experience. It's always easier to judge an article than edit it, of course. SmolBrane (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ /https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/7AE55E5054DEC1A1D23679FD9E05A52B/S0950268807009156a.pdf/understanding-compliance-and-psychological-impact-of-the-sars-quarantine-experience.pdf
  2. ^ /https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf
  3. ^ /https://health.wusf.usf.edu/health-news-florida/2022-02-02/a-johns-hopkins-study-says-ill-founded-lockdowns-did-little-to-limit-covid-deaths
  4. ^ https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/canadian-physicians-lend-support-for-great-barrington-declaration
  5. ^ ="NIH: cites Wikipedia..."/>https://www.theepochtimes.com/nih-check-out-wikipedia-to-see-why-great-barrington-declaration-is-dangerous_4176405.html
  6. ^ /https://www.allsides.com/news-source/epoch-times-media-bias
  7. ^ /https://www.allsides.com/blog/wikipedia-biased
  8. ^ Lee, Stephanie M. (October 17, 2020). "Scientists Are Slamming The Great Barrington Declration's Call For 'Herd Immunity'". BuzzFeed News. Archived from the original on February 13, 2022. Retrieved February 14, 2022.
  9. ^ /https://www.theepochtimes.com/pandemic-lessons-learned-scientific-debate-silenced-with-deadly-consequences_4256843.html
  10. ^ /https://thepulse.one/2022/01/17/more-than-60000-doctors-scientists-have-signed-the-great-barrington-declaration/
  11. ^ /https://thepulse.one/2021/12/19/3-times-fact-checkers-had-to-retract-false-labels-on-our-articles/
  12. ^ /https://brownstone.org/articles/for-whom-do-the-covid-fact-checkers-really-work/
  13. ^ /https://www.who.int/news/item/14-10-2021-tuberculosis-deaths-rise-for-the-first-time-in-more-than-a-decade-due-to-the-covid-19-pandemic
  14. ^ /https://www.indiatoday.in/fact-check/story/fact-check-what-did-who-say-about-asymptomatic-transmission-of-covid-19-1689025-2020-06-14
  15. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/26/scientific-groupthink-silenced-disagreed-covid-lockdowns/
  16. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/15/lockdown-debate-skewed-sceptical-scientists-shunned-social-media/
  17. ^ https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-split-science-in-two-pandemic/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Barrington_Declaration/Archive_5&oldid=1082530238"