Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

More dubious claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vaccines

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

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

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

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

Initially, the videos received praise, but they later veered into misinformation."

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 bit seems not to be in the style of an encyclopedia. "received praise" is too vague and passive (received praise from whom?) - and the two parts of the statement are not disjoint or opposing. The citation in[2] is itself an opinion piece and so it could be given as an example of one set of coverage of JC but not as a source showing that sentence to be "true". My suggestion would be to remove this part. And to report on the public or media opinion in favour and against JC at more of a distance. Helenzie (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The details of "who" said this are covered in the body; the lede is just a summary. Wikipedia doesn't do The Truth™ but reflects accepted, mainstream knowledge as found in good sources, and has a special requirement to be explicit about when such sources say something is cranky. So what we have is good. Bon courage (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

to say he has engaged in "misinformation" is an opinion. None of the material presented was developed by him. They are all published, reviewed papers generally from the government, manufacturers or agencies. All science is based on"Misinformation". Eventually someone comes along and had a better explanation or question. Too many of those involved jumped on the bandwagon of popular sentiment and that led to egregious mistakes. The vaccine did not stop transmission. Masks did not stop transmission. PPE was universally improperly used and ineffective. mRNA was not adequately tested and reviewed. The who, CDC and ama have repeatedly changed the narrative, offered faint apologies for their mistakes. You may say that some of his material was accused of being misinformation by those later proved wrong. But he never developed it. Get a PhD in nursing and how to read a scientific paper and you'll be better prepared to make a determination. 65.183.216.242 (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't watched many of Dr. Campbell's videos but I watched a few. He's a very warm-hearted, personable man who legitimately wants to help people. Unfortunately, he wasn't as critical about vetting his sources of information as he should have been. I watched him read one paper from an "open source" journal of highly questionable reputation. He should have been aware that he was reading an unreliable paper to his viewers. In any event, Wikipedia's guidelines are clear about what can be included in the article. The information presented in Dr. Campbell's biography must be credited to reliable sources that are deemed so because they meet specific criteria. It's as simple as that. When those kinds of sources support Dr. Campbell's statements, the article will reflect those perspectives. There's no point in complaining about what the article says. Michael Martinez (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Government excess death figures reported by national health plans do not lie. Suggestions that this is some form of dis-information smacks of financially motivated bias. 36.37.169.160 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

They can be presented in dishonest ways to fool the unwary. Bon courage (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

And 10 minutes listening to Dr Campbell can tell most people his intention is not to "fool the unwary". The man's as honest as they come & some of the attempts to discredit him here are disgusting. 2A00:23C8:7323:8001:F9F8:3414:3BCF:6EDE (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

No one is saying his intentions aren't good. Plenty of well-intentioned people spread misinformation for various reasons. MrOllie (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

And might I enquire as to your medical background MrOllie? I'll almost guarantee Dr Campbell is better qualified to judge these things than you. I sometimes wonder how widespread & well funded your disinformation campaigns are 🤨 2A00:23C8:7323:8001:D086:D64A:5A88:6C0A (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. RS say it was misinformation, his motives are irrelevant. BY the way Mr Camble is not an MD. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Is the CDC an RS? Because they said if you take this vaccine you will not get infected. Many of your RS's have been proven wrong over the course of time. To continually parrot that line shows your limited understanding of what is a complex and constantly changing issue. Everyone's probably been wrong about facts or beliefs at some point in this last few years. Dr Campbell has a medical background, clearly understands these things well & most importantly DOESN'T JUST PARROT INDUSTRY FUNDED SCIENCE! I look forward to a speedy response from your group of big pharma employees. 2A00:23C8:7323:8001:1D4B:5345:4E32:619A (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

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

What is his date of birth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bias

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.

---

I am watching Jimmy Wales conversation with Lex Fridman. Facinating. Then I refer to the first paragraph of this wikipedia page and John Campbell's character is roundly assassinated in a few words. That's not right. I have followed him for several years and, while I may not agree with everything he says, I do not agree with wikipedia consigning him to the rubbish tip. You claim to use only good sources and yet these can be the very sources John Campbell is calling to account and in great explained detail. Remote criticsm and judgement seems to be the way of the internet, but it is not what I expect from Wikipedia. Disagree by all means, discuss by all means, but expound negative judgement without any due process? No. So what I see is groupthink bias in action. This is my first input ever. RRSDBSA (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The article follows how the subject is covered in reliable sources. That's all there is to it. Zaathras (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Understood. I disagree. RRSDBSA (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

here is one reason why, sources being Oxford University and similar. My opinion is the wiki article sources are selective and driven by vested interests, taking advantage of wikipedia's desire to be fair and so subverting this objective. So from the man himself I find youtube is blacklisted. As such I refer to his recording dated "8 months ago" (so that must be November 2022) "Ivermectin Clarification". Incidentally I have no view about that drug, except that debate should not be stifled by the status quo. RRSDBSA (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on following sources, that is its core policy. We're not going to change that or ignore it for this one article. MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

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

PhD thesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I feel like i'm headbutting a wall here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The video was referenced by American comedian Jimmy Dore"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death Count

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newer sources

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

Why does it only mention covid related, John was quite popular before covid.

Dr John was popular before covid and still posts on a lot of other health related topics that he feels important. This page reads like its a hate page and if you watch his videos he does not talk about things without links to reputable sources. If he makes a mistake he will also rectify it which i believe we need more of. I notice wiki is quickly losing what it was used for, as an information site. Now it seems to have its own belief. He used to advise on taking the vaccine, lockdown and mask wearing. It was only through medical research from highly regarded sources he changed. 212.86.59.222 (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

We do, its just that he became more notable afterward. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Its "own belief" is to reflect the scholarly consensus, not to repeat cherry-picked opinions. Topologyrob (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus, scholarly or otherwise. What you support are cherry picked opinions. 178.78.100.94 (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources state otherwise. Zaathras (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, please provide sources for his pre-covid notability. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024

Where is your proof of mis information. John always backs up everything with evidence. Please remove tge word misinformation. Billylove75 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't have proof, RS do, as they claimed it, ask them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Shocking description of a man who has dedicated his life to people's health and continues to examine scientific fact. There is no misinformation on his YouTube only critical examination. 92.26.93.203 (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

wp:rs say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have found Dr John Campbell and his eminent guests give totally reliable information and so do consultants from all over the world who contact him for advice. Wilki is obviously run by the left who want to keep feeding us toxic, unproven, unlicensed vaccines such as the Covid vaccine. Dr Campbell never usually sums up, he just gives us the facts so we can make our own minds up. 2.96.250.228 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Could I request an edit to this post. 2.96.250.228 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

We follow what the cited sources have to say, not your personal impression of how reliable he is. MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You can edit your own post. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

re 1222341366

If "false claims" have been made and "misinformation" has been "veered into", would sources please be added to that section? Have you checked the citations? TheVBW (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Well "factually incorrect" is already sourced, as is "spurious" "misleading" and "misinterprets", so it seems to be that misinformation sums this up well, but we can go for "factually incorrect". Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Then please copy these citations into the relevant area, because the current FactCheck citation is not relevant. TheVBW (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

They are, we don't generally cite the lede as it is only a summary of the body. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Will remove. TheVBW (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Do not, you have not gotten a consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

So I have now altred it to reflect the sources, and provided one. Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Have moved one of the references and removed a duplicate which is only relevant later in the text TheVBW (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully this wording is less "coy"[sic] TheVBW (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You'll need a consensus to make a change. I find that switching to passive voice is unhelpful here. The misinformation didn't just fall into his videos on its own. MrOllie (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Passive voice is not intended - this is a more accurate description. WP:RS have mentioned John raising concerns over the presentation of the data he's covering, and I don't see how his recent interviews with medical experts and first-hand officially diagnosed vaccine injury sufferers could possibly be considered misinformation. Labelling all of his work as such is a huge disservice. TheVBW (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't 'label all of his work as such', so we are in good shape, then. MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring is not going to help. You must actually get support for your proposed edit from other editors, here on this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems to. TheVBW (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I can find nothing in the article that does so, and I've read it several times. MrOllie (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"they later veered into misinformation" - something "veering" is not going down multiple paths at once. TheVBW (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be reading something into the article that is simply not there - and a misreading is not a reason to change the article. MrOllie (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone being earnest would disagree with me on this. TheVBW (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

He went from being semi-reasonable to being a total COVID crank according to Gorski. I don't believe there is any RS that says his videos now have any merit; quite the opposite. So the "veering into" phrase is apt and faithful to the sense of the sources cited. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This is quite a sweeping statement as well as a personal attack. Also, false. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Actauly "begun to include covid misinformation" I like. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Same here. I've edited the article as such with the minor adjustment to "began to include COVID-19 misinformation". TarnishedPath^talk 11:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That suggests they were still praiseworthy with a smattering of misinformation, which does not fit with the "total COVID crank" which is sourced, or the unredeemed string of misinformation sources complain about after he became an antivaxxer. Bon courage (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No less than the current wording does. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

So how to convey the flip from "semi-reasonable" to full-on antivaxxer with a grifting business model? Bon courage (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think your overthinking what it says. That's not my interpretation of that wording at all. "Began to include" to me simply indicates that there was divergence at some point in time. TarnishedPath^talk 11:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I just want to be accurate, and not give the impression his are praiseworthy videos which happen to "include" occasional misinfo. If we want to say there's a "divergence" then we should say that; I'd be fine saying his videos diverted into nisinformation, or that his videos came to "consist of" (not just "include") misinformation. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"but they later diverged into COVID-19 misinformation"? TarnishedPath^talk 12:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That would work. I wonder if the BBC content I just added[3] is relevant to how we think of this? Bon courage (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Amazing that his copout was that he wasn't a statistician and he hadn't done the original analysis. Full crank. TarnishedPath^talk 12:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Anti-vax

Hello Wikipedia. Can you please source when John Campbell became anti-vax? It is one thing to analyze and critique a vaccine and another to write-off all vaccines. 24.203.188.202 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Follow the sources. You don't need to 'write-off all vaccines' to engage in Anti-vaccine activism; in fact most anti-vaxxers claim to be pro-vaccine (but aren't). Bon courage (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"You don't need to 'write-off all vaccines' to engage in Anti-vaccine activism;"

Yes you do. It's in the very essence of the term. For being a Science editor you should know better than this.

"most anti-vaxxers claim to be pro-vaccine"

Eh... no they don't. You're again missing the lexicological aspect of words. ExitFilm(For a Music) (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Follow the sources. Your opinion counts for nothing. "You should know better" is an empty bluff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Are discussions often like that to improve Wikipedia articles? I honestly find this quite depressing. It's really unfortunate to see active contributors defending such fallacious claims on Wikipedia.

Claming someone who does not think they need a vaccine or do not recommend a specific vaccine as an antitax is totally illogical and irrational.

What is the procedure to escalate this kind of issue to prevent misinformation on Wikipedia? 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

someone who does not think they need a vaccine That is not what Campbell does. He spreads misinformation about vaccines that deludes people away from vaccinations and leads to epidemics. Please inform yourself from reliable sources instead of disinformation sites. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Please inform yourself from from entire sentences instead of taking part of someone's post out of context. I also find the implication that Dr. John Campbell's pursuit of the truth leads to epidemics to be quite libellous. TheVBW (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I did read your entire sentences. My response still fits, and what's more important, your approach is at odds with Wikipedia's rules. We will not delete a sourced statement just because some random person on the internet believes it is totally illogical and irrational. Otherwise, Wikipedia, just picking one example, would have to be silent on the shape of the Earth. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The person (John) in question does not seem to associate with total "anti-vax" either, and I have not seen him raise concerns on any other vaccines besides COVID jabs, besides drawing comparisons with the threshold of adverse events at which other drugs have been withdrawn - is he not a source on himself? TheVBW (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Where (in our article) do you want to remove the claim he is anti-vax from? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I see two occurrences - but either way the erroneous claim that he's an anti-vaxxer is still being argued for in talk and I want to achieve consensus. TheVBW (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this needs attibuting. Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Somebody who pumps out anti-vaccine information is fairly obviously antivax, More to the point, since we have a cited WP:GREL which asserts he is antivax, without qualification, Wikipedia is obliged to assert that too. Attributing it or otherwise watering it down would be WP:PROFRINGE and POV. Bon courage (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Not anti-vaccine - pro awareness of Coronavirus vaccine dangers. John has been vaccinated. Is he a fringe source on himself? TheVBW (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia cares more about what independent sources have to say about a subject than what a subject as to say about themself. If we followed self descriptions David Duke's biography would call him a 'human rights advocate'. MrOllie (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"pro awareness of Coronavirus vaccine dangers" ← that is a WP:PROFRINGE framing since the "dangers" he trumpets are consistently fake, as sources relay. Unduly self-serving comments WP:ABOUTSELF are not permitted in Wikipedia articles, and nearly all antivaxxers claim they aren't one. The whole point is this guy changed from somebody semi-reasonable to a antivaxxer, as our sources say. Bon courage (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

AstraZeneca have recently withdrawn their vaccine over such dangers and the NHS has published official advice. What are you on about? TheVBW (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

No, they didn't. They're withdrawing because they weren't making money due to competition from other vaccine makers. But see WP:NOTFORUM, Wikipedia talk pages aren't the place for this. MrOllie (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

He says it, but it's also clearly demonstrated. You think he faked his vaccination dates? TheVBW (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant. We follow the independent sources. MrOllie (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

And his whole schtick is how he used to get vaccinated but is now no longer taking up the NHS invitations. Even the morons in the Youtube comment section understand this. Anyway, we need independent reliable sources on this so this line of discussion is futile. Bon courage (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Now we're insulting his viewers? TheVBW (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF TheVBW (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

To quote: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. ABOUTSELF only works when independent reliable sources are not being contradicted. MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I only see one source which calls him "anti-vax" in passing, in which case a 50:50 wouldn't be a terribly exceptional claim. The site is a very online publication, and "boo hiss the anti-vax crank" is gonna get more engagement than "COVID vaccine skeptic makes error" TheVBW (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand that you disagree with the conclusion of the cited source, but we have to follow it nonetheless. MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Why are we following a lone source over the public actions of the living person in question? TheVBW (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and this is in any case completely consonant with Campbell's actions and word (which you apparently don't undserstand). Bon courage (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Because that is what Wikipedia's core content policies dictate. We specifically do not substitute the judgment of individual Wikipedia editors for that of the reliable sources. That is the main point of policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

If what publishers are interested in is more important than verifiable fact, then I have failed. TheVBW (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you have, so time to drop the stick. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "vaccine skeptic" in any reliable source. It's just a term antivaxxers use for themselves (cf. "climate skeptic"). One again, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• COVID vaccine skeptic TheVBW (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

But he had it, ergo if he is not a denier he is not a skeptic, of course a lot of people say one thing and do another (when money is involved). Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

We follow the reliable sources. An argument for anything else is is an argument for original research TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a diversion with general information that brings nothing to this talk. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it is a helpful pointer for a rookie to familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Someone obviously need to be against all vaccines to be an anti-vaxxer. With this fallacious reasoning, anyone who doesn't believe in a single religion, for instance, would be considered as anti-religion, right?

It is shameful that we need to discuss about obvious semantic logic like that with contributors who are defending false information that is causing diffamation.

People who considered they didn't need a vaccine who should be not be tagged as antivax. If this reasoning can drive the content of Wikipedia pages Wikipedia can not be considered as a reliable source anymore. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

You don't get it. Wikipedia is built on the rule that all articles have to be based on reliable sources. What is "obvious" for you does not matter because of WP:OR. This page is for source-based discussions on how to improve the article based on sources. If you want to change the article about Campbell, you need sources talking about Campbell. If you do not like that, you are welcome to go to other websites where you can publish your opinion. This is not one of those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Dr Cambell is not engages into anti-vaccine activism. This is a fallacious statement. He only questions the relevance and the risk benifit ratio of a specific vaccine. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Dr Campbell actually had all his Covid jabs and is not an anti-Vader. 2.96.250.228 (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you pointout where we say he is? Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

He clearly shared his vaccination status in this video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3ceurG7P89c 38.133.44.131 (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

So, do we say he is Anti-Vax? Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Is he really anti-Vader, or just pro-Skywalker? Zaathras (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

This attitude is childish and counter productive. It is obvious it is just a typo and correcting disinformation is more important than joking. Dr Cambell often mentionned he had 2 doses of the vaccine during the pandemic and he is absolutly not an antivax. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

is absolutly[sic] not an antivax. Well, reliable sources state otherwise. Zaathras (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Ref 19b potentially misleading due to timestamp

This regards ref 19, which at the time of writing is:

- Vadon R (October 4, 2023). "Vaccine claims, Alzheimer's treatment and Tim's Parkrun times". More or Less: Behind the Stats (Radio programme). 2 minutes in. BBC. Radio 4.

There is nothing wrong with the reference itself, but I found the "2 minutes in" to be potentially misleading. Since this reference, a radio programme, is used twice on the page to refer to two different parts of the programme.

Ref 19 is cited for the first time in the third paragraph under under "COVID-19 pandemic", providing a source for the paragraph's claims, which centre on comments from Richard Vadon, a guest in the programme. Vadon's comments arise at around 2 minutes into the programme, so the "2 minutes in" is helpful here.

The second time Ref 19 is used -- in the second paragraph under "Death count" -- it is to provide a source for the sentence, "Campbell took down his video after being contacted by the programme, telling them that he was not a statistician." The part of the programme discussing this happens at about 10:40-11:00. So, it's not accurate to use ref 19 here, since it implies that one should go "2 minutes in" to hear the source for the sentence.

However, I am not familiar enough with best practices here to know what's the right way to correct this. Is it just as simple as creating a new reference where it mentions "10:40 minutes in" and have it replace ref 19b? Also note that this same radio programme is used as reference 34, just without the timestamp. Would appreciate input, thank you. Sic veresco (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)