Talk:Bret Weinstein/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC on the usage of "spreader of disinformation" in the article

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.

There is a strong consensus to keep the line in the article as is. By a raw count those in favour of keeping it as is strongly outnumber those who oppose it, and as pointed out throughout the course of the discussion, arguments against the line based on a perceived intentionality in the word "disinformation" (as opposed to "misinformation") are somewhat of a moot point given it is an attributed quote, as supported by how WP:V applies to quotations in MOS:PMC. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Should we use the formulation "spreader of disinformation" considering it implies intentional deception in a serious matter of public health? Dylath Leen (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Fine as is. The quotation is accurately sourced, satisfying WP:V. Interpreting this to mean "it implies intentional deception" is a partial personal interpretation. If it said "originator of disinformation" then yes, that could be the meaning, but it is just saying "spreader" - the disinformation could be minted elsewhere and Weinstein just "spreading" it (indeed, this accords with the reality of the situation described). In any case, Wikipedia doesn't do away with relevant, on-point commentary (and Science-Based Medicine is a relevant source per WP:RSP) just because a Wikipedia editor doesn't like their interpretation of it. WP:FRINGE context must be contextualized with a mainstream view. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I am glad I have made some progress with you, and you are no longer claiming this interpretation as entirely and subjectively mine. Unfortunately, it isn't even partially personal interpretation. In fact, it is Wikipedia's own definition of disinformation, which implies all the issues with such a label. If we were to wikilink disinformation in that quote, the nefarious meaning of disinformation would be immediately apparent to any reader. The difference between misinformation and disinformation is not in origin, but in intent. Disinformation is knowingly and maliciously spreading something you know is wrong, usually a lie you made up, to induce a specific outcome. The intent to deceive is the crucial part and a part which is in no way shown by the source. Dylath Leen (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You still don't understand. A "spreader" of something may be unwitting. This way, Weinstein is just dumbly repeating the malicious lies of others. Alexbrn (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. What you are hanging your argument on is a distinction without a difference, because Gorski provides no evidence for the underlying malicious lies either way. You are actually presuming an exceedingly implausible scenario, where Weinstein, Kory and others go through many hours of elaborately pretending to verify the disinformation as genuine before spreading it. A lie on top of a lie. Otherwise they would all be simply mistaken about ivermectin and that cannot be disinformation in the first place. Dylath Leen (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Add Dr. Tess Lawrie to that list, creating an entirely bogus, fabricated bad-faith meta-analysis so there is some disinformation about ivermectin to spread. No way she is honestly convinced in the results of her work. That couldn't be, because Gorski figured her out. Somehow. Off the record. Dylath Leen (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and use another source - This is a serious, potentially libelous, allegation, but it seems more like an off-hand comment by the source and is not supported by any evidence there or elsewhere. It could possibly be a mistake of mixing up "misinformation" and "disinformation" by the source. I propose using the less contentious and better attested "misinformation" from another source attributing this to Weinstein. (EDITED to clarify confusion about my proposal) Dylath Leen (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose both "misinformation" and "disinformation" - if there's something important that he is saying that is false, we should say both what he is saying, and why it is false. As a generic term, this reads as a lazy attempt to smear his character. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It must be noted that this phrase is not in Wiki-voice, but is a direct quote from David Gorski. I have qualms with the presentation of Mr. Gorski as a neutral source, but changing a direct quote to use "misinformation" is obviously a non-starter. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as is It is an attributed comment from a prominent opponent of medical misinformation. "Disinformation" has been widely used to refer to COVID-19 misinformation, see 1 2 without regard to intent, I therefore do not consider the comment defamatory. I should note for the closer that Dylath Leen is a SPA, as can be seen by their contributions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Where do you see that intent is disregarded in case of disinformation in those two links? Dylath Leen (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia If Dylath Leen is a Sock Puppet Account, do you have a link to their socket puppet report page? Yegourt (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

SPA is normally "Single Purpose Account" in wiki-parlance. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see thanks. Yegourt (talk)

• Keep as is but omit the considering that it implies intentional deception, because it doesn't, as explained above, several times. Regarding the question, "should we throw the word 'libel' around again and again?", the answer is No, because the more we use it, the closer we get to legal threats. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you missed a word or made a typo. Anyway, how can we omit it implies intentional deception? The very definition of disinformation Wikipedia provides implies intentional deception and there is no other context for the quote. Dylath Leen (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:BLUDGEON. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose "disinformation"; Support "misinformation". I'm trying to be as fair as possible. The former is clearly assigning bad intent to Weinstein. We should use the latter because it doesn't assume intent. It makes sense to be careful here given that this article is about WP:BLP. Yegourt (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It "WP:CLEARLY" isn't. Are you proposing to fabricate a quotation? Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I guess the real question is whether we should include Mr. Gorski's quotation even if it is clearly a lie (there is no evidence that Mr. Weinstein intentionally set out to deceive). Remember that this is a WP:BLP article. I'd just use "COVID-19 contrarian", and ignore the lie following it. "Misinformation" on the other hand is fit for use in wikivoice. Yegourt (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
      • You don't understand. If person A concocts a lie and person B, thinking it true, repeats it, is person B a liar, or just a "spreader" (like Weinstein is described)? Alexbrn (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Don't change the topic. The "lie" in my previous comment refers to Gorski making a false statement that Weinstein intentionally set out to deceive (which is what "disinformation" means). Also see WP:HARM#TEST (in addition to WP:BLP). Yegourt (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
          • I'm not changing the topic, and you are the one commiting BLP violations by calling somebody a liar. Gorski does not say Weinstein originated disinformation, but that he spread it. Do you not see the difference? WP:CIR. Is English your native language? Alexbrn (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
            • Given that disinformation is "false or misleading information that is spread deliberately to deceive" (and it doesn't distinguish "orginating" vs "spreading"; that's only you bringing the irrelevant distinction here) no reasonable person would conclude that Gorski's "spreader of disinformation" means anything but that (in regards to that deliberate intent). Hence, using Gorski's lie (and I'm not "commiting BLP violations" here give that the subject in question is Bret Weinstein and not David Gorski; and Gorski's statement is false, in regards to that deliberate intent, due to lack of evidence) to paint Bret Weinstein negatively would be a BLP violation in principle. Yegourt (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
              • He should know better, but I doubt it's an actual lie. I think what Hemiauchenia tried to say in his comment was that people are using disinformation and misinformation interchangeably when they mean misinformation. That is what likely happened. Gorski, or anyone else for that matter, in no way shows Weinstein is spreading disinformation in the true sense of the word. There is a silver lining. Thanks to the clear attribution in the article, ultimately, this reflects badly on Gorski. Dylath Leen (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
                • Gorski knows whereof he speaks. Surprised Weinstein didn't make the list.[1] Alexbrn (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
          • You are making unwarranted and erroneous logical leaps. Yes, disinformation is misinformation that is meant to deceive, but it doesn't follow that everyone who spreads it intends to deceive, only that the originator does. Suppose that someone believes the disinformation to be true and spreads it ... that doesn't make it any less disinformation. Consider for instance people who fervently believe The Big Lie and spread it. Their intent is not to deceive, but they are certainly spreaders of disinformation. -- Jibal (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
            • Two huge issues with this:
              1. There is no source showing any of the relevant claims are in fact disinformation. Even if Weinstein is just parroting it, there is no evidence any of it started as disinformation. Using your definition of disinformation, mind you.
              2. Weinstein himself, and with several eminently qualified guests, publicly evaluated the information as genuine. The only plausible way this could actually happen with known disinformation from their field of expertise is if they are all lying, pretending they properly checked the data and sources. Thus lying and originating disinformation anyway. Dylath Leen (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
              • In fact there is evidence that fraud has been promoted, notably one of the Harald Walach antivaxx papers (since discredited) claiming that three people died from vaccines for every two saved, or something. Other than that his guests seem to be a parade of charlatans and quacks, and the entire content of the programs bobble-headed nonsense designed to suck in a certain audience. The point is, Gorski is an expert on this; a random Wikipedia editor is not. Alexbrn (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
            • My comment was about the logic. Your empirical claims, even if they were factually correct, are not issues with that, so this is yet more illogic. I won't comment on this further. -- Jibal (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
              • So that means there are still the same two huge issues I mentioned. The way you are arguing, I think you may be secretly on my side. Dylath Leen (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as is. Mostly per Alexbrn. The quote is reliably sourced and properly attributed. Oppose 'misinformation' per MOS:PMC: it's a direct quote and we shouldn't alter it. I am sorry to see this discussion forming as 'disinformation' vs. 'misinformation' as I don't view the latter to be a viable option. My recommendation for opponents of including Gorski's quote is to look for other, more reliable sources that can be used to evaluate Weinstein's fringe claims. I also want to second Hemiauchenia's point that we shouldn't be describing a living person's comments as libelous without sources, even on this talk page, per WP:BLPTALK. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

To be crystal clear, I am in no way in support of changing the wording of the Gorski quote from disinformation to misinformation. That is rightly unacceptable. I already proposed dropping Gorski as a source, but that was shut down too. What would be considered a "better" source than Gorski? Dylath Leen (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate more crystal clarity, since you're the original proposer of "misinformation". It seems others are also working with a misunderstanding of your proposal. Could you provide some example language of what this would look like? What would be the source for the label?

"Better" in this context would be a source that we could cite for factual claims, as opposed to attributed opinion. MEDRS would be great, but not strictly required here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I did try to explain in the comment and the discussions above, but I underestimated the extent of how much this could be misinterpreted. I edited my proposal to be hopefully more clear.

There are other formulations like "a biologist-turned-podcaster who has spread Covid-19 misinformation" from here and "[Weinstein] keeps having social media posts taken down for spreading misinformation" from here. However, these are so far from RSMED and possibly RS it likely gets us nowhere. Dylath Leen (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification. If I am understanding you correctly, your position is that we should remove the Gorski source entirely. Then, you believe we should add some language that includes the word 'misinformation' and cite it to a different source, although you are not feeling so positive about some of the alternative options. I do see that position as viable, though I oppose it. If you believe it would be helpful more than confusing, I could strike a portion of my !vote since it seems the "change the quote" position is a straw man. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we possibly add @Dylath Leen's position here to the top for future editors coming across the discussion, please? I think it will save us all some time. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 01:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Thanks, but I doubt it would be of any help. Convincing people "disinformation" is problematic and wrong is already an uphill battle. Dropping Gorski as a source is up on Everest. Dylath Leen (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as is Spreader of disinformation is displayed as a quote by an RS. Does not necessary imply that Weinstein is the source, simply a spreader. Per Alexbrn and others Oppose misinformation Adakiko (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as is per Alexbrn and MOS:PMC. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 01:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as is. We have plenty of RSes like the Science-based Medicine article which describe the ways Weinstein spreads disinformation. Our job is to report what the secondary RSes say, not be squeamish about what they say.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you please point me to those sources? If they show Weinstein knowingly and deliberately spreading false information, we should include that over Gorski or at least in support of Gorski. Dylath Leen (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dylath Leen: Here's one. I just added it to the article. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 17:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Dylath Leen, If you check out the many multiple discussions about this on this talk page, you'll see that many sources have been brought up which back this assertion. The SBM is on top of the list, and it is the one we quote.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:, I have not noticed any sources, which "describe the ways Weinstein spreads disinformation". Gorski simply asserts, without showing evidence, Weinstein spread disinformation. Could you please be more specific? I may have missed the smoking gun. Dylath Leen (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Dylath Leen, Here are sources depicting Weinstein spreading false information: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Contrary to your implicit (and, above, explicit) premise, he doesn't have to know it's false for him to be spreading it, or for it to be disinformation. The information is false and blatantly so even if Weinstein never admits to knowing about it. Especially since he often has guests on his show that knowingly spread info that is false and contradictory. And considering that the credentials of himself and his guests should tell him, quite clearly, that he is not qualified to know if some of these things are true, it would thus qualify as intentionally misleading via credentialism in my mind.

Besides, worth saying that this is a quotation and so we aren't responsible for determining if the phrasing is inappropriate, as long as it is properly sourced (and it is). That, in and of itself, renders this moot, and it appears to be the reasoning for why many other editors have already said "keep."

I'm sorry, but it appears from the consensus of this survey so far, that most editors disagree with your interpretation of the phrasing. WP:SATISFY tells us that this consensus is probably what we should go with, even if you are unhappy with the phrasing, and even if you don't think a "smoking gun" source exists. I would advise you to read WP:1AM, and consider that you might be splitting hairs.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think this survey is about my interpretation of the phrasing. Again, the interpretation, if you can even call it that, follows from what disinformation actually is - a tool of propaganda. What you likely meant to say was that there is evidence somewhere in those sources (which do not contain such evidence, by the way; if they did, I am sure you would point it out) that Weinstein is knowingly spreading lies.

There isn't any, because that is patently absurd. He, and the people he has on his podcast regarding this topic, are genuinely convinced they are right. No one, not even Gorski has shown otherwise. Sure, they could be horribly, tragically mistaken and foolishly unconvinced by contravening evidence they should be convinced by. That may even elevate them from being wrong, to spreading misinformation. Ascribing them malice though, that is a whole another level. Which, I can see, seemingly bothers just me. Dylath Leen (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they're sincere True Believers. Maybe they're just really committed to the grift. Maybe it's a mix, grifters interviewing True Believers or vice versa. Who cares? It's not our job to sort that out. We're here to summarize, accurately and proportionately, what the WP:RS say. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, if the reaction was: "it's what the RS literally says, it's the best RS we have, nothing can be done about that, tough luck, kid" I would have just shrugged. Why are people trying to convince me, with no credible evidence, that Weinstein is dishonest and deceptive, though? While there is a slim chance that if I convince them, something may go my way, if they convince me, they gain nothing. It's a bit confusing. Dylath Leen (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, nobody has tried to convince you that Weinstein is dishonest and deceptive. As far as I can see, it's what the RS literally says, it's the best RS we have, nothing can be done about that is essentially what everybody has been trying to tell you all along, in what feels like fifty different wordings. None of it got through to you, and you never shrugged. Either your brain has a really strong word input transmogrifier that turns every random text into "Weinstein is dishonest and deceptive", or that Honestly was a big fat lie. I think you should either start to learn how to communicate with others or give up on it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair, I may have been too subtle here. Let me explain. Trying to convince me "spreader of disinformation" is not wrong is the same thing. Alexbrn has been attempting this, with increasingly absurd arguments, all along. In other words, in this case, "spreader of disinformation" cannot be a factual statement about Weinstein and not also imply dishonesty and deception. Dylath Leen (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It does not imply dishonesty and deception on his part. This has been explained to you at length, and you have now admitted that, contrary to your previous claim, it is not a distinction without a difference, yet you continue to imply that it is. You have charged people with trying to convince you that Weinstein has engaged in dishonesty and deception despite their explicitly stating that they haven't. That is clearly a consequence--not of facts--but of ignoring this distinction, which your comment above repeats. That is what is absurd here, not the arguments of User:Alexbrn, which not become "increasingly absurd" ... it's been the same logically valid argument all along, so please drop that attack. -- Jibal (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

First, just because they say they are not trying to convince me Weinstein has engaged in dishonesty and deception, does not mean they are not doing that. They are often doing it without even realizing it, because they are not thinking their statements through and they are not considering many, if not all, of the pertinent facts.

I am not ignoring the distinction, it just does not apply, but I addressed that elsewhere. Just for fun, could you point me to an example of proven disinformation which Weistein spread? User:Alexbrn couldn't, perhaps you are more capable. Dylath Leen (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Not only are you ignoring the discussion, you're assuming you know other editor's own perceptions of their arguments better than they do themselves. You need to stop. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 22:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I said the exact opposite. I agree, their perception is that they not trying to convince me Weinstein has engaged in dishonesty and deception. The problem is that their arguments taken seriously inevitably lead to such a conclusion anyway. Sure, they disagree, but it's what I think. Dylath Leen (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude:, I linked this exact source earlier. It calls Weinstein a biologist-turned-podcaster who has spread Covid-19 misinformation. Misinformation, not disinformation. Contradicting Gorski and supporting my position. Was that your intention? Dylath Leen (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Disinformation is "false information which is intended to mislead" and I believe the source depicts that by saying Weinstein has made baseless allegations. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 17:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude Dylath Leen, Take up your disagreement of phrasing with Dr. Gorski. If the consensus here is that the quote is properly sourced, then for the purposes of wikipedia, it does not matter if you disagree with how Gorski said it. We quote people who phrase things poorly or "inadequately" to some editors all the time. It isn't our job to copyedit Gorski's articles.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)(edited 18:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC))

@FormalDude: You are reading into the source something that is not there. I was bashed here earlier for the mistaken perception that I wanted to rewrite Gorski (I never wanted that, I wanted him out altogether) from disinformation to misinformation. Now you are trying to do the same thing in reverse to another source. Not only is that wrong, but also weird. Dude, even though the source is making my point, and not yours, you don't need it. Gorski is clearly a superior source and he already says disinformation. No need to twist this one into pretzels. Dylath Leen (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

What is your position then? ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 19:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Striked, as I see you've clarified. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 01:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Collapse confusion about who was replying to whom.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not copy editing, it is paraphrasing. The word "disinformation" conveys essentially the same meaning (especially in this context) as the word "misinformation" does. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 18:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC) FormalDude, Oh sorry, I meant to reply to Dylath Leen, not you. Lemme fix it hold on.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as is. I'm biased here, because spanish is my mother tongue, and we don't have separate meanings in our language for misinformation and disinformation, they both translate to "desinformación". I literally can not comment then on why the distinction is important. Forich (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I suspect that many native English speakers don't draw a sharp distinction between the two, either. Imposing such a distinction amounts to WP:OR in many cases, I'd bet. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

    Completely agree. They have greatly overlapping definitions as well:

    Disinformation false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth (Webster)

    Misinformation incorrect or misleading information (Webster)

    ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 17:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, it can be confusing. Pretty sure even Gorski was confused when he wrote what he wrote. Perhaps disinformation should be wikilinked in the article. Oh, wait, that will unambiguously transform it into an accusation of deliberately spreading false information to deceive. Lying with malicious intent. And somewhere else I was being told misinformation and disinformation are being used interchangeably. So which is it? Dylath Leen (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

    If you're focusing in on the "deliberate" portion, multiple dictionaries have that as part of their definition of "Misinformation". ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 18:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, but not only that part. The even more important and egregious part is the deception and hiding the truth. That's the crux of the issue. Where is the nefarious purpose of this supposed disinformation? Dylath Leen (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

    Are you claiming the word "disinformation" is inherently nefarious? How? ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 01:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

    By reading the definition of disinformation you posted in this thread. And this one disinformation. Dylath Leen (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

    It is completely subjective to assume that deceit is inherently nefarious. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 14:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

    Ridiculous, but perhaps not completely. Deceit has a definite negative slant, on its face it is not a good thing. Without context, it will be read negatively, as nefarious, because deceit cannot happen by accident. There may be fringe cases, where deceit is somehow used for the greater good, but even in such context it does not itself become a good thing. More of necessary evil. Dylath Leen (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

    Is it not deceitful to spread information that you thought was correct but ultimately was not? The result is the same: misleading others. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 15:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

    No, it would only be deceitful if your intent was to mislead other. Dylath Leen (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

    That's just not true. You're misinterpreting the word. Do you not see how you have to specify intent because words like deceit and mislead do not imply purposefulness? One can deliberately cause someone to believe falsely, and one can accidentally cause this. Both are causing someone to believe falsely. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 21:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

    Let's take a look at what Wiktionary has to say about deceit: An act or practice intended to deceive; a trick. Intent is right there in the definition. Tell me again how I was proven wrong, please. Dylath Leen (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

    Because there's not one interpretation of the word disinformation. Multiple dictionary definitions make no mention of intention. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 07:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

    Intent is mentioned here, in your own definition, explicitly, because it says "disinformation is false information deliberately spread in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth". There's intent, a goal. Same goes for words like deception or deceit. Why did you start this whole thread with a definition that supported my reading of the word if you want to argue something else?

    If you have a definition from a solid source that does not mention intent in any way then maybe you have a chance. The burden of proof is still on you to show that what Gorski meant was somehow not the most common, mainstream meaning of disinformation, but something else and special. Otherwise the default is your the definition above, per multiple sources. Dylath Leen (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

    The burden of proof absolutely is not on me... The article already states disinformation in the text with a reliable source. You're one of the only editors dissenting. The burden of proof is completely on you to show how using the status qou "disinformation" is somehow an inaccurate misrepresentation. For the sake of the closer I'm not going to continue dragging on a superfluous conversation with a Single Purpose Account. Take care. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 15:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

    This whole thread you tried to argue the definition of disinformation and what the word means and when you finally realize you lost the argument, you change the topic. Classic.

    I already showed what you are asking for multiple times elsewhere in this RfC. No problem, I like explaining things. There are three main points (focusing on ivermectin, but they apply in general):

    1. None of the sources actually show in any way that what Weinstein (or Kory or Lawrie) are saying is disinformation true to the definition of the word. Sure, it may be completely wrong, but there is no proof of deception that would justify calling it disinformation.
    2. Weinstein and the others mentioned are not just passively relaying disinformation created by other parties. They are all engaged in independent verification of the data and they arrive at these conclusions on their own. Unless they are lying about all of that, but, again, there is no proof they are.
    3. Finally, the only valid argument in this thread, it seems disinformation is sometimes used as a different word for misinformation. In this case, I want to see clarification of the Gorski source it does not actually mean disinformation in the true sense of the word. Which I am sure is impossible, because Gorski likely thinks Weinstein et al. are actually lying. He just does not bother proving it. Dylath Leen (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Fine as is. The tone of this section is unduly negative but this quotation is accurately sourced, satisfying WP:V.Pakbelang (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as is; it's a quote attributed to an expert cited via a reliable secondary source. Also, I would raise an objection to the wording of the RFC, which is potentially misleading in a non-neutral manner - should we use the formulation implies that it this is asking whether it should be used in the article voice, when what is being discussed is the inclusion of a quote. Based on that potential misreading I ask the closer to interpret any arguments to exclude that are worded in a way that implies that they were misled by this as merely objection to a hypothetical use of the term in the article voice and not as objecting to an attributed quote. --Aquillion (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

My bad. I should have formulated it more carefully. Either way, the Oppose voices so far understand it is about a sourced quote. Dylath Leen (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as is The current text gives a sober and accurate statement that doesn't try to get into Weinstein's head. The RfC's claim about implication is unfounded; I'd go so far as to say that the bald assertion that it implies intentional deception makes this an ill-posed RfC. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have said it elsewhere, but I feel this is serious enough allegation, I should deny it consistently. It is not a "bald assertion", it is the most obvious way to read the text, backed by the very definition of the word disinformation. Dylath Leen (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Except you fail to refute that disinformation does not necessarily mean purposeful deceit, and you fail to refute that purposeful deception is inherently nefarious or wrong. Your reasoning constitutes WP:OR and your comments are becoming disruptive. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 21:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I refuted both just fine. Using nothing more than definitions of words. By the way, how do I know your assertions are not WP:OR? Where are your sources? Mine's any dictionary. Dylath Leen (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see the above conversation on how @Dylath Leen is misrepresenting dictionary definitions as a means of voiding the sources in the article. DROP THE STICK pal. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 22:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Which dictionary definition I misrepresented and how? I would never do that, man. As I already mentioned way earlier I can live with the disinformation quote staying in the article. I mean, it's wrong, baseless accusation of deception on Weinstein's part, but at least it is clearly attributed to Gorski, so, ultimately, it reflects much worse on him than Weinstein. Can you live with the fact that I think that? Dylath Leen (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as is per arguementation. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as is per Alexbrn and MOS:PMC. DoctorJoeE ^Stalk/_Talk 19:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as is per the points made above. Sea Ane (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as is; "disinformation" does not imply an intent by the spreader to deceive, only such an intent by the originator of the information (which is certainly not "a distinction without a difference"). Many people unknowingly spread false claims that were intentionally designed to mislead people; I've done it on (hopefully) rare occasions. My not knowing that it was disinformation doesn't mean that it was no longer disinformation. -- Jibal (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

True, that is not a distinction without a difference, but it is also not what I was referring to. Let me try it from another angle. Could an astrophysicist unknowingly spread disinformation about Earth being flat? Dylath Leen (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes if they're a bad astrophysicist and I'd argue that physicist in general have been doing that throughout history. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 13:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

That's completely ridiculous and unrealistic. It is impossible for an actual astrophysicist to be so bad so that they do not realize the Earth is not actually flat. The only way you could ever convince me of that is to find me an example. Dylath Leen (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"The myth of the flat Earth is a modern historical misconception that European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat." It's not impossible and you clearly underestimate human ability to be stupid. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 15:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I urge you not to feed the strawman fallacy here. While it may well be true that it's impossible for an actual astrophysicist to be so bad so that they do not realize the Earth is not actually flat, it obviously is not impossible for a biologist to spread disinformation without realizing that it is disinformation. -- Jibal (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I know all that. It's a great article, but you are going to love this Modern flat Earth beliefs. Dylath Leen (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I have read what you have written, and it is what you were referring to. In any case, if you accept that it's not a distinction without a difference, then you acknowledge that "spreader of disinformation" is valid. Please do not "try from a different angle" to defend an erroneous position with transparently bogus rhetoric based on trying to come up with a case so extreme that it might win support; that is a blatant strawman fallacy. Many people have repeatedly tried to explain how your position is erroneous, but it is clear to me that it is and will forever be fruitless, and that there is a strong consensus here, so I won't respond further. -- Jibal (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

P.S. As the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bret_Weinstein#Covid-19_and_Ivermectin says, "going nowhere", and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bret_Weinstein#Misinformation,_disinformation_and_Bret_Weinstein says "Attempting to relitigate". It's time to move on. -- Jibal (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

No need to bother with all that. You can check with me directly to find out what I was referring to... Hey, I already told you. How convenient! Anyway, the astrophysicist example was just the first brick in the wall. You understood it right away, unlike FormalDude, who is all over the place. I could then refine this example to be arbitraly close to the instant case. Using other such bricks that would, I am sure, also eventually get your blessing. Ultimately I would have a structural analogue to how "spreader of disinformation" implies deception on Weinstein's part. Dylath Leen (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You have been proven incorrect multiple ways. At this point your editing has become disruptive. Please consider taking a break from this page. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 22:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You just gave up making arguments and went straight to claiming victory. I hope that's going to work out for you. Pro tip: if you stop responding to me, I will stop responding to you. Dylath Leen (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop with the incessant bludgeoning and badgering and incivility that has gone on for weeks, SPA. I'm not interested in rhetorical tricks that apply a Sorites argument to a strawman--your "bricks" failed at the destination. It's well past time for you to drop the stick. Over and out. -- Jibal (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, not just WP:STICK, throwing around actual policy. First of all, I did not reply to every !vote, much less argued with it. I am also not replying to every comment in this discussion. I am replying to most replies to me; is that against a policy? FormalDude went around pointlessly replying with repetitive, riddiculous accusations to pretty much every one of my comments, even in this very thread. I don't see you disciplining him, so pretty sure I am OK. And bringing up incivility too... is that actually the case though? Any clear-cut examples? Considering your total miss with WP:BLUDGEON I think I am safe.

I know you are not interested in the argument, but that does not mean it wouldn't work. You have seen only the first brick so far and you accepted it. The other ones are just as good. Dylath Leen (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as is. The point is well sourced. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as is.Thelostone41 (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Weinstein's falsity

Firstly, the sentence "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines" has no place being included in an introductory first paragraph -- despite the fact that the sentence is without support and merely the opinion of the editor. It shouldn't be included in the first paragraph because the subjects views on Covid treatments have not played a significant part in his life. The fact that such views are currently topical should have no bearing.

Secondly, the sentence "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines" is politically biased. A fair editor would have written "Weinstein has been criticized for making statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines" with the word "false" not included since it is opinion.

The matter of politically-biased editorial opinion continues throughout the page, with one sentence dealing with a scientific debate being declared untrue by reference to a Politifact article. Surely the editor sees how laughably ridiculous this is? Wikipedia has been destroyed by such political bias. And that is the opinion of the creator of the website.

Weinstein's COVID misinformation looks like being his most significant contribution to history. Wikipedia says his false claims are false because of policy. If somebody makes a quack claim, that's not "political", it's just quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, there are probably more tactful and informative ways of stating the same, especially in the lead of a BLP. The term "false statements" does lack precision, as just like "misinformation" could range from benign to extreme. Wikipedians can be pretty heavy-handed and reactionary with their descriptions and labeling of any COVID-related dissidence or heterodoxy, perhaps in a well-intentioned desire to stomp out any flames of misinformation lest they spread further. A true article is not necessarily a well-written article. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

to be fair, reliable sources are pretty harsh on "dissidence or heterodoxy", when it's quackery, grift, lies & idiocy. To be neutral, that is simply reflected. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't edited Wikipedia in years but I just had to comment on the utter indefensibility of this level of bias. This introductory sentence is a laughably unsourced non-claim: "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines." Really? What statements? Are we to infer these statements from the citation? Okay, let's read the citation -- oh my goodness, it's a fully unsourced opinion screed from someone named David Gorski. Well, let's see who David Gorski is by clicking on his byline at Science-Based Medicine -- Hmm... Apparently, he's not important enough to have a page on Science-Based Medicine. Perhaps Wikipedia has a page on this David Gorski character:

"... surgical oncologist, professor of surgery at Wayne State University School of Medicine, and a surgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, specializing in breast cancer surgery. He is an outspoken skeptic, and a critic of alternative medicine and the anti-vaccination movement. He is the author of the blog, Respectful Insolence, and the managing editor of the website Science-Based Medicine."

Ho-kay! I guess writing a rambling hot mess of incoherent "outspoken skeptic" opinion on various blogs is his hobby to relax after a hard day of oncology surgery professoring; but is that really what passes these days for a Wikipedia citation to back up the claim "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements?" Really? 108.178.140.218 (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. For fringe medicine, health fraud, grift, etc. Science-Based Medicine is well-respected as one of the world's foremost sources. This has been repeatedly discussed as various WP:PROFRINGE types get upset when their particular type of woo is targeted, so there have been repeated attempts to denigrate this source. Per WP:NPOV policy Wikipedia likes to make prominent when fringe ideas (like antivaxx) are in play, and since Weinstein has gone there, that is the reality. Wikipedia can't change that reality, sorry. Alexbrn (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that website. It may have many valuable articles in it. However, the specific article cited is nothing but an extended opinion piece written by one man about how discussion of ivermectin gives him the heebie-jeebies because it feels similar to discussion of hydroxychloroquine. That citation supposedly supports the vague claim "Weinstein has been criticized (by someone) for making (unspecified) false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines." The op-ed piece mentions no specific statement by Weinstein. And the op-ed piece certainly fails to meet the very high bar of demonstrating that such a mystery statement is factually false. There is NOTHING IN THAT ARTICLE to support the statement it is offered as a citation for. Not even close! 108.178.140.218 (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better if you did familiarize with sources before commenting, particularly given your childish rhetoric? Per Gorski, Weinstein is a conspiracy-monger and spreader of disinformation, so what we have is a fair summary of Gorski's straightforward observation. if you think Weinstein somehow hasn't been criticized then WP:CIR. Alexbrn (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The citation does not point to the website as a whole. The citation points to a specific op-ed rant by a specific oncology professor. The sentence it is meant to support does not say Weinstein ``is a conspiracy-monger;`` it says Weinstein ``made false statements.`` Perhaps it would be better if both you and I familiarize ourselves together with your citation.

So my text search reveals two offhand characterizations of Weinstein:

"...Bret Weinstein, who has become prominent as a COVID-19 contrarian and spreader of disinformation, particularly about the “lab leak theory” of SARS-CoV-2 origins and now likes to Tweet about..." (Does our man Gorski know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?)

"Certainly, the conspiracy mongering by Bret Weinstein, Pierre Kory, and their fans are not leading me to reconsider that opinion." (Hahah! Even Gorski knows this is an opinion piece.)

Wow. So that's your standard of evidence? Some guy once threw shade by obliquely name-calling Weinstein in two separate unelaborated dependent-clause bombs in a somewhat tangentially related rant about somebody else. Well, the sentence "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements..." is not supported by your op-ed piece. Nowhere in that pile of words is an actual criticism of an actual false (or more appropriately, controversial or heterodox) statement made by Weinstein. Try again.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2021 (2)

Change "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines." To "Weinstein has been accused of making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines." Infiniter (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Alexbrn (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Weasel words. "Weinstein has been criticized" -- Really? By whom? And what is the actual criticism? How about this instead:

Actual_name has criticized[source] Weinstein for saying, "actual_statement,"[source] a controversial statement inconsistent with prevailing expert opinion[source]." What's there now is trash. Replace it with something real or get it out of there. 108.178.140.218 (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Who has he been criticized by? YouTube, for one: They demonetized his video and his channel received a strike, which prevented him from posting content for one week.

The article text you're referring to is all backed up by reliable sources; all you have to do is read them. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 04:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so now we have a slightly more specific and well sourced version of the assertion:

An anonymous employee of YouTube has implicitly criticized Weinstein for publishing a particular yet unidentified video through the communications channel of demonetization, claiming the video violated some unspecified aspect of "community standards", and further issuing a "strike", which prevented Weinstein from posting content on the website for one particular week of 2021. [This claim is sourced to an Eric Weinstein video on YouTube on which unreliable source Eric Weinstein himself explains his experiences with YouTube censorship of Eric Weinstein.]

I suppose that is a bit of an improvement in specificity and citation quality.

Even so, adding two more links to two more opinion pieces adds no additional support to the article's claim that Weinstein has made "false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines." No amount of opposing opinion makes one or more unspecified statements into falsehoods. I think it's time you come clean with exactly what super-secret statement is being criticized by that cancer surgeon, and how we know it is a "false" statement and not merely a difference of opinion. 108.178.140.218 (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears FormalDude has finally come up with an actual claim of a "false" assertion attributable to Bret Weinstein, and here it is:

Bret's claim: Ivermectin is “99 percent effective” in treating COVID-19; that it could be used as a prophylaxis against infection; that were it widely used, the pandemic would end in “a month" and "eradicate COVID-19."

Where did he say it: his podcast and Twitter.

Okay, now we are inching closer toward an actual example of a "false" statement. Good. Good. Now it's time to specify that dubious example of shoddily sourced verbiage into the weasel sentence about "false statements." So it ought to be change from this:

Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines.[5][6][7]

to this:

Weinstein has been called a "spreader of disinformation" and a "conspiracy monger" by David Gorski[5] for stating Ivermectin is 99% effective as a prophylaxis against COVID-19cite, a claim inconsistent with JAMA findings according to "Gideon M-K; Health Nerd."cite

108.178.140.218 (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a lede statement meant to summarize the COVID-19 section. If you have a problem with how Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines characterizes this section, feel free to address that. But I seriously doubt anyone will support your wordy and redundant proposal. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 03:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

We summarize what the reliable sources say, and multiple reliable sources report on the falsity of Weinstein's statements. We further summarize those points in the lead section; WP:WEASEL specifically indicates summary in the lead as an exception to the guideline. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

As above, we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2021

The entire statement "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines." is factually inaccurate and misleading. the sources linked do not vindicate the statement. The statement is opinion and libel. It best be removed in it's entirety. JR (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not libel to point out a quack claim that someone made. And this is certainly significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. ––FormalDude^(talk) 01:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, if that sentence were to actually point out any quack claim whatsoever, and not merely hand-wave "false statements," and if that quack claim were actually addressed by the citation, then you might have a point. That citation is a fully unsourced rambling opinion screed, and the only claim of Bret Weinstein it addresses is about censorship, not "about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines." That incoherent rant on the opinion site Science-Based Medicine in no way supports the assertion, and in any case the claim is entirely without meaning. 108.178.140.218 (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 04:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. That website "is considered" reliable. And yet the particular article you cited is nothing but the sprawling rant of one man, which doesn't even mention a false statement by Bret Weinstein. You claim it does, so quote to me the sentence or paragraph where the good doctor Gorski nails Dr. Weinstein with the assertion of any false statement whatsoever. I claim you cannot do that, because no such language is in there. 108.178.140.218 (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

While I normally wouldn't break down the explicitly obvious main point of an article, I can see you struggle with reading comprehension, so I'm happy to help:

Bret's claim: Ivermectin is “99 percent effective” in treating COVID-19; that it could be used as a prophylaxis against infection; that were it widely used, the pandemic would end in “a month" and "eradicate COVID-19."

Where did he say it: his podcast and Twitter.

How it's proven false: A high-quality study published in JAMA found that in a randomized clinical trial that included 476 patients with mild COVID-19, “a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms.” (See this detailed assessment of ivermectin studies, as broken down by Australian epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz) ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 19:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

That particular tweet says nothing of what you mention as Weinstein's claims. It may be in the podcast, but it would be useful to provide timestamps. I am sure you did careful work sourcing these claims properly, but I would like to double check. Especially for the precise wording and context. That can be sometimes tricky.

The JAMA study, which is supposedly proving Weinstein wrong, is concerned with treatment, not prophylaxis. So it would be only a partial rebuttal, if that. Dylath Leen (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Prophylaxis is treatment... they mean practically the exact same thing. I watched the podcast to confirm his statements some time ago, so I have no interest in going back and trying to time stamp each quote (especially since multiple reliable sources, such as Houston Press, already quoted Weinstein extensively). The tweet is Weinstein supporting a discounted study that promotes Ivermectin, and there's plenty of other tweets (1, 2,3) where he advocates for Ivermectin through false evidence. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 20:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a very disappointing take. You would do well to familiarize yourself with some of the basics of this topic. Prophylaxis is not treatment. Specifically, a study focused on one cannot tell you anything about the other.

My concern is that none of the tweets are unequivocal claims for ivermectin's effectiveness or other "false" statements you mention. I worry you are misunderstanding Weinstein's claims from the podcast in the same skewed way you are misunderstanding his tweets. Dylath Leen (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Man you're full of equivocations. Prophylaxis is literally a type of treatment.

• Definition of prophylaxis: "The term prophylaxis means preventative, or to prevent. Greek in origin, from the word "phylax", meaning "to guard" and "watching", prophylactic treatment is frequently used in health care to minimize illness and disease." (Jennifer Whitlock, RN, MSN, FN and Scott Sundick, MD.)
• Definition of prophylactic: "A prophylactic is a medication or a treatment designed and used to prevent a disease from occurring." (William C. Shiel Jr., MD, FACP, FACR)

Your concern is unfounded. One would have to be cynically naive to think Weinstein's tweets and podcast claims are not uneqivocial claims for ivermectin's effectiveness. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 23:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, you have a very singular way of being wrong. Why would you just throw out all context and focus on the word "treatment" as though it matters?

Your first reference talks about time to resolution of symptoms. That means the study was trying to figure out whether ivermectin is a cure for COVID-19. As in do sick people on ivermectin get better faster? That's obviously not prophylaxis, which is supposed to prevent a disease from occurring. As in does ivermectin lower the chance of healthy people catching COVID-19?

Two different questions about two different effects needing two differently designed studies. How could you confuse this? Perhaps medical topis aren't for you. Dylath Leen (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Dylath Leen, it's irrelevant because Weinstein advocated for both. And neither has high quality evidence.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, is accuracy too high a standard for discussion here? That would actually explain a lot. Dylath Leen (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Dylath Leen, What specific problems do you have with the page, and what WP:RSes do you bring to the table to contradict the sources of those problematic statements? Broad discussions about wikipedia don't get very far, and are not the purpose of this page. With regards to the Gorski quotes, it is not our place to question what Gorski relies on to make his statements. It is our job to accurately reflect the content of our sources. I believe we do this in this specific scenario, given that Weinstein has said on national TV (Fox): "the evidence is strong that ivermectin works both as a prophylactic and as a treatment if given early." [8]. And we have Gorski directly critiquing this, describing all the evidence that Ivermectin is ineffective. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. We also have many others critiquing Weinstein's statements: [14] etc etc. many are in the article already.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Gorski is describing the same evidence as Weinstein. Their interpretation of it is different. The way you phrase it does not make that clear.

Anyway, my concern was that User:FormalDude was throwing around random, inconclusive tweets, a whole podcast, and then mixing up prevention and treatment. That is why I interjected. There was a risk people could confuse his comment with a good argument. Dylath Leen (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Dylath Leen, the difference is that Gorski is in line with the scientific consensus, whereas Weinstein is not.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I am well aware. While consensus in case of, say, plate tectonics is a serious thing, in case of a virus, a disease and vaccines not even two years old, it doesn't mean much. Dylath Leen (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

For you, it doesn't. For Wikipedia articles, it means the same as with plate tectonics. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I know. There is only one kind of consensus on Wikipedia and that's any consensus. I bet there were attempts to introduce some nuance akin to WP:RECENTISM. They clearly failed. Dylath Leen (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a lot wrong here. First, it's blatant WP:SYN. Second, it completely misunderstands science; studies that fail to show some effect do not prove anything true or false ... science isn't in the business of proof, everything is provisional, and one clinical trial with one finding can be followed by another clinical trial with an opposite finding. Finally, it makes no logical sense ... a study that shows that something doesn't improve the time to resolution of symptoms cannot possibly disprove a claim about it as a prophylactic, which is administered to prevent the disease and its symptoms and is administered before such symptoms arise. Even if "prophylaxis" and "treatment" were synonyms, and they certainly aren't (prophylaxis is treatment the way poodle is dog), such word games cannot overcome the basic logic. On that score, treatment can be either prophylactic or therapeutic; application to people with a disease in progress, and talk about symptoms and their resolution, is obviously therapeutic, not prophylactic. The WP:SYN and the extremely poor reasoning and word games here are not at all suitable to Wikipedia, let alone to a claim that a living person is making false claims. (I'm taking no stand here on whether or not the subject has made false claims, just on this particular horribly bad argument.) -- Jibal (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Jibal, if many of the large reliable studies into this topic (and meta analyses of those studies) have failed to show an effect, most scientists would tell you that the effect, if it exists, is likely to be quite small. Not "99% effective" by any means. The statistical probability is almost negligible. You cannot prove a negative, but you can get closer and closer to understanding its probability.

As for whether this is SYNTH, it isn't. Lead sections summarize content in the body of the article. SYNTH is not summary.

This entire conversation about different types of treatment is a non-sequitur. It is irrelevant, because the statement is well-sourced, as are the other statements about Weinstein's misinformation. And, by the way, Weinstein said on a media appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight that "the evidence is strong that ivermectin works both as a prophylactic and as a treatment if given early." [15] So again, this entire conversation about the distinction between these two is irrelevant, because Weinstein clearly advocated for both.

In the article, we describe several false and misleading statements Weinstein has made about COVID-19 and its treatments (downplaying the effectiveness of vaccines, questioning whether spike proteins kill the cell, etc.) We then summarize those statements in the lead. This is entirely in line with WP:PAGs.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. "I'm taking no stand here on whether or not the subject has made false claims, just on this particular horribly bad argument." As for "This entire conversation about different types of treatment is a non-sequitur" -- you seem not to know what that term means--what you want to say is that it is moot, and that may well be--again I did not address the larger issue, just one particular very bad argument. In any case, your comments are not at all responsive to mine. But I'm used to that sort of thing, sadly. I won't respond further. -- Jibal (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a non-sequitur in that the IP is continually moving the goal posts and I, stupidly, engaged with them each time. As shibbole pointed out, the argument does not logically follow the question at hand, which is if the statement is well sourced and accurate. It clearly is, and I won't be engaging with the IP editor anymore. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 03:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Jibal, "non-sequitur" translated in the literal--> "it does not follow". I believe you have elsewhere described that you have advanced training in logic. My apologies if I misunderstood the argument your comment was making, it was not very clear.

There is no logical connection between arguing about what counts as a type of "treatment" and whether or not this is SYNTH.

The only thing that matters in whether something is SYNTH is whether or not it creates a novel thesis out of content in the sources, in a way that could potentially be WP:OR. And this does not meet that criteria, as it is a fair summary of what exists in the cited sources, and the lead is a fair summary of those more elaborative statements in the body.

In the future, I would urge you, when accusing someone of SYNTH, to be clearer about which two or more present concepts in the sources are being combined into a novel thesis. It will make your argument a lot stronger and more convincing.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

"it was not very clear" -- It was very clear; the fault doesn't lie with me. And when I say that I won't respond further, it's extremely rude to then attack me and claim I was unclear when I wasn't. It is you who failed to understand my argument even though it was carefully laid out, or what I was saying was WP:SYN -- obviously not the statement in the lede, since I explicitly said I wasn't talking about that--it's obviously SYNTH to claim that a report of some clinical trial disproves a claim by some person not even named in that report. And it doesn't take advanced training to see that your entire comment is a string of non sequiturs and logical leaps. Now as we are firmly off topic, please leave me alone. Goodbye. -- Jibal (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Jibal, sorry, when you say "I won't respond further" that doesn't typically mean you also are restricting whether or not someone responds back. You cannot control whether or not someone else argues against your arguments, my friend. Wikipedia is built on open and fair-minded criticism of all sides. These discussions continue on without you, but you are of course free to excuse yourself at at any time, and I am not interested in harassing you in any way, I was simply critquing the content of the arguments you presented. Have a good one, and I'm sorry to have upset you.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You didn't criticize my arguments, you criticized me as being unclear--you never addressed my argument at all. A decent human being would say "I had trouble following your argument; this confused me: ...". Now leave me alone and stop with the non-substantive comments, nonfriend. -- Jibal (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Jibal, the antecedent of "it" in the statement "it was unclear" was "the argument your comment was making" not "you." To clarify, it was not very clear to me.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Jibal, I specified that prophylaxis is a type of treatment, as you should have observed, given your comparison "prophylaxis is treatment the way poodle is dog". ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 03:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit request 26 August 2021: remove "falsely" from the Spike protein claim

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is no evidence of toxicity of Spike protein, and there is no evidence that it's not toxic, so the sentence "Weinstein has falsely claimed that the spike protein produced by or contained within COVID-19 vaccines is "very dangerous" and "cytotoxic" is completely wrong. Since it's a controversial topic, I actually didn't need to prove why on Wikipedia you don't write "This is false, this is true" if there's no evidence, but I will keep doing that if needed. You could easily write the same sentence without the word "falsely". I don't see how could you write "This is a controversial topic" everywhere and then put the word "falsely" straight in a sentence. Datafiller (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that back this up?Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Both citations for that sentence prove you wrong, the Reuters source going into particular detail about why you're wrong. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"Reuters goes into particular detail". After 2 years in which every scientist has a different opinion about everything, there is just need for an article which only says "There is no proof of spike's toxicity" to prove there is not, under a controversial article? I can't see where Reuters goes into particular detail since it's not. Stating that this topic is controversial and putting the word "falsely" in a sentence is a huge contradiction. Datafiller (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Why? something can be controversial because it is wrong. We need TS backing your contentionSlatersteven (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I've stated my case as fully as I care to. If other editors are more convinced by your arguments and (lack of) sources than my arguments and sources, then I am happy to bow to consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Datafiller, The evidence that it's not toxic lies in the clinical trials which show little to no ill effects in vaccinated individuals. Full stop. That is why so many MEDRSes support the mRNA vaccines as safe and effective. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Producing controversy means producing controversy. If someone falsely claims that the Earth is flat, there is no controversy, it's just a false statement: what could be controversial is that the person who made this statement could have an important role in a country, like being a politician. What makes this topic controversial, if you can say that someone made a false claim, even if there is no evidence that it's false? We could just write "Weinstein claimed this, and produced a controversy since there is no proof", much difference from saying that it's false. Datafiller (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope you see the difference. I am asking you to avoid use the word "falsely" since there is no evidence; we are on Wikipedia and it is better to be generic, also because you can see everywhere "controversial topic, controversial, controversial", but then you don't treat this topic as controversial. Datafiller (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Provide RS saying it is not false, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy to see people keep saying "I am right, full stop, end of the story". If a topic is controversial, you treat it as controversial. Saying in few words "There is no proof Spike is toxic" is not a fully explanation after 2 years of contradictions about scientists' statements. Datafiller (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

We are not we are saying provide RS to back your claim.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request 28 August 2021: remove "falsely" from the Spike protein claim

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At this point there is enough evidence to ask you again to delete the word "falsely" about Spike protein from the Bret Weinstein page. I have this two cases to prove my sentence. At first, on the Reuters article you can clearly understand that even if so far there is no proof of Spike toxicity in vaccines, we could actually find out in the future that there is (Yes it is not clearly written, but easy to get, otherwise they would say "It's false, full stop"). Then, I have been told "We report what the majority view is" on Wikipedia: actually Science does not work by majority, but if you prove something, everyone should and must "believe" in that, which means you can only think what has been carefully proved.

You could say "Yes you are right, but Wikipedia works by consensus", however under a controversial topic the reason to say that something is clearly true or false, cannot be "Our majority legitimate thinks something while the minority, not recognized as legitimate, thinks something wrong", since I have also been told that Spike is not toxic in and of itself while there are studies about it .

Yes Wikipedia works by consensus, but controversial does not mean "You can write everything as soon as you agree with us", it means there is need to care much about what is written in an article. Why saying "Be careful of writing about this topic" and then easily call something false while there is no evidence? You should be careful of saying it. As previously said, very legitimate virologists said sentence in contradiction with each other, or statements with no proof . Last discussion was closed because I was accused of saying that I am right and every scientist is wrong. I am just asking you to modify a sentence in an article to have quite the same meaning but more appropriate form.

In conclusion, in this article we are leaving a sentence that could be proved wrong in the future, just because "A majority of scientists" (far from being more than 50%) said it is false, while we could just say that Weinstein claimed something controversial and "the majority of scientists says it is false", like in sports you write "He is called the best player in history by the majority of experts". The sentences "He has falsely claimed" and "He has claimed this, which is controversial and considered wrong by the majority" have a completely different impact. Datafiller (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources

No idea what you are trying to say, so I expect us to keep on correctly saying that Weinstein falsely etc., per sources. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You can say someone falsely claimed the Earth is flat, because it's not. Instead there is no reason to write "falsely" here, since the same source that has been mentioned does not say "Spike protein in vaccines is not toxic", but it says "There is no evidence so far"; so it would be much more correct to write "Weinstein has said this, but it is not verified / it is thought to be false by most of scientists".Datafiller (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

In addition, I just said "The source you used does not says "It is not toxic" but "There is no evidence so far", and the reply is "We keep on saying things per sources". Like I claim it is sunny while looking at the sun and someone tells me "It is not sunny and we will keep saying that per sources". Datafiller (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Firmly disagree. To wikipedia, "he has falsely claimed X" is an accurate summary of "He has claimed X, which is controversial, and X is considered wrong by the majority.", especially when mostly fringe people who are not part of the mainstream scientific community believe X is true. See WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, and WP:RSUW. To give the fringe scientists who believe it is toxic any more weight in this article would be UNDUE.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes I have already been told about Wikipedia consensus, and explained everything about it. I can read "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" in WP:DUE. So how can it be so difficult to prove that Spike protein is not toxic? There are studies about the toxicity of Spike (and I want to clarify that I know could be toxic for Sars_Covid2 but not for vaccines), and the only source I can see is a website who just claims "There is no evidence so far".

Fact-checking something means "We proved it wrong" not "We proved we don't know". As soon as we go further in the discussion, after I have mentioned some reference about legitimate virologist in Italy (one of the most important country when we talk about Medicine), I can only see that everyone who disagrees with you is called fringe or not legitimate. Still waiting for a "legitimate majority" of scientist and other sources to prove Weinstein wrong. A whole article called controversial and in which you can see everywhere "Be careful of writing here" and we easily call "false" something that could be true in the future. And just to clarify, I don't believe Spike is toxic and I don't believe it's not, just waiting for the studies about it. Datafiller (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Silence gives consent. Appreciated your dialectic, if only you replied to the single statements I have done instead of keeping what supported yours and ignoring what was in contrast. As far as I am concerned, going further on this discussion is no longer prolific, I know that to have something changed in this article, I need a majority of users somewhere who agrees with me. Datafiller (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

..... and reliable sources -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Datafiller, Silence is not consensus nor is it assent. Editors have litigated this discussion many other times on this talk page in the past and have come to the conclusion that this wording is valid. You have not provided anything novel which would overturn that consensus. Check the archives to see what I mean.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I have both told you why a debunk page who says "There is no evidence so far" is not a source to prove your statement, and explained many other things beginning from the fact that there are studies on Spike toxicity, providing sources. I expected a reply to the many statements I did in the very first message of the discussion, since I have written it very carefully, instead I received only "Provide some reliable sources which are reliable as soon as they agree with us". Still waiting for a response to the fact that this article should be treated carefully as it is controversial, and clearly using that Reuters article is not the way you treat it. Datafiller (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Datafiller, Reuters is perhaps one of the most reliable news sources that exists. As an aside, I encourage you to read WP:SATISFY. Bludgeoning others who do not find your arguments compelling with repeated "expectations" won't get you very far.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Never said Reuters is not reliable. The Reuters article does not prove what is written in the Weinstein one. I am pretty sure Wikipedia does not require just "sources", but this source should actually prove what is written in an article. That is what I am saying. Writing "There is no evidence so far" is not a proof to state that someone's claim is false, because false means false, not "There is no evidence that it is true so far". I can say "The Earth is flat" is false, I cannot say "Spike protein in vaccine is toxic" is false, since in the future we could find out something else, but we cannot find out that the Earth is flat. Datafiller (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Datafiller: I skimmed over this, I think I can tell what you're asking for, but for clarification, please provide the exact text in the article currently, and the exact proposed text that you want to replace it with. ––FormalDude talk 21:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Datafiller, Weinstein said there was evidence of spike protein toxicity. There was not evidence of toxicity. He was, therefore, wrong.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

That is the exact conclusion I'm coming to as well, @Shibbolethink. No amount of twisting words is going to change that. ––FormalDude talk 21:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. I also found a good MEDRS-adjacent source (Health-desk [16], which is run by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Meedan). It references many MEDRSes on this topic and says: False claims about the toxicity of spike proteins from COVID-19 vaccination often misinterpret studies, and fail to take into account how spike proteins from COVID-19 vaccination behave differently than the spike proteins from natural COVID-19 infection. To me, that's case closed. We report what our sources say, we don't do our own research.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: that is what I am saying from the very first message. There is no evidence of the toxicity, so we can easily write it, because it has a different meaning from "It is false that it is toxic".Datafiller (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I cannot see any message of yours arguing the fact that actually we could find out in the future that Spike protein in vaccine is toxic. Datafiller (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Datafiller, It doesn't matter what we find out in the future, if he claimed it at a time when there was no evidence.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: If he claims it at a time when there is no evidence, we write on his article that there is no evidence, not that it is false. Datafiller (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Datafiller: That's the same thing, it is a false claim not backed up by any evidence. Kindly give it a break. ––FormalDude talk 22:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am misusing Wikipedia tags, just learnt how to use them -Datafiller (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

A stopped clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't make it an accurate clock the rest of the time. If Weinstein, by some massively unlikely stroke of fate, against all evidence to the contrary, ends up being right about this... It won't be because he was telling the truth at the time. It will be because he got lucky. At this point, we are approaching WP:IDHT territory. I'm going to close this discussion as we have three editors independently coming to the conclusion that our current text is correct, and one editor who is uninterested in that consensus. Datafiller, I would encourage you to read WP:1AM, and to think for a while about this conversation and how it went down. Have a nice day. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ivermectin has been shown to be helpful in treating Covid

Please refer to this review of the existing research, published in the July/August issue of The American Journal of Therapeutics: https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

"Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

Given this, the text under the Covid-19 section should be updated substantially.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:148:200:3b70:31f9:6a81:f47f:b5b4 (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

A lot of if buts and maybes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah....we've talked about this review paper quite a few times, and every time it has become more and more clear that it is not very reliable for the claims it makes. Please see the various discussions in this talk page's archives.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Advertising Pseudomedicine

@Animalparty: My edit has been reverted under the complaint that it is WP:PRIMARY. Here is the edit:

Weinstein and Heying personally approve and lend their professional endorsement to the products they advertise on their podcast. They have advertised several pseudomedicine items such as the herbal medicine foursigmatic, MUD/WTR and the acupuncture device ReliefBand.

Deleting this text is a misapplication of the policy. SEE:

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

The fact that they are advertising pseudomedicine and saying they endorse it under their credentials is both WP:SKYBLUE (there are plenty more direct quotes of both of them saying this) AND allowable under WP:SPS There is no interpretation happening here. Further cherry picking is totally fine if the text says "there is at least one cherry". Bret and Heather are presenting cherries and we don't need secondary sources to say they are doing that. The unreliability of a source should not be used as a shield to prevent their statements from being presented the way we do here on Wikipedia when it comes to WP:MEDRS claims. A more credible challenge to the edit would be under WP:DUE, which I addressed in my edit comments but I'll include that here as well.

PER WP:MEDRS these products are pseudomedicine despite being "FDA cleared" This is WP:DUE because their notability and content hinge on their biology degrees and therefore these are not merely pro forma advertising copy but WP:MEDRS claims. Just like ivermectin, we should report both their claims (even if implicit) and the status of those claim amongst the mainstream medical community.

DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina: We need secondary sources to tell us what cherries are worth picking. My main concern is that using primary sources alone cannot determine due weight, and thus relevance. One could pick and choose from any possible video, and any quotes within those videos, to arbitrarily and potentially disproportionately emphasize facts they believe are important. Like, one could factually state: "Weinstein has discussed crocodile love and evolutionary dentistry", but without secondary sources, the reader is left with a big "so what?" (and perhaps the impression some Wikipedian has an inordinate fondness for crocodiles and dentistry, and thinks Weinstein's views on them need to be shared with the world and/or condemned). If there are secondary sources that contextualize the discussion of ReliefBands, herbal medicine, or whatever, then we should use those. If reliable sources have given little or no comment on it, then Wikipedia should follow suit. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Yes, I agree that WP:DUE is the issue at hand. However, the "so what" in my edit is actually at the core of Weinstein's notability. These are not minutiae. He's being criticized in WP:SECONDARY for WP:FRINGE ideas, and claiming to be good at evaluating the medical literature while endorsing, adaptogens and accupressure. Under WP:MEDRS we don't leave it in the hands of the mainstream press to tell us which cherries to pick. We go with the scientific consensus. In other words, the default position for us on wikipedia is different when it comes to pseudomedicine and WP:MEDRS claims. If he weren't already being criticized for false claims about spike proteins and ivermectin, I would probably agree with your default setting. If the adverts were being read by someone other than Weinstein or Heying, I would also agree with you. However, I can find you multiple verbatim quotes where he and Heying say "we personally endorse these products." It is our job to help the general reader understand the quality of these claims, and we don't leave that in the hands of the popular press. We are not only allowed but required "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."WP:PRIMARY. If you haven't yet, check out this MEDRS FAQ. Cheers DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina: since this article is a biography of a living person (BLP) we aren't at liberty to do what you suggest. Please read the notice at the top of this page regarding biographies of living persons (BLP) and also the article WP:BLP. Pakbelang (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with BLP. Under WP:BLPSPS you will find that we can in fact use primary sources and self published sources when they are by and about the subject of the article. There can be no factual doubt that Bret personally endorses pseudomedicine on his podcast. We are not only at liberty to publish this information, we are required to, because he is being much discussed in secondary sources for making false medical claims. Again, the unreliability of a person should not protect them for being associated with the things they themselves undeniably say. The "Your honor, my client is a liar so his statements should be inadmissible" defense doesn't work here on wikipedia. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina: Yes, self-published sources can be used when they are about the subject of the article WP:BLPSELFPUB. Your points about reliability are valid but the approach you suggest here is effectively WP:OR and thus not appropriate. --Pakbelang (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Did Sam Harris debunk Weinstein? Sources needed

@Roxy the dog: "debunk" is a loaded term that doesn't pay its own way. To "debunk advocacy" is a non sequitur. Further, the quotes provided are not a debunking, they are a condemnation. Debunk means to prove false. It would be OR to decide that Harris has successfully proven any specific statement false, unless you have a source that says that. Even worse, the text in question doesn't even specify a statement. Further, the copy is not grammatical and has an unspecified pronoun. Topol is linked to Harris in way that makes no sense to those who don't already know that 1 Harris has a podcast 2 Topol was on the podcast 3 they were discussing Weinstein together on that episode. If you have a better copy to propose, that'd be great, but as it stands, the copy fails on a whole bunch of levels (NPOV, OR, MOS). I'm no fan of Weinstein's increasingly Mercola-esque huksterism (see my comments above), but we have to stick to our standards. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I see Pakbelang has has removed "debunk" and fixed the copy again. Nice. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The book reached No. 4 on the New York Times Best Seller list for hardcover nonfiction on October 3, 2021

Either my understanding of how New York Times Best Seller rankings is wrong, or something's wrong here, since October 3, 2021 won't happen for another 6 days.giggle (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, and we'd need some secondary sourcing to explain this because NYT gave the listing a † mark, meaning they suspect "strategic bulk purchases" may have been used to game the system. Alexbrn (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That's the date the reference lists for it. The explanation is right there in the referenced source, I used nearly the NYT's precise wording. Did you look at the actual reference? I'm struggling to see how the statement as written is not fully supported by a first-class RS, even if primary, the NYT is generally usable as a source of its own best seller lists - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah okay, I was assuming (maybe wrongly) we'd need a third-party source to explain how the dagger thing was significant. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's an archive of the reference (the paper keeps the same URL from week to week). At top-left is the date: October 3, 2021. The book is #4 on the chart, with a dagger. The dagger is explained: "A dagger indicates that some retailers report receiving bulk orders."

I noted it because NYT #4 is prima-facie notability for the book itself - but I felt we couldn't really just put that in without the dagger. I didn't want to go as far as saying "they bought their entry," keeping it to what the paper themselves say.

Any reason not to put this in? - David Gerard (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Support inclusion. It's clearly notable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Not quite sure what's going on now. but Pakbelang is now edit warring this in without any mention of the dagger that's right there in the citation used. I increasingly feel we need some secondary sourcing to make sense of this as just relaying "it's a bestseller!" is actively misleading without context. Alexbrn (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I've noted the dagger; it's clear from the archive. And, contrary to Pakbelang's edit summary, it is indeed at #4 with a dagger on the NYT page - David Gerard (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Alexbrn Apologies for the unwarranted edit war. I was looking at the current list of bestsellers on the live website, where the book is number 3 without any dagger. I failed to realise the reference was still to the archive.--Pakbelang (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
      • That's #3 in "Combined Print & E-Book Nonfiction", which is not quite the same list, and doesn't seem to do daggers. We should probably note both to avoid confusion - how's what I just added? - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The "however" reads as an editorial (Wikipedia side) effort to detract from or qualify the appearance on the list, even though it is technically true (which is not the best kind of true, internet nerds be damned). It sticks out like a partisan sore thumb, and should probably be in a foot note, if anywhere, as in the New York Times page itself. Does any other Wikipedia article that mentions a book on the New York Times list with a dagger bend over backwards to explain to the reader what a dagger means? --Animalparty! (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"However" is because the dagger is the NYT itself - not us - telling you explicitly that this is a dodgy entry. If we just said "#3, #4!" that would be misleading. We are noting that NYT has explicitly marked this as a questionable entry. Hiving it off to a footnote would be misleading. It's not a bad slant from Wikipedia, it's a bad fact noted in the source RS - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The use of the term misinformation is factually wrong

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Merriam-Webster defines disinformation as: "false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth"

When presenting information (in the article's case, this seems to be focused around the use of Ivermectin) Bret Weinstein, either on his podcast or on his appearances on other platforms, almost always:

1. Brings evidence in the form of scientific studies or on-the-ground data gathered by doctors on the field

2. Links his sources of data so that anyone can peruse them and judge for themselves.

3. Argues using logic and scientific method including Evolutionary Theory

4. Does not appeal to authority

5. Does not take any logical shortcuts

6. Seems to genuinely believe what he is touting (at least nothing seems to point to the contrary)

7. Has no conflict of interests (Ivermectin is off-patent anyways)

The use of "misinformation therefore seems unjustified because:

1. From the body of scientific data and evidence provided (easily accessible from his podcast notes), while still controversial because there is no consensus, his claims are in no way is "false information" (see definition of disinformation above). No consensus does not mean false.

2. The data he uses come from scientific studies, data gathered by practicing doctors on the ground and from peer-reviewed studies. The data seems to suggest the efficacy of Ivermectin as prophylactic treatment. He states his conclusion based on the date he reviews, which, again, can be reviewed online in his podcast notes.

3. When it comes to discussing Ivermectin, his guests have, more often than not, been MDs with experience treating COVID or people working for organizations such as the WHO who have access to a large amount of health data and are skilled at metadata analysis. Again, the credentials of the people and the data can be checked, No false information there.

Even though it is human nature, I think that it is important in this politicized and polarized world not to jump to conclusions or demonize people you see as being on the "other side". While it is true that they might be touting a treatment which has not received a scientific consensus, to call it "misinformation" (read: false information knowingly spread) when they have gone about it in an open, reasonable and scientific manner with no apparent conflict of interest or skin in the game is preposterous.

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be neutral and strive for the truth (or at least admit when it does not know the truth)?

Maybe one day, years from now, we will have dozens of double-blind studies about the treatment of Ivermectin for COVID-19 and be able to say with any degree of certainty whether it is effective or not, but that day is not now. Saying one side or the other is false (implied by the term "misinformation") can not be justified with the amount of data we have.

That this edit has stayed for such a long time is disheartening; I expected better of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.12.233.57 (talk • contribs)

We must be doing something right to elicit this unsigned comment. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 08:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry my first time peeking at the backside of Wikipedia. Still not sure how all this works. -Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.12.233.57 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, RS say it is misinforation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Who is RS and where did he say Ivermectin is misinformation? -Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.12.233.57 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS. BTW, I try not to use Wikipedia-specific abbreviations without the link now, it saves time in the long run.

The reliable sources referenced in the article after the sentences. In this case, Gorski and Effinger. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the word misinformation appears in this article. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does as a wikei link to COVID-19 misinformation, which we need to do.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be complaining about "misinformation", but have looked up the definition of disinformation. Misinformation does not necessarily imply the willful intent to deceive. The mention of "disinformation" in this article is in an attributed quote, which we shouldn't alter (see MOS:PMC). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You are right, I confounded MISinformation and DISinformation. I am sorry for the mistake. Both are present in the same section, and I believe both to be incorrect in this case. my point remains the same, though, since the definition for MISinformation is "false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive." so I believe the arguments are still valid. The studies and data collected by MDs on the field are not clearly "false" or "inaccurate", nor are the conclusions he draws from them. What is more, the term is loaded with an intent to decieve, which again is inaccurate and an attack on character at worst or unprovable at best. -Alex— Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.12.233.57 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

We cannot know intent, but this is misinformation per the sources, so Wikipedia reflects that to be neutral. The data and studies supporting ivermectin, as it turns out, have been false and inaccurate (if not downright fraudulent) too. Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Most of the data and studies Bret references to in his podcast have not been invalidated as far as I know. I seem to recall 1-2 of them having been found to be inaccurate, and in those cases, they addressed the matter in later podcasts when that info came to light. This leaves all the other studies and data that were not invalidated or put into question. What do I need to do? Dig them all up and link them here...? -Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.82.82.29 (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing in those podcasts is reliable. Weinstein spread misinformation about ivermectin[17] and as it turned out, the pro-ivermectin "research" was mostly/only dodgy. That's the reality, that's what sources say, and so that is what Wikipedia reflects. For this to change there would need to be a good source saying something else. Alexbrn (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2021

There is a typo on one line of this article. In the line:

"The Washington Post reported that racial tensions had been simmering at Evergree throughout 2017."

"Evergree" should be changed to "Evergreen", the name of the institution. Sammytwiki (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Please add category "COVID-19 conspiracy theorists" to this article

As the title says, please add the [[Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists]] to this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexvoda (talk • contribs) 14:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Why? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 17:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Cytotoxicity

The statement about "lack of cytotoxicity" of the spike-protein is untrue. I think it is in the interest of wikipedia and its users to ignore politics and exchange knowledge about the truth. Please change and inform about it.

https://www.jbiomeds.com/biomedical-sciences/the-cytotoxic-effects-of-spike-proteins-and-hydroxychloroquine.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41375-021-01332-z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.183.243.165 (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

letters to the editor are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

There are several problems here. 1) These sources are both WP:PRIMARY, which means they are not suitable to make this medical claim. 2) Neither is published by a topic-relevant journal, meaning a journal which has expertise in virology or toxicology. This makes it less likely that the editors of the journal have the necessary expertise to vet these publications as reliable or reproducible. 3) Neither makes a good case that the vaccine form of the spike protein is cytotoxic, which is the point Weinstein was making. These are all massive red flags.

But why don't we see what the WP:MEDRS sources are saying, the ones we would actually use to inform this statement? These all support the vaccine as safe and effective, and not cytotoxic as these sources claim:

• Canadian Pediatric Society position statement
• US Centers for Disease control position statement
• among many others.

But perhaps most importantly, here are some of the most trusted fact checking sites out there, refuting this claim: [18] [19] [20] [21] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Unreferenced conclusions

This entry makes many conclusions of what is true and what is not true, but doesn't reference or document those conclusions. As such I can only consider these as one person's opinion. I would like a more carefully explained and objective analysis of the positions. As the entry is currently comes across as a personal attack, so I don't know what is resl. 108.192.160.201 (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The small numbers in square brackets are hyperlinks to the citations that support the article text. Click, read and learn! Alexbrn (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation is not defined

One might say he has shared information that differs from what so and so says or different from what some institution believes, but for any Wikipedia editor to be determining what information is "misinformation" on the topic of covid seems quite a biased, subjective option of that editor. To state who disagrees with him could be a very helpful signal as it would help others who also mistrust those sources find other information from people like Eric. Mckennagene (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mckennagen. Why does Wikipedia get to define what misinformation is without an explanation? It is shallowness used to paint someone in a bad light. Since when did Wikipedia look to some captured government agency to figure out what not misinformation is? Some people say, in recent years, everyone has shredded their credibility. Does Wikipedia have many credible editors left? Nanabozho (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Classic WP:GEVAL fallacy. We don't say "Maybe the moon landings happened, maybe they didn't: here are some differing views". We describe the accepted mainstream position and characterize the conspiracy theories as what they are. From our sources we know there is no good evidence Ivermectin is beneficial for COVID-19, yet Weinstein has said it is. From our sources we know the vaccines are safe, yet Weinstein has aired the view they are dangerously cytotoxic. There is no evidence "Big Pharma" is suppressing anything and committing what Weinstein calls (good grief) the "crime of the century". Talk of "some captured government agency" is just daft. This is meant to be a respectable encylopedia, not reddit. Please take conspiracy theory nonsense elsewhere. Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

If there are not enough peer-reviewed studies showing something works, “unproven” is more accurate than “misinformation.” Even the linked Vice article says “clinical study is ongoing.” No matter one’s view on the treatment, “unproven treatments” is more accurate, or “Treatments unsupported by many public health officials.” Orn two (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Unproven treatments are unproven treatments. The misinformation comes when they are touted as effective. Alexbrn (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It's dangerous misinformation when people pretend that an unproven treatment works a lot better than the evidence would suggest. especially when that treatment has dangerous side effects when not used properly like liver failure and encephalopathy. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

... and when it's encouraged as an "alternative" to something that actually is effective (in this case, vaccination). Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

In understanding a brand new situation like the current pandemic it is too early to talk about consensuses. It takes time for knowledge to solidify, and institutions are there to aid this, but only in the long term. Until then, the relevant fields should be free to propose and discuss solutions. Humanity, including Wikipedia editors, may have got used to 99+% of issues being old enough for us to rely on scientific consensuses, but Covid requires something else: cost-benefit analyses based on incomplete information, without guarantees of success. The emergency use authorization of vaccines is one example. Another one is the work of renowned critical care physicians introducing Ivermectin in their treatment protocol. The long term safety of the Covid vaccines (while being effective) is as much disputable as the efficiency of Ivermectin (while being safe). Yet, it would be a bad deal for humanity to discount these approaches with a label like "misinformation" or "irresponsibility". For patients, it is nice to be in a country where even hopeful(ly safe) treatments are available, and doctors can autonomously act without waiting for bureaucracy to catch up. Also, Wikipedia should not handle Covid with the same rigor as long established historical facts or scientific theories. Providus (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

By that reasoning, you open the gates for all sorts of "information". Drinking bleach? Great, try it! Masks are dangerous? By all means, leave them off! The virus does not exist? Phew, what a relief, let's party! Fuck rigor, everything is true if I want it to be!

We, generally, need to separate good from bad information. More to the point, Wikipedia needs to do that because it is its job. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you sound like strawmanning my argument. As I said, there are long established pieces of knowledge, like drinking bleach is deadly, preventing any possible beneficial effects... Repurposing a safe drug or betting on the success of vaccine campaigns around a novel coronavirus is grey area. Controversies are an important part of reality, so it is the job of Wikipedia to portray them. It is not its job to know better.

It is interesting that you mention mask wearing. You should know that, when CDC and WHO claimed mask wearing was pointless, Bret Weinstein was one of the first people who called bullshit. --Providus (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

My point is that you are trying to be the arbiter, claiming it is too early to talk about consensuses. That is not how Wikipedia works. We look at what reliable sources say. If editors decide things like "there cannot be a consensus yet", then what I said will happen. No strawman involved here, just reductio ad absurdum.

Of course, Weinstein's understanding of masks is neither here nor there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am definitely arguing against the policy of using ONLY reliable sources. Reliability of each source can be questioned (and is questioned in the current, polarized scene) and, as I suggested, the novelty of a topic will prevent any source to be reliable enough, at least to the extent that you exclude opposing sources. This is the place where we get farther using classic journalistic principles by platforming all sides (thereby avoiding being the arbiter). Yes, it takes more work, but that's where a crowdsourced encyclopedia can thrive. I must say I am perplexed to see Wikipedia folks nowadays apparently dismissing such practice in favour of "trusted" sources. I could also say, let's let the editorial guidelines remain guidelines. We don't want them to become rigid rules. Let's notice that some heterodox thinkers know what they are speaking. Your reductio ad absurdum (or Slippery slope) is a double edged sword. Stepping in one direction will not always get us to the extreme...

Let me repeat: disputes are part of the world, thus a good encyclopedia will not hide them.

Re: masks, I looked up their podcast at Youtube from March 2020 for you (/ym-WGOq96G0?t=1297). In fact, let's consider enriching the article by saying something like "During the pandemic, Weinstein and Heying several times arrived at conclusions before mainstream thought did, even against official positions of the time. Notable examples are about the usefulness of wearing masks, and the possibility of a lab leak as the origin of the virus." (I wonder, how podcasts can be properly cited, though. There are notorious difficulties with this on Wikipedia...) --Providus (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am definitely arguing against the policy of using ONLY reliable sources. OK. The way to change the policy is there. Until you succeed in your quest to allow unreliable sources, we are finished here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Phrenology, geocentric universe, miasmatic theory of disease, immovable continents...these were the accepted scientic positions for a long time before they were proven to be wrong. Even the Lancet at one time tried to discredit Joseph Lister and the New York Times published an editorial attacking Robert Goddard's work in rocketry. If we only accept mainstream or reliable sources, we don't advance. Sometimes, ideas from the outside prove correct.24.131.129.60 (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)CoachE

Ah, inevitably, the Galileo Gambit. Alexbrn (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

True enough. Had Wikipedia existed in the fourth century BCE, it would have reported the then-prevailing view that the Earth is flat as a self-evident fact, without qualification. It would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's actual shape and calculated its circumference in 240 BCE) as a fringe view. Similarly, in Galileo's time it would have documented the prevailing view that the Sun (and everything else) orbits the Earth as fact; Galileo's solar system model would have been rejected as "original research".

If there were, today, a popularly held or notable minority opinion, supported by reliable sources, that the Earth is flat, Wikipedia would report it — but not as a fact. It would describe the minority view (clearly labeled as such), its history, and its notable or prominent adherents, and it would cite the sources. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought; which — for the purposes of this particular project — is a good thing. (For additional examples and a more substantial discussion, see WP:FLAT.) DoctorJoeE ^Stalk/_Talk 15:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've edited Wikipedia. We have established reliable sources that express criticism of Weinstein's ivermectin position and his anti-vaccine messaging, and it's clearly notable given his influence on discourse surrounding this response to the global pandemic. That's all the reason we need to include the sentence pointing out said criticism regarding what is seen as misinformation. What we as editors feel about the issue isn't relevant. The prevailing consensus among credible authorities on the subject is that his messaging is harmful and carries misinformation. IbrahimSapien (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn excuse me, how does the Galileo Gambit have anything to do with this discussion? What is said in previous messages is that if something thought to be completely true by scientists then has been proved completely wrong in History, now something thought to be completely true (without actual any evidence with the scientific method) COULD be proved wrong in the future. That "could" changes everything. I cannot see any conspiracy theory in just saying that since many famous virologists claimed something inconsistent and contradicting each other, we are not able to be completely sure to state whether something is proved true or not about this topic, and we should be more generic. Datafiller (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Datafiller, Please read the template at the top of this talk page. Thanks.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Also we go with what RS says, we do not analyze it. Of course, it could be proved wrong in the future and when it is we change the article, after all nay fact could turn out to be wrong. Hell Mr Weistien could turn out to be an ellaberte piece of theater by Steve Googan. So should we also say that? We can't base article on what might turn out to be true in the future as none of us are Time lords.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I have read the template, I know my reply is not fully linked to the discussion, so as the twisting phrases often used in this discussion everytime someone disputes this article, and even their meaning has nothing to do with the discussion, so at least I tried to point out that they are usually nice except if they are not linked to what it's being talked about. I have really got your point, pretty sure we don't need to go far with this, thank you. -Datafiller (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The science around COVID19 has evolved with new developments since 2019. Giving an old quote without dating it, and out of context, is not responsible. Wikipedia seems to accept click-bait journalists as qualified references. For example, JEF ROUNER, is by his own admission, "a contributing writer who covers politics, pop culture, social justice, video games, and online behavior." This is not the best source for information on COVID19, and should not be in the lead paragraph of a Wikipedia page. Source: 2601:200:10D:4285:E568:CA3D:BCAF:B739 (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein

That's why it's so great that we cite multiple sources on that sentence. It isn't just Jeff Rouner making that claim. It's several different people, some of whom have specific expertise in the area of health misinformation. When we examine the overall landscape of opinions and responses about Bret Weinstein's statements, it's clear that the prevailing view is that he spreads misinformation. Hence we report it in wiki-voice. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Science is not a democracy. Mr. Gonzales writes that "When he's not gaming or consuming the latest geek shows, he's helping produce podcasts, strategizing about social media and stating how great the state of Texas is." Of all the cited examples of criticism, only Science-based Medicine has some real medical expertise, however, the editor is a neurologist, not a biologist and it offers no avenue for feedback. This still does not excuse all three articles for quoting, out of context, a legitimate Phd in biology who is currently (as of Oct. 2021) a visiting fellow at Princeton University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:10A:C0C9:D4E5:AD8F:994F:E362 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain why a biologist who worked on telomeres in mice would be a better expert on viruses and pandemics than a medical doctor who has done medical research? Last time I checked, those were medical subjects.

It's the same as always: someone who is an expert for one thing (Weinstein, genetics in mice) contradicts the experts on another thing (all virologists in the world, COVID-19 pandemic) regarding that other thing. Theoretically, if you look just at this situation and not at the actual reasoning, it could be that he is right, because sometimes, very, very rarely, an outsider revolutionizes a field. So his fans ignore the expertise thing. When someone who has experience with people talking nonsense about medicine (Science-Based Medicine website, science-based medicine) says what is wrong with what the mouse guy said, suddenly expertise becomes important... but not Weinstein's non-expertise.

You don't have a leg to stand on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it says a lot about Wikipedians always believing powers of authority vs. this one guy on the internet who has a podcast. It so easy to take down and criticize someone who is small time, but you Wikipedians don't have the balls to question your sources of Authority from time and again when they have been wrong in their own information for decades. So please forgive me when I say that you wikipedians have a lot of gall thinking you all speak the truth. People are not infallible. 74.124.162.10 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That is well and good, but the talks I've seen the past half decade or more doesn't reflect the principles and rules in some articles that have become highly politicized, and has left me somewhat concerned the health of this site in general. What we have going on at this moment is a break down of trust that has been growing in the USA and various other countries (of rather similar or different reasons) and even within the Scientific Community ever since COVID happened as there has been contradictory information and infighting within said Scientific Communities based on anecdotal accounts that seem to be growing and when words like Misinformation and Disinformation is being thrown around that its starting to cause even more trust issues and tainting the well of its usage (such as Social Media abusing it into oblivion). For the record I'm not backing up Weinstein here, but I've become concerned we're trending on territory where information itself has become chaotic no matter who the source is in this very stressful time. Though I was very blunt in my first post, but its a response to a problem I feel its being largely ignored. 74.124.162.10 (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

You will be glad to know that all you need to edit wikipedia is reliable sources that agree with you, then you will be a wikipedian my son. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 19:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The reasoning People are not infallible applies to both sides, so it does not help you. Also - surprise, surprise - we already knew it, it is so extremely basic that you don't need to say it, and anybody who does say it only reveals a lack of reasoning ability. The number of legs to stand on is still zero. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I am absolutely sick to death of absolutist language here on Wikipedia when referencing science, including this article. "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines" should be "Weinstein has been criticized for his statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines". It is not the place of this website to place bias in the minds of readers, and absolutely nothing in science is unequivocally true or false. Streetrollerofficial (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Except, it is. Wikipedia's NPOV policy means bullshit is called out for what it is. Sorry. Alexbrn (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Incredible you quote me NPOV and disregard it in the same breath with a straight face. Ask this: "Does the suggested change materially change the intent of the information provided?" No. Would it be more neutral in conveyance? Yes. Furthermore, the statement doesn't bother to specify which statements are false. Are we claiming some of them false? Are we claiming all of them are false? This isn't flat-earth we're discussing. This is an extremely new disease with an exceptional amount of contention, as witnessed here in a talk page about a random guy. That alone should lend a great degree to being as absolutely neutral as we can be. Frankly, Wikipedia has no standing to editorialize here - and that's exactly what we've done. So the source is an article off on CNET and a Magazine. Just out of curiosity, does the American Journal of Therapeutics meet high enough standards of criticism? https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx which says - "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally." Here's some sensationalism: we're literally killing people.Streetrollerofficial (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

See the source box at the top of the page for the reliable sources. NPOV requires that pseudoscience and charlatanry is properly identified, precisely to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between low-certainty and moderate-certainty? I sourced you an article out of a medical journal. Your language of pseudoscience is unbelievably bias. Should I next expect the American Journal of Therapeutics article to contain the statement that it has false information related to Covid-19? Unreal. Streetrollerofficial (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

We're not going to use dodgy journal articles based on fraudulent research (as discussed at extreme length already). We have - and use - excellent, reputable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Cite your source. The fact that my source doesn't seem to even phase your brain seems shocking to me. I literally cannot put into words how shocked I am. So please, in good faith. Cite me the source that says The American Journal of Therapeutics is "dodgy".Streetrollerofficial (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bryant/Lawrie paper has been discussed at length already (check the Talk:Ivermectin archives). Executive summary: we're not going to use suspect sources, especially when we have gold-standard ones. What is more, the source is irrelevant to Weinstein. Alexbrn (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The assertion of "false statements" is a sweeping generalization and cites three sources, one of which is a science magazine. The fact that we've now stepped into that kind of semantic argument should be evidence enough. The implication is that the scientific statements are false (which ones? who cares, I guess), but you seem to want to argue some other kind of granularity. The fact that any scientific article exists contradicting that statement should immediately put into question any stance of partiality. Truly startling, the idea that an editor has any ability to evaluate those sources. It exists, it should be noted. The fact you have any archive of this matter at all should immediately call into question whether or not the matter is significantly settled. Sorry, but after going through the archive I sense extreme prejudice. I really don't have any other explanation. Just writing my displeasure for the record, response is unnecessary as I think the one thing we can agree on is we will never agree. Have a good day. Streetrollerofficial (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"The fact that any scientific article exists contradicting that statement should immediately put into question any stance of partiality" ← translation: who cares that much scientific research is poor/wrong/fraudulent, if I can scrape up one that suits my view, I'm happy. Alexbrn (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Correct. That's exactly what my accusation is. I'm neutral, you're not. Streetrollerofficial (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand your problem. You are in the wrong place, you need Conservapedia. You are welcome. -Roxy the dog. wooF 09:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Just so, it's a common fallacy indulged by drive-by POV-warriors that Wikipedia should do "both sides" by giving unweighted space to all sources. It doesn't, but instead cleaves to the significant views as found in the WP:BESTSOURCES, and that's why it's a respected resource. Alexbrn (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Quick hints for science rookies:

• Not all science is born equal.
• As in other occupations, some people are good at their job and others are not.
• When you have studied one science, but are talking about another science, contradicting the people who have studied that one, you are likely wrong.
• You cannot determine truth by reading a single article in a scientific journal and taking the content at face value.

Less quick hints for Wikipedia-and-medical-science rookies can be found at WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Misleading article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article contains information that is misleading, specifically information about Weinstein's purported COVID-19 misinformation. It is important to note that the skewed information in this article (1) may harm a person and his family, (2) may contribute to experts' unwillingness to correct misinformation, and (3) may therefore contribute indirectly to illness and loss of life.

I'm not very knowledgeable about Wikipedia editing, so I'm asking the people here whether there is anything at all we can do to fix this. Can we update the article to reflect the science? Perhaps by referencing one of the metaanalyses? Or could we remove the misleading information? Or at the very least make it clear on the talk page that the article contains deceptive information? It seems that attempts to correct the article are systematically prevented. Might that be illegal? It certainly seems to work against Wikipedia's purpose, which is to inform rather than misinform. It would be nice to know if there is anything at all that can be done. Unfortunately, this post may well be removed itself...81.26.240.168 (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, it is possible that this post might be removed, for a number of reasons, but I doubt you would be interested. I searched very hard for misleading information in the article, but couldn't find any, and you have not provided me with any clues to go on. What we say in the article is well supported by the references we use, you could check them yourself, and you could also read this which gives even more sources. I will ignore your slightly clumsy legal threat, but you may find it useful to read WP:NLT. -Roxy the dog. wooF 05:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ironic misinformation

This source accusing Bret Weinstein of spreading misinformation is, ironically, spreading misinformation in this quote:

"evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein, who has become prominent as a COVID-19 contrarian and spreader of disinformation, particularly about the “lab leak theory” of SARS-CoV-2 origins".

As it is well-known today, the COVID-19 lab leak theory is far from "misinformation", even though it was seen as such by the mainstream media during the Trump administration.

Maybe the article should be less biased and just report the facts, rather than make such judgements. RafaelJC12 (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Would that not depend on what he said about it? If (for example) he said it was a lab leak, or it was the most likely scenario that would be misinformation, as it goes against the (still current) scientific consensus that it was most likely not a lab leak.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

It is NOT a "scientific consensus" that the lab leak hypothesis is false. RafaelJC12 (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Question : Do you think we are going to take some guy on youtube seriously? -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I hope you're not in denial, but all of the claims in the video are verifiable. And even if you think the hypothesis is not likely to be true, calling it "misinformation", specially if you're trying to be unbiased (which you're suppose to), is just stupid. Even the lab leak theory Wikipedia article doesn't do that. The Biden administration knows this hypothesis is worth investigating, so do many scientists.. RafaelJC12 (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

But do you think we are going to take some bloke on youtube seriously? -Roxy the dog. wooF 08:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but that is not the same as saying it is a fact, or the most likely scenario. So what did HE say?Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Covid 19 section

Unless I'm mistaken, the covid 19 section is WP:UNDUE. Two paragraph in a BLP about a few statements he's made that people disagree with. This could be condensed into two sentences, which would be closer to balanced, when taken within the perspective of his entire life, and his notability. Again, this is a BLP. Quoting Eric Topol's characterization of his position on these matters, including the claim that 'it's sick', is not appropriate, not to a BLP. It is Topol's opinion of his position, not a direct statement that contradicts, using science, his position. It's easy to just blurt that someone is 'sick', 'reckless', and 'irresponsible', but that's not a meaningful rebuttal of a position. It's also an appeal to authority; Topol's area of expertise is primarily cardiovascular medicine, not epidemiology, vaccines, spike proteins, or anything else related to the pandemic; Topol starting making 'noise' during the peak of covid in 2020, and specifically made statements about the politicization of these matters, which itself is politicization, not science. Similarly, due to the massive politicization of these matters, I will point out that I've had two Pfizer vaccinations, a Moderna booster, and have never even contemplated screwing around with hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin; I'm not a vaccine crackpot, but the article certainly does its best to conflate Weinstein's misinformed statements related to covid as crackpottery, even though his views are not widely known (a key element of the notability of these claims). Anastrophe (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Your vaccination status or your opinion about whatever does not matter to anybody here; only your reasoning counts. So, please, leave out such unnecessary chitchat in the future.

I agree that we do not Eric Topol here. Or the completely irrelevant Sam Harris. But the second paragraph seems to be necessary; it says what exactly is wrong with what Weinstein's claims. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: This is not about "people" disagreeing. Gorski is an actual expert on evaluating the status of the evidence and debunking quackery. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Please contain the personalizations. I'm free to write whatever I believe is relevant to my argument, since a common technique is to impugn the editor based on inferences from his arguments.

I made no mention of Gorski. Why do you bring it up?Anastrophe (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:INDENT. I corrected your indentation.

As soon as someone uses that "common technique", you can respond to it with what you said, or better yet, with a link to WP:NPA. Since nobody has used that "common technique", your response to it is a strawman and clutters up the page unnecessarily. This is not "personalization", at least not by me. The only "politicization" we get here is that people who disagree with the scientific consensus and agree with people like Weinstein, or people who wrongly believe there is no scientific consensus, claim that the scientific consensus is just "politicization".

Two paragraph in a BLP about a few statements he's made that people disagree with is talking about Gorski, implicitly.

Long story short: You should have WP:FOCUSed on the edits themselves, and after you did not do that in your first contribution, please at least focus on it now and stop defending the offtopic part of your first contribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh for pity sake. I accidentally added a couple of colons. Thanks so much for removing them.Anastrophe (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

So far you've cluttered up the page with far more than I did with my one sentence. The claims of 'scientific consensus' are quite laughable, when talking about drugs that are under active trial. Scientific consensus appears after all the studies are done. In fact, the science is quite clear that there is no consensus, yet, for example, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/ - "Currently, evidence on efficacy and safety of ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting." Tossing out the non-sequitur 'consensus' talking-point immediately throws this back into politicization. Anastrophe (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No, but rationalize the comment however you wish. Gorski's mentioned ONCE. Nowhere in the rest of the two paragraphs of the entire section mention Gorski, and I pointedly referred to TOPOL's comments as the most problematic; you've gone off-topic. Anastrophe (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote one sentence defending my comment - you've written quintuple (just spitballing) expressing your umbrage. Please note, WP:FOCUS is an essay, and it pertains to article deletion, not discussion about content. You're off in the weeds.Anastrophe (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS considers notable and worth mentioning. And a lot of them considered this notable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We also follow due weight. The coverage here is wildly out of proportion to the coverage in RS, and Weinstein's notability. He's said a few things. A few people and sources have commented on them. That's it, that's the sum total of it. Weinstein is not well-known, certainly not so well known that his comments were more than a blip in the entire public covid debate. And this is a BLP, which is supposed to be an overview of a person's life. We have here an entire section on a few comments he's made. It's WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Anastrophe (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

A few? I count over 10 sources in that section, in fact, a 10th of all the sources for this article. Also they go back months and cover months of commentary about him.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It is out of proportion to his notability, and the article. It's just 'piling on' in order to make a point. Look a the size of the article, then look at his notability, then look at how much of the article is devoted to covid. it's Recentism and out of proportion to the subject's Notability. That's how Undue works. Anastrophe (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Evergreen and COVID are pretty much all the guy is known for. And there's far more about Evergreen. So it's fine - maybe needs more on COVID even. Alexbrn (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's a fun comparison. Joe Rogan's (eleven million daily podcast listener audience) BLP has less verbiage about covid than is here on Bret Weinstein's (audience so small there's no data) BLP. Joe Rogan's commentary and podcasts on covid issues are massively better known than Weinstein. I'm curious about the comment that 'maybe more on COVID even' is needed. That sounds directly like the 'piling on' I mentioned. Do you have some additional material from reliable sources that is actually new material on this, is in proportion to the actual coverage, is in proportion to Weinstein's relatively low notability, doesn't bump head-on into recentism, and is within BLP rules? Please, share your information, it may be helpful, since better evidence of the notability and reach of his comments could make a difference to the discussion. Anastrophe (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

So expand that.Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: Most of what BW did on COVID was in 2020/2021, so the sourcing is largely settled - unless you can find more recent stuff ... there was a recent piece in Vox which briefly mentions how he's into the Big Pharma conspiracy theory with Pierre Kory which might be of interest. Not sure what the faults (or not) with Joe Rogan have to do with this article. Isn't Rogan known for a wider range of things in the bro-science/comedy sphere? Ultimately it comes to sources: if the sourcing is weighted to certain topics then Wikipedia shall reflect that, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You brought up expanding it. I'm not sure why user Slatersteven is suggesting I expand it, nor why you're suggesting I go searching for additional information and sources. I still maintain that the rather screechy/histrionic comments by Topol are out of place in a BLP; that was primarily what I discussed to begin with, and I've yet to hear a BLP based argument supporting their inclusion. We are supposed to err on the side of not impugning a BLP subject's character by proxy, regardless of who calls them 'sick' for their views. Anastrophe (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No i=I meant expand the article, you say has less content (see wp:otherstuff). Maybe the problem is that pretty much Weinstein is a no-one who has made a name being controversial, thus we cover that. Now by all means argue he is not notable and wp:afd the article. But if RS considers his Covid denialism significant so do we. If it is all he has done for the last 2 years, though. NOr are we using one source for this stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the misunderstandings here. "I meant expand the article, you say has less content". I never said that. Neither did I ever say that 'he is not notable'. I will repeat, since seemingly I am speaking a foreign language. The amount of coverage here of his covid comments and their impact is vastly overstated compared to what the coverage in reliable sources devoted to it. That means it's being given undue weight. The coverage of Topol's screeching comments isn't appropriate in a BLP; we're not supposed to impugn character by using a convenient proxy. Those are the points I have brought up. Not that Weinstein is not notable. Nor that the article needs to be expanded. Anastrophe (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Hello User talk:Aussiewikilady. I see we are in disagreement about your addition to the article, and that you have crossed the 4 edit brightline for edit warring, despite the advice I gave you on your user page before your last edit to this page. Please self revert, or I will be obliged to report you. Note that this isn't about the corectness or not of your edit, but your behaviour, which is unnacceptable. Thanks. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 11:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"The book sold well so it presumably has some merits"

[22] This is the funniest edit commentary I saw this month.

That is not how such things are determined. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Woot. I didn't see that. - Roxy the bad tempered dog 11:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

No, as bleech sells well, its not a COVID cure. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

False (again)

@ModerateMaverick: I offer this section as a place for you to build consensus for your removal of "making false statements" instead of edit warring. Please review the talk page archives to ensure you're not duplicating old arguments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Thanks, Feathers. I'm new to making edits, so I hope you can see this. Moderating contentious discourse, on the other hand, I'm not new to. There's simply no self-evident argument for the outright falseness of Brett's views. It's not a simple, deductive truth. His views are contentious, but not unscientific. There have always been scientific debates where a small minority of academics disagree with a large majority, and covid is one of them. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to present the naked facts, not assert a conclusion. The references elaborating on Brett's views are there for the reader to follow and decide for himself. It's only an abuse of power as an editor to insist complex views are right or wrong. Note that I personally agree with his statements, but don't indicate that in my edit. ModerateMaverick (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

In reading the sources, I see that one naked fact is now missing from the lead: that Weinstein has made false statements related to COVID-19. Reliable sources support that fact. It's a major element of his notability, as shown by coverage in reliable sources. I favor restoring it to the lead, and I look forward to the opinions of other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to reproduce what reliable sources say, not to restrict itself to what you consider a self-evident argument. See WP:TRUTH and WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@ModerateMaverick: Regarding your statement, The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to present the naked facts... Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. Pakbelang (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling

@Firefangledfeathers: @Hob Gadling: @Pakbelang: I personally don't care much for ivermectin as a covid treatment, and I'm aware of the evidence that suggests it's no better than a placebo. There's evidence suggesting a moderate curative effect in severe cases, but nothing so significant as to put me staunchly on either side of the fence. I would still hesitate to generalise Brett's enthusiasm for ivermectin as 'making false statements about covid treatments'. Everyone has at some point 'made false statements about covid', regardless of their attitude towards the disease or their level of learning. Anytime anyone said at least two things that turned out to be false qualifies as 'false statements'. It's only fair to mention that in a biography if the individual in question is more often wrong than right on the topic. This is evidently not the case where Bret is concerned (and not even the references suggest it is), but from the edit history and discussions, I suspect that this is the narrative that the editors watching over this article wish to promote.

Further, the claim that Bret has made 'false statements about covid vaccines' is not corroborated by either of the references provided. I'm sure there's no shortage of 'trustworthy' household names that state point-blank that the vaccines are harmless to this day, but I'll bet a lot on the fact that any of those reliable people or outlets you care to mention did broadcast widely the untruth that the vaccines 'prevented spread' and 'granted immunity'. Bret was amongst those who cast doubt on these claims from the start. Websites were redacted, and goalposts were shifted as 'reliable sources' made some smooth changes to their statements. Are those 'reliable sources' not considered to have 'made false statements about the covid vaccine',then? Would you care to mention that Bret 'has made true statements about the vaccine', in this case? I'm sure the mental gymnastics to consider one thing a lie but the other not are available on demand. @Pakbelang: As an'educated person with access to the source' (and one with some relevant specialist knowledge at that), I assure you that the descriptive statement I address in this paragraph is not supported by the sources listed. What's more, I put it to you that it is, contrary to the 'treatment' part, untrue on the whole (see below). It should be removed, if the powers that be here are motivated by stating the truth and not merely echoing the thoughts of those they agree with.

@Hob Gadling: Reliable sources have made irresponsible statements that have misled the public and cost people their lives and health in a thousand different instances in the past two decades alone. It's all 'mistakes happen' until it's someone you love who suffers for it. Reliable sources (including the BMJ which I'm quoting) obfuscated vaccine-related injuries for more than a year, but are now gradually being compelled to acknowledge their existence, scope and frequency, albeit grudgingly. This article alone vindicates Bret's criticism of the vaccines to a great extent, but I don't suppose you'd be in favour of acknowledging that for the world to see in the article: https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o919

@Firefangledfeathers: I offer as a compromise 'has made false statements about covid treatment' (with no mention of the vaccine), together with a sentence or two including 'controversial views on covid vaccines' (with mention of where he's been right). I've explained why above. If you're really doing the best we human animals can do to speak truly objectively, then you should see that even if Bret's ivermectin-advocacy was without merit, the cautionary statements on the vaccines are clinically justified and of life-changing signficance to people. However, since it appears that you (inter alia) seem to have different standards for judging your ideological opponents compared to your ideological allies, I don't expect you to concede this. Nor am I holding my breath on the compromise. I cannot afford to spend more time on this (except to edit the article as proposed in the event I'm too cynical and we do agree), so I leave you to your conscience and bid you farewell.

ModerateMaverick (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@ModerateMaverick: WP:WALLOFTEXT and WP:1AM both seem applicable here.

Wikipedia is operated by consensus as determined by the most robust established academic literature. The woman who wrote that BMJ article, Maryanne Demasi, is considered a fringe commentator, and thus her comments are typically not included or incorporated into Wikipedia unless other sources find them of relevance to the topic at hand. As the saying goes, this is an encyclopedia which covers everything a little bit, and so it does not delve into any particular person's sacred cows. To give Demasi any space on this issue, or to consider her "journalism" piece to be a reliable source, would be contradicting all established science up to this point. Stuff like that is properly placed in a fringe publication for fringe readers. It has no place on Wikipedia.

As an aside, This: I'll bet a lot on the fact that any of those reliable people or outlets you care to mention did broadcast widely the untruth that the vaccines 'prevented spread' and 'granted immunity.' shows you have no expertise in the topic of vaccines, immunology, or viruses. The latest and best data show that mRNA vaccines do actually provide both of those benefits.

People who are fully vaccinated and happen to catch the virus are sick for a shorter period of time on average, and are as a result less likely to pass on the virus to others, and generally pass it on to fewer other persons. [23] And on the second point, this is a widespread misunderstanding of what the word "immunity" means in the technical sense. It does not mean "impervious" or "invulnerable" or "completely prevented from getting sick." It means "resistant to a disease by virtue of the immune system." [24] Similar to how damage resistances work in role-playing games, this does not always mean "completely impervious." But rather, less susceptible. That is how most experts have been using the term, and it is actually true for COVID-19 and the mRNA vaccines. Even after full protection wanes, there is still protection against death afforded by the vaccine. There is still protection against hospitalization. Even though you still might get a little sick, you are provided some immunity. Immunity is a non-countable but qualitative substance. it is not an on-off switch. It never was. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Shibboletink: Your comment is a resounding vindication of my suspicions.

Medical researchers are 'experts' and prestigious scientific journals are 'reliable sources', right up to the point where they start to voice unpopular opinions (specifically, opinions unpopular with you and your ideological allies). Then they become 'conspiracy theorists', 'fringe commentators' (despite millions of people sharing the opinion) and general pariahs. There's no shortage of medical and academic professionals who've lost their jobs over criticising (to various extents) the vaccines. But of course, they cease to be experts with relevant knowledge and experience as soon as they dissent - otherwise why wouldn't they conform to the 'consensus', yes? Circular logic and tyranny.

Several university professors, doctors and medical researchers - many of whom have never had a whiff of controversy in their lives before this - would disagree with your characterisation of the vaccines' efficacy. 'Preventing spread' is not the same as 'minutely reducing spread or having no significant effect, depending on the study/population/analytical tools'. 'Granting immunity' is understood by laymen to mean a near 100% guarantee against the disease (naturally, considering the efficacy of vaccines against the traditional deadly childhood diseases, which are the vaccines most sane people really care about getting). It always has been understood that way outside academia. How naive of government spokespeople and mainstream journalists not to have known this. They're usually ever so careful to taylor their words to the desired public reaction. What a curious oversight. And again, there's no shortage of medical/scientific thinkers who've risked professional ostracism to show that the immunity granted by the vaccines is generally no better than innate immunity (and may involve a less diverse profile of antibodies, hence the easily overcome selection pressure and need for frequent boosters), especially in younger age groups. Of course, people like those calling the shots on this article have put on their blinkers, discarded good statistical and epidemiological analyses and discredited the messenger rather than humbly examined the message.

Text walls are unavoidable when one is loth to over-generalised, simplistic statements, like those about a nonexistent scientific consensus. I'm reminded of the Catholic Church of Galileo's time: excommunicate the blasphemers and declare a consensus of the like-minded who remain. A tragic tautology.

And now, I disengage from this place impoverished of intellectual honestly. ModerateMaverick (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Honestly - that flounce wasn't bad, I'd give it 6 out of 10, but only 1 out of 10 for spelling honesty. Sheesh. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 00:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It only took this long to get to argumentum ad galileam. Wikipedia is not about what is true, it is about what is verfiable. So, in addition to being largely wrong about what you have said, your argument also carries no weight here. Have a great day. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources have made irresponsible statements So, what is the better alternative? Using unreliable sources instead is not it. Using your own judgement instead is just as ridiculous. I did not read your logorrhea, it's probably not worth it, judging from the part I did read. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I didnt read whatever you just said Hob, really waste of everyones time. Thanks. 2600:8804:6600:45:8498:A7A9:CE0C:EB13 (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

We go with what wp:rs says, if you do not think they are are RS take it to wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2022

Afterward, Weinstein and Heying moved their subsequent broadcasts to the alternative/fringe video sharing platform Odysee.[55

CHANGE TO: Afterward, Weinstein and Heying moved their subsequent broadcasts to ANOTHER video sharing platform Odysee.[55

REASON 1) Pejorative description of Odysee as'fringe'. Author appears biased. 2) Conciseness: replace 'the alternative' with 'another'. 222.155.5.155 (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done accurate as-is, per multiple previous discussions. Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Day of Absence/Presence description

The article asserts "The change to the event asked white participants to stay off campus," but the linked citation shows no such "ask" and makes clear that students were invited to participate in limited off-campus programs which required sign-up, given limited space.

Unless someone has evidence that white students, in toto, were asked by the university to avoid campus for the day, this needs to be amended to something like "The change to the event invited a limited number of white students to participate in off-campus programming." Dimwittery (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Where does it say "white students"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That's the issue. Where does the citation state that "white participants" were asked to stay off campus? Dimwittery (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe the current in-article text is a fair summary of the sources. It says "white participants." The linked sources indicate that "participants of color" would have their activities held on campus, and all other "allies" events would be held off campus. The context is clear, it means everyone who is a participant but not a participant of color. i.e. white participants. See WP:SUMMARY. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, secondary source coverage all supports this reading. If there's any issue in the article text, it's probably misplacement of the primary source citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether those sources exist or not (and it would be helpful to see them), this remains a distortion of the source. Some editors here seem to willfully conflate an "invitation" with an "ask." Evergreen at the time had over 2,800 white students, and the off-campus programming could only accommodate 200 participants. Nearly all of those students went about their usual on-campus business and expressed no duress about avoiding campus for the day. Dimwittery (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Where specifically does the citation ask "white participants" to "stay off" campus? It invites self-identified "ally" students to attend limited-space off-campus programming--it does not ask/request that non-POC students "stay off" campus. That's like arguing that an invitation to voluntarily attend an event is an "ask" to stay away from one's home. It's needless freighted and misleading language. Why not accurately reflect the contents of the source? Dimwittery (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing from the WP isn't even very clear. It says "In March, Weinstein, who is white, wrote that he disagreed with an administrator’s suggestion that white people might consider avoiding campus one day during a “day of absence” protest", and then it says, "This year, the school suggested that white students and faculty stay away from campus that day." So, was there a "suggestion" from an administrator, and then a suggestion from the school, but an administrator is not the same as the school, of course--and it's worthwhile noting that the message from Rashida Love (in the "primary source") says nothing of the kind. "Misplacement of the primary source" indeed: the primary does clearly NOT support the claim, "The change to the event asked white participants to stay off campus, to attend a program on race issues, while the on-campus program was designated for people of color", and if I had come across that I would have deleted that entire sentence. More editorial care is required here. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes overall I think your edits still represent the best summary of the source in my mind. I don't see much of a functional difference, so it's probably the best compromise of a change since it meaningfully improves the verifiability to you! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The WP article doesn't source its claims about the "ask," and it contradicts existing Evergreen sources. Why rely on it when Rashida Love's email is an available primary source? Wouldn't it make sense to rely on Evergreen's primary materials until someone can produce sources backing the WP article's claims? Dimwittery (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)