Talk:Swiss Policy Research

Translation

Page is based on the bits of https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Propaganda_Research which I could translate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna795bc (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Applicability of MediaBias/Fack check

I note that MediaBias/Fact check has been cited by Wikipedians in the successful discussion on having The Daily Mail banned and yet is supposedly not reliable due to being 'self published'. I note that they appear to be a bone-fide organisation with a published methodology. We seem to be lacking a clear definition of what self published means in the age of the web. Is it simply, since it is noted to be staffed by volunteers, that we consider all unpaid work or that funded by donations to be self published? I'm not expecting to get a clear answer, but just asking the questions seems important. 86.159.141.204 (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Article does not have NPOV whatsoever

Very blatant biases in writing, lack of suitable citations. Even if all of the claims are true (which, considering the sheer bias and a cursory glance at the citations themselves may not be the case), the writing style should at least attempt to be neutral, no? Have placed NPOV template until this is rectified. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Relevance/importance of Q mention?

"In 2021, Swiss Policy Research suggested that QAnon was a psyop of the FBI."

What is the point of this? How is this pertinent to the topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.160.241 (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfounded claims of conspiracy theories

There is a quotation provided from a 'Daniel Vogler', the type of site is down as 'Propaganda, conspiracy theories' and there is mention in the introduction that the site has been criticised for spreading conspiracy theories, however there is no substantive evidence for these allegations provided. There is also a notable lack of counter claims from SWPRS on wikipedia bias. A narrative that differs from those taken by certain officials is not a conspiracy theory. Furthermore the analysis and information offered by SWPRS are referenced and often quote 'official' sources and statistics. I've just read a translated version of Daniel Vogler's paper and all he has to say on SWPRS is:

As well as the side Swiss Propaganda Research, as pseudoscientific Media research project occurs. Who runs the site is often opaque and difficult to determine. On the websites you can find in the imprint mostly information about an operating company. People are usually not named by name, but only under a pseudonym.

Aside from the fact that this could also be a description of wikipedia, there is no mention of conspiracy theories as the wiki page claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.191.197 (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The mention of conspiracy theories is in the previous paragraph, where he writes A distinction must be made between these and alternative media, which are characterized by three central properties. First, they are critically addressed and discussed in public (including Sunday newspaper November 27, 2016; watson.ch March 3, 2017). Second, alternative media are positioning themselves in direct opposition to the social elite and established information media. They are directed against an alleged “mainstream” in the media landscape, but also in science or politics. Third, they resort to conspiracy theories to back up their criticism of the “mainstream” or the elite.. He then lists SPR as a member of this group of alternative media. In terms of counter-claims, Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, so those are weighted higher than SPR's self-published claims about itself. POLITANVM ^talk 20:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks I didn't find that in my translation. I have improved the accuracy of the sentence anyway otherwise anyone reading this article would assume that there is some evidence of conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.191.197 (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll add a final word on this as I'm confident any attempts to add balance to this article will be reverted, despite the fact that the article is 100% against the site (whilst providing no actual refutation of anything) The quotation from the paper, when you boil it down, basically says; 'SPR is a conspiracy site because some guy says so' and when you look up what he actually says he makes a very general point (that is too broad to be meaningful) about how alternative media sites tend to 'resort to conspiracy theories'. However he provides no evidence of this, so the paragraph is mere tautology.. ironically it is far less convincing than anything I've read on SPR, which is full of sources. It's also ridiculous to call it pseudoscientific which is just an insult rather than an attempt at serious criticism. The site doesn't produce scientific research so how can it be pseudoscientific? It provides analysis and comment. In its own words 'independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit research group investigating geopolitical propaganda'. The 'pseudoscientific' slur is clearly just an attempt to discredit the site. It's sad that these days you can blacken anyone's name by calling them pseudoscientific or a spreader of conspiracy theories, and that there is not even any need to substantiate these claims. This leaves me to conclude that the authors of this article either have a very low threshold for accepting truth, or they are fanatics who have a point to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.191.197 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Publication Type

I am removing the tags "propaganda" and "conspiracy theories" from the side panel. It is fine to leave the criticisms in the article, but there is no real evidence that they are a propaganda office OR that they are peddling conspiracy theories. CNN and MSNBC are not flagged as conspiracy theory publications despite the conspiracies they peddle, nor is Fox News. The Encyclopedia needs internal consistency. The criticisms do look silly if you compare the information we have now that actually aligns reality closer to SPR than the cited sources (especially covid numbers).

I am trying to see what sort of type would be a better fit, they seem to be interested in finding data patterns and researching information market coordination. Again, it is fine to claim in the criticisms section that there are allegations, but allegations are not statements of fact, especially in a tricky situation like this.

Again, this is only a change for consistency. If Daddy wiki wants to add propaganda and conspiracy theories to all media that has engaged in disinformation, then this is fine, but I do not see any disinformation or unsubstantiated accusations. FifteenthClause (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources call them propaganda and conspiracy and pseudoscience based. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say on subjects, not what our opinion as editors is on such topics. You are trying to enforce your personal opinion, which is not relevant. Silverseren^C 00:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I've got no opinion on the matter of their type, I just disagree that the sources being cited are sufficiently authoritative or trustworthy for the purpose of Wikipedia's encyclopedic text claiming the Types being discussed. If we can produce a source that can echo https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/ or https://web.archive.org/web/20201221013854/https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ENG-SWPRS.org-UPDATED.pdf then add it to the article and throw the Type labels on. I'm grateful the SPR site provided these free of charge so that's nice. However the BR24 article does not contextually explore the propaganda, nor does it adequately enumerate conspiracy theories. The Zurich article only briefly mentions SDR, and does not elaborate on the claims it makes, other than a use of citogenesis to circle back to the other author. The Italian professor was quoted by a journalist and claimed it is propaganda because the money source is not determined, which is an opinion, not anything reliable or authoritative.

This is a purely editorial position. Wikipedia is in dire need of consistency- and having apparent right-wing pages lack proper authoritative sources to justify claims only reduces the trustworthiness of the whole site. I wish MBFC and NewsGuard were sufficiently authoritative to be able to use for this purpose, but both have their own problems.

Does this make sense? I am not saying the labels are incorrect, I am saying they are not sufficiently justified by what we have in the article. If they are to stay, the article should be expanded to include a proper source that specifically, in full context, defines the site as propaganda and/or conspiracy theories. Out of context citations, passing comments or shower thoughts are swords that the author dies on, not really something we should be using as a standard for an article that should be able to exit published in its state for all eternity.

Perhaps this is an excessive standard, but I think the standards for the body of the article can and should be different to the standards for the at-a-glance panel. Again, that is my editorial opinion, and I have no interest in the contents of the article beyond this. I won't edit it again, but it is disappointing to such low standards for article integrity. FifteenthClause (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It was fine before, the sources are sufficient. In any case, edit warring is not a solution to anything. Alexbrn (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of clinical trials

I added two citations to this page showing that neither Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine show clear evidence of efficacy in the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. These citations were to appropriately powered peer reviewed clinical trials published in The Journal of the American Medical Association that are cited by both the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control.

While the citations are primary sources as the MERPs state "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials." However, these citations are the clinical trials that have now disproved dozens of bad studies.

I'm having a hard time understanding the reason the largest, and best studies to date on each respective drug, published in JAMA do not meet the standard for reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:5E0C:C057:3040:B769:D87B:C8C3 (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As you note "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". That is especially so for hot topics where ample high-quality secondary sources are available. See WP:MEDFAQ or WP:WHYMEDRS to get some background understanding about why this is so. Alexbrn (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone should cite those "ample high-quality secondary sources" and not add a limited meta-analyses from November 2020, and a limited policy review from December 2020, as the conclusions of those are no longer correct in May 2021. And statements of fact such as "FDA has approved one drug, remdesivir (Veklury), for the treatment of COVID-19 in certain situations." are no longer true. I will be monitoring this page closely to insure no one without the skillset required to evaluate medical literature aren't simply Googling "Drug name + meta-analysis" and immediately cite those studies regardless of the medical accuracy, or whether if those meta-analysis draws a conclusion that supports the statements made on this page, as this has already proven to be a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:5e0c:c057:841f:a6eb:fd4:1470 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Despite the galaxy-class pomposity, we now have an enormous coatrack built on unreliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Those sources included the FDA, CDC, WHO, and European Medicines Agency. The citations that you removed to "reduce coatrack" Included: https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/fda-letter-stakeholders-do-not-use-ivermectin-intended-animals-treatment-covid-19-humans https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/meeting-highlights-pharmacovigilance-risk-assessment-committee-prac-23-26-november-2020 https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-advises-against-use-ivermectin-prevention-treatment-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ and the media report that France, Italy and Belgium ban HCQ outside of clinical trials. https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-fr-idUSKBN2340A6

I'm not sure why you removed these citations to "reduce coatrack", but thank you for your galaxy-class pomposity in assuming that FDA, CDC, WHO, and European Medicines Agency are unreliable sources, but a random meta-analysis you very clearly didn't read is a good source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:5e0c:c057:841f:a6eb:fd4:1470 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Instead of just assuming that you know what you are doing - hint: you don't, you do not even no how to fucking sign your posts, although that is far simpler than most Wikipedia rules, and I had to do it for you again - you should actually read the links Alexbrn helpfully gave you, such as WP:MEDFAQ or WP:WHYMEDRS, and learn the answer to your question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Beginning to suspect this may be trolling, but all we need to cover here is that SPR support these treatments, and for WP:VALID reasons say briefly that this ain't supported by evidence. A single sentence or phrase will do it. This is an article about SPR, not about those drugs, which are covered in detail elsewhere on Wikipedia, as can be discovered through the magic of hyperlinks. Alexbrn (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Notability

This seems to me a non-notable website. It does appear to get mentioned in a few German language sources, but such brief mentions do not necessarily warrant an entire article. The SPR website is basically a blog and nothing is known about the author(s) and judging by the lack of sources (again this thing really only gets a few very brief mentions here and there, but certainly not enough to make waves in German-speaking countries) nothing can be known about who is behind it. If there aren't even any reliable sources to clarify the nature of the blog and who is behind it, then really I think this should head for AfD. Mansheimer (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

These are brief mentions? Silverseren^C 22:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)