Talk:Great Barrington Declaration
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Great Barrington Declaration article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. The entire article relates to the following contentious topics:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"fringe notion"
[edit]Really? You editors aren't even trying to hide your bias. Please remove this. Just call it for what it is. 66.177.84.252 (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Fringe" is suitable for the intro, although "fringe or pseudoscience" shows up, quoted, later in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- In this manner it is basically a signal word indicating the editorially biased article that follows Tikitorch2 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- You think it is practically possible to hygienially separate, using age and health criteria, the populations of countries into two groups that have no physical contact with each other? That's crazy. You believe that once someone was infected with COVID-19, they cannot be infected again? That hope has been quickly refuted. Both notions are the basis of the GBD. It's as fringe as it gets. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't get how anyone could read it and come away thinking it assumed those things. Did you read it?
- It's also hard to understand how a statement with the signatures of recognized experts in the field it concerns could be honestly described as "as fringe as it gets." Like, it could conceivably be considered fringe, but "as fringe as it gets"? That is not a serious assertion. Omnisciarch (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- [1]
We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young
By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal
- These statements - old people are vulnerable and should not be in contact with young people without acquired immunity, and young people should just continue as before - mean that the two groups need to be separated. No staff has yet recovered from COVID? Until then, the inmates need to cope without any staff. Family with old people and young people living under one roof, maybe in the same room? Stop that, one party needs to move somewhere else. Insanity.
- [1]
- [2]
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity
- Antigenic escape, Herd immunity#Theoretical basis and Herd immunity#Evolutionary pressure and serotype replacement explain why this will not work.
- [2]
a statement with the signatures of recognized experts in the field
This is bullshit. Science is not done by saying "I am an expert! I am right!" but by valid reasoning. Those who opposed the GBD immediately gave good, valid reasoning why it will not work. Sweden tried applying it, it did not work, and they had to change the strategy. Every country that tried something like it had more deaths from COVID than those that did not.- The GBD is based on motivated reasoning: some people want the economy to flourish, and they will totally fuck up people's health if that's what it takes. Experts will agree with it if their political opinions trump their expertise. It's like climate change denial in that respect, and it comes from the same type of organization as climate change denial - market fundamentalist think tanks.
- But for Wikipedia, the only thing that matters is: reliable sources call it fringe. As explained, they are correct when they call it that, but you do not have to accept that because it does not matter. RS call it fringe, that matters. End of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Your quotes clearly do not vindicate your description of the declaration. Also, you moved the goalposts from "as fringe as it gets" to "fringe".
- I think you should take a deep breath and step back from any involvement with this article. Omnisciarch (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- No, I will not fall for your "you disagree with me, therefore you should go away" bluff. But even if I did: removing me will not help your goal of whitewashing the GBD, since I am not the only editor who knows how stupid the GBD is.
- And no, I am not moving any goalposts. My wording on this talk page does not need sources that use the same exact wording.
- Go find WP:MEDRS sources that agree with you in saying the GBD is a serious proposal not at odds with reality, or that it is not fringe. If you don't, you have nothing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- (Personal attack removed) Omnisciarch (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Personal attacks aren't going to get you anywhere here. MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- (Personal attack removed)
- Did you not notice when he called my comment bullshit? Mind explaining how that's not a personal attack? Omnisciarch (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- You are not your comments. And responding to a warning about personal attacks by making more personal attacks is not a good tactic. - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Personal attacks aren't going to get you anywhere here. MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- (Personal attack removed) Omnisciarch (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is stupid fringe nonsense. There were hospitals already totally unable to cope and they were happy to let it go rip with brainless unthought out measures. Slowing the spread to allow hospitals to treat patients as well as they could and getting time to try and find good treatments to save lives was the sensible thing to do even if the vaccines were never found. This sort of thing is what led to the US having a higher death rate than Canada or Mexico, never mind Australia which is what it should have been like with its space and borders and development. NadVolum (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that the use of “fringe” here is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I’ve posted a more detailed explanation in a separate thread, but in short: “fringe” is a subjective label and violates Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy. Descriptive terms like this should be attributed to reliable sources, not presented in Wikipedia’s own voice. Rbwhite9 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Perfectly valid to consider "focused protection" as a 'fringe' theory, but not sure that it is an encyclopaedic term. Also not sure why "It claimed that COVID-19 lockdowns could be avoided via the fringe notion of "focused protection" would not work sufficiently.
- The article is very clear in setting out the opposition to GBD with a number of cited, respected sources. I am not sure it needs to signal opprobrium with 'fringe' given the subsequent material and that, in any event, this is not a particularly live debate in society. 188.214.12.203 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
The sourced statements on the editorial statment describing "focused protection" as "fringe" are opinions of individual scientists, not general scientific conclusions. There were multiple other scientists who held different opinions on the effectiveness of focused protection or similar actions. For evidence, see this article from Nov 2020 describing a debate on the topic sponsored by Johns Hopkins University: [3]. Additional evidence would be Sweden's approach, which was essentially focused protection: [4]. Given the clear varied opinions among scientists at the time, those arguing to leave the word "fringe" should provide more than simply opinions from individual scientists. Otherwise the word should be removed as it is an editorial rather than factual statement. Srdone (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- The notion that Sweden's approach as the same as what the Declaration proposed has been thoroughly debunked many times over, including several times on this talk page. This article will go on presenting the mainstream view of the subject as explained by the relevant reliable sources - a few people coming on this talk page and claiming that the mainstream is 'simply opinions from individual scientists' will not result in any changes to this article. MrOllie (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's unclear to me why the article needs to include the contested word 'fringe' in order to present what, I agree, is the mainstream view of the subject, as explained by the relevant reliable sources which feature at length throughout the remainder of the article. 188.214.12.203 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. BS needs to be identified as BS. Bon courage (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Might it be appropriate to consider turning 'fringe' to a hyperlink which links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_theory . I think some of the contention around the use of this word relates to the feeling that it is an unencyclopedic word whereas it appears, to a certain extent, to be a term of art. 188.214.12.203 (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- No because WP:FRINGE has a slightly odd specific meaning at odds with the wider world. Bon courage (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- But is that not the point? It's the use of the word 'fringe' as part of the content of the article (so therefore using the language of the wider world) that is at issue here. The discussion on this page seems to be conflating the definition used within WP:FRINGE and the ordinary use of 'fringe', explained within Fringe_theory 188.214.12.203 (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- The article uses it as general English, and not in the WP:UPPERCASE sense. It should never be otherwise, Bon courage (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- But is that not the point? It's the use of the word 'fringe' as part of the content of the article (so therefore using the language of the wider world) that is at issue here. The discussion on this page seems to be conflating the definition used within WP:FRINGE and the ordinary use of 'fringe', explained within Fringe_theory 188.214.12.203 (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- No because WP:FRINGE has a slightly odd specific meaning at odds with the wider world. Bon courage (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Might it be appropriate to consider turning 'fringe' to a hyperlink which links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_theory . I think some of the contention around the use of this word relates to the feeling that it is an unencyclopedic word whereas it appears, to a certain extent, to be a term of art. 188.214.12.203 (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. BS needs to be identified as BS. Bon courage (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's unclear to me why the article needs to include the contested word 'fringe' in order to present what, I agree, is the mainstream view of the subject, as explained by the relevant reliable sources which feature at length throughout the remainder of the article. 188.214.12.203 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Reliable Sources
[edit]This Wikipedia article cites an article by David Gorski in "Science-Based Medicine," which includes text like "COVID-19 deniers follow the path laid down by creationists, HIV/AIDS denialists, and climate science deniers" as a "reliable source". The author uses the term "Covid deniers" to describe credentialed academics who have never denied the existence of Covid-19.
"Science-based Medicine" is not a peer-reviewed medical journal, and the article is used to justify using the term "fringe notion", which can be considered a smear in part because the GBD authors had been well-respected academics for decades at the world's most prestigious universities, and thousands of credentialed professionals have supported the Declaration throughout the world.
How can such an article be considered "RS"? 24.41.157.59 (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:FRIND, WP:SBM. Wikipedia does not require peer-reviewed medical articles to give context to fringe claims. MrOllie (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- That is part of my point. 24.41.157.59 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- If you understand that, then you understand that this article's use of SBM isn't a problem. MrOllie (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- And if we understand that, then such understanding serves to explain one of the serious problems with this Wikipedia article regarding information legitimacy, governing editors' biases, and obvious lack of neutrality. 24.41.157.59 (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- When reliable sources consistently identify a position as fringe/marginal/unscientific, then it isn't the responsibility of Wikipedia to fix the situation. Please see also WP:NOTTRUTH. Newimpartial (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial
- Ok, so how do the governing Wikipedia editors (those who get the final say in what is published) exactly measure the *consistency* and *reliability* that you mention?
- We are talking here about some anonymous editors labeling the work from reputable experts from Oxford, Stanford and Harvard (and signed by thousands of other academics) as "fringe" in the most popular online encyclopedia. 24.41.157.59 (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- The opinions editors happen to hold about issues (or about scholars, for that matter) are not in themselves relevant to article content. But editors have noted on the Talk page that, according to reliable sources (especially high-quality sources), the GBD reflects a minute ("fringe") proportion of qualified public health and epidemeological scholars, while the mainstream position does not support GBD-type proposals. The responses from qualified experts to the 2022 paper by John Ioannidis seem to illustrate this status pretty clearly. Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial
- "according to reliable sources (especially high quality sources"
- ... and this brings us back to the first post.
- How can Wikipedia use the "Science-Based Medicine" (a blog-format website) article with language like "COVID-19 deniers follow the path laid down by creationists" as a "reliable source" (especially high quality source) to justify the label "fringe notion."
- Is this the kind of source used by governing editors to determine that the GBD is thought of as "fringe" by all except a miniscule number of academics today? 70.45.155.224 (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is a source that specializes on the medical fringe. You will not find a better source on the subject. See WP:SBM. Your criterion "miniscule number of academics" is not the one that determines whether something is fringe. The vast majority of academics has no clue about medicine, and even among those who do have a clue, most are not interested in fringe medicine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Another thing:
article with language like "COVID-19 deniers follow the path laid down by creationists"
What language would you expect a reliable source to use when someone follows the path laid down by creationists? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)- @Hob Gadling
- It seems you actually think that to say that the GB Declaration follows the path laid down by creationists (a religious belief) is to say something factual that can be written in an encyclopedia. 45.41.152.93 (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- What is factual here is that it was described that way. NadVolum (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is also a good characterization, since both creationists and GBD proponents propose fantasy stories, ignoring factual refutations. But that is beside the point. As NadVolum says, it was described that way - by people with a clue who are rightly considered reliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Hob Gadling
- If I may ask Hob Gadling,
- Are you a Wikipedia editor with governing rights for this article?
- By "governing rights" I mean an editor that, in case of a conflict of someone trying to eliminate the term "fringe notion" from this article vs someone who wants to keep such term, would get the right to the publish? 24.41.157.59 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is also a good characterization, since both creationists and GBD proponents propose fantasy stories, ignoring factual refutations. But that is beside the point. As NadVolum says, it was described that way - by people with a clue who are rightly considered reliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- What is factual here is that it was described that way. NadVolum (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- The opinions editors happen to hold about issues (or about scholars, for that matter) are not in themselves relevant to article content. But editors have noted on the Talk page that, according to reliable sources (especially high-quality sources), the GBD reflects a minute ("fringe") proportion of qualified public health and epidemeological scholars, while the mainstream position does not support GBD-type proposals. The responses from qualified experts to the 2022 paper by John Ioannidis seem to illustrate this status pretty clearly. Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- When reliable sources consistently identify a position as fringe/marginal/unscientific, then it isn't the responsibility of Wikipedia to fix the situation. Please see also WP:NOTTRUTH. Newimpartial (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- If you understand that, then you understand that this article's use of SBM isn't a problem. MrOllie (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Article contents are determined by what reliable sources say and consensus. Both seem to disagree with removing the word "Fringe notion". --McSly (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @McSly
- I surely understand what you say, although is is not clear how you or Wikipedia measures such *reliability* and *consensus*.
- What is the criteria for determining the reliability and consensus? 24.41.157.59 (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- These concepts are explained at WP:RELIABLE and WP:CONSENSUS. MrOllie (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- Thanks. Let's look at that..
- "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors"
- The question remains the same or very similar:
- How does Wikipedia measure "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" when selecting reliable sources (of high quality) for this GBD article?
- Wikipedia has selected an article of "Science-based Medicine" to label the GBD as "fringe notion" while it is known that other scientists, some of great prestige like John Ioannidis, disagree with the "fringe" statement.
- How do editors determine that the view of "Science-based Medicine" should govern? 24.41.157.59 (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- You've already been pointed to the WP:SBM entry, you should read it and click on the links you find there. MrOllie (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- Thank you for pointing out.
- @MrOllie
- Now, the unresolved issue for this thread remains:
- Why do editors CHOOSE the cited "Science-Based Medicine" (essentially a self published blog) article to label the Declaration as "fringe notion" when it is known that other sources that qualify as "reliable sources" (as per Wiki) do not express such viewpoint?
- This GBD Wikipedia article also cites a science editor opinion piece in The Guardian from October 7, 2020 (only three days after the Declaration), in which Ian Sample says that "herd immunity strategy" and focused protection is regarded by the scientific community as "fringe viewpoint".
- Now, there are equivalent reliable sources (as defined per Wiki) to those two cited articles that say otherwise, especially later when time has shown that a country like Sweden had less excessive deaths during the pandemic period than all or most the entire EU. "Unherd" (UK news outlet), for example, published article "Has the Great Barrington Declaration been vindicated? Lockdowns failed to serve the collective good" in 2022.
- So why do editors only cite whatever appears to support the term "fringe notion" (and insist so vehemently on keeping such wording)? 24.41.157.59 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- You've been pointed to the answers to this (several times). I won't repeat myself any further. MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- UnHerd says its mission is "When the herd takes off in one direction, what do you do? UnHerd is for people who dare to think for themselves." As far as Wikipedia is concerned that means it is a publisher of contrarian ideas. Wikipedia is not a publisher an promulgator of contrarian views. If the great majority of scientists said the world was flat we'd say the world is flat and if they said theories that it is round are pseudoscience we'd say it is pseudoscience. Verifiability not truth is a motto of Wikipedia. You're at the wrong place if all you care about is 'the truth'. NadVolum (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @NadVolum
- How interesting...
- Now, how do you as an editor (perhaps a governing editor) know or determine that the vast majority of scientists, today, think of the GBD as a "fringe notion"?
- I'm not saying it is not true... I personally don't think so, but I can't be sure. How do you determine that? 24.41.157.59 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- We don't. You are suffering from a misconception about how science works which seems pretty popular among clueless laypeople. I already said
The vast majority of academics has no clue about medicine
. It is irrelevant what the "vast majority of academics" think. Science is not based on voting. In science, only facts are important. The relevant facts about a specific subject are known by the experts on that subject, which is epidemiology in this case. We can immediately dismiss what non-epidemiologists say, no matter how many or how academic. So, Kulldorff and Bhattacharya go out the window. Gupta and Ioannidis are epidemiologists, but they both made lots of extremely optimistic predictions about the number of deaths by COVID that turned out to be ridiculously wrong. The GBD is a far-out outsider position proposed by non-experts and by a few experts who got their facts wrong, probably for ideological reasons. When experts do not change their opinions in spite of getting it wrong, they cease to be reliable. This is what fringe means: all experts on the subject, except maybe a few ideologically blinkered ones, say one thing, and either a few ignorant people or a huge number of ignorant people say the opposite. - Your attempts at argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam fail. Your reasoning is bad, and it will stay bad because there are no good reasons for your position. We have gone through the same thing many times before, you are just the last person in a long line of people who all avail themselves of the same set of fallacies. When you either give up or are banned for WP:IDHT, somebody else will use the same bad reasoning next week or next month. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Hob Gadling
- "We can immediately dismiss what non-epidemiologists say, no matter how many or how academic... So Kulldorff and Bhattacharya go out the window. "
- Is David Gorski an epidemiologist? Is Ian Sample an epidemiologist? Are you an epidemiologist? 24.41.157.59 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Gorski and I listen to what the experts say and compare it to what the cranks say. There is a very clear difference. We know how to determine what is fringe. You do not. Read WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Hob Gadling
- According to *your own words and criteria*, your opinion should be dismissed. Gorski's as well. And thrown "out the window."
- That is, again, according to the criteria you set yourself. 24.41.157.59 (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hob Gadling isn't proposing to rewrite the article based on their own opinions. Following the sources is what we do here. MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Gorski and I listen to what the experts say and compare it to what the cranks say. There is a very clear difference. We know how to determine what is fringe. You do not. Read WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- There are no 'governing editors'. There are some editors who are also WP:Administrators, as such their job is support in the production of a free reliable encyclopaedia, quite a bit of which involves stopping disruption and removing vandals. They don't have special rights as far as content is concerned. Please read WP:5P for a very basic grounding on Wikipedia.
- This article covers a medical matter and therefore comes under WP:MEDRS as far as medical advice is concerned. Wikipedia treats medical advice with special care as bad advice can kill or injure people. That is where the basic assessment that it is dangerous rubbish comes from. The idea that it is fringe is an outside assessment based on the medical assessment and is based on normal reliable sources talking about that aspect.
- The disagreement here is pretty basic, so if you really feel that it is not fringe then you will have to raise a WP:RfC - a request for comment - to get more editors involved to come to a decision. The only other route I can is to raise it as a WP:BLP problem, biography of living persons, saying that calling it fringe is WP:UNDUE for the coverage that way of the people involved. I can't say I think either approach will get far. Perhaps you can say it is not thought of as fringe as far as some economics or political people are concerned - but they're not generally considered as qualified in medical matters. NadVolum (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- @NadVolum
- Thanks for the detailed answer. I realize I could make a request for comment on the "fringe" issue, but I first wanted to inquire about how the term "fringe notion" got there in the first place and why the editors with more authority are so insistent on keeping it.
- It seems that, by Wikipedia's own rules, it could have been the other way around: The initial editors don't say anything about "fringe", cite articles that are favorable to the GBD and don't mention anything related to "fringe"... while other editors argue for the use of the term and get denied and suspended.
- This is all very interesting. 24.41.157.59 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- This only could have happened if the experts had supported GBD and anti-science, anti-health politicians and economists had railed against it instead of the other way around. Can you please stop using this page for sophism? It is for improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- We don't. You are suffering from a misconception about how science works which seems pretty popular among clueless laypeople. I already said
- You've already been pointed to the WP:SBM entry, you should read it and click on the links you find there. MrOllie (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- These concepts are explained at WP:RELIABLE and WP:CONSENSUS. MrOllie (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Article contents are determined by what reliable sources say and consensus. Both seem to disagree with removing the word "Fringe notion". --McSly (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @NadVolum
- I see... editors don't question whether the information seems subjective or questionable.
- It comes from a reliable source of high quality, "Science-Based Medicine". Therefore, such information deserves to be in an encyclopedia.
- That seems to be what you are saying. Correct? 24.41.157.59 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes! But this page is for improving the article, not for repeatedly telling you the same thing about how the rules work. If you want to learn the rules, read the rules people have linked. If they are too difficult to understand for you, go to the talk pages of those rules and ask that they be better understandable. Or maybe switch to the Simple English Wikipedia. Can we stop this please? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Hob Gadling
- Please consider using more respectful language.
- A reply above, which starts with "Thanks for pointing out..." serves as an answer to what you try to say here. 24.41.157.59 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. You are still wasting people's time here, defending an indefensible idea. No amount of bad reasoning from you will change the fact that we have heaps of reliable sources that say GBD will not work. You will need an equally big heap of reliable sources that say the opposite. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes! But this page is for improving the article, not for repeatedly telling you the same thing about how the rules work. If you want to learn the rules, read the rules people have linked. If they are too difficult to understand for you, go to the talk pages of those rules and ask that they be better understandable. Or maybe switch to the Simple English Wikipedia. Can we stop this please? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Sweden and Excessive All-Cause Deaths
[edit]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.
Before making any changes to the GBD article, I'd like to use the talk forum to discuss this very important subject regarding "lockdowns" and the harsh measures that the GBD criticized and advised against.
The country of Sweden was maligned during 2020 for keeping business and society open with few restrictions. Mainstream reports in 2020 claimed Sweden would suffer more death than other countries for their policies at the time. However, now, in 2025, official statistics show that Sweden had either the lowest or close to lowest excessive deaths in Europe from 2020-2024.
I noticed some dialogue about this in the other Talk pages, and saw that not all editors are aware of these facts and how they become part of the story and arguments.
Before I introduce this into the article, and how in some ways it may vindicate the GBD, I feel it's important we first clarify the issue in the Talk page.
One good source to start is:
"Comparing different international measures of excess mortality", Office for National Statistics Dicegroj (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Same issues have been extensively discussed in the talk page archives, and indeed very recently further up this page. We cannot accept any WP:OR attempts to use Sweden to 'vindicate' anything. MrOllie (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- This is one source to look at, though there are more....
- "Sweden, Covid and ‘excess deaths’: a look at the data" The Spectator. 10 March 2023. Dicegroj (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Even if this were a reliable source (it isn't, a political magazine is not a good source for medical claims), it doesn't even mention the Great Barrington Declaration. MrOllie (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- I realize it doesn't mention GBD, but I sincerely believe that, as we compose an article on the contentious subject like this, the concept of excessive deaths is well understood.
- That includes understanding the difference between overall mortality data and Covid deaths (deaths labeled as Covid) data.
- This article presents some good explanations such as:
- "While Covid deaths were counted daily, the longer-term effects would take years to come through. The only real way of counting this would be to look at ‘excess deaths’, i.e. how many more people die every month (or year) compared to normal. That data is now coming through.
- Using the most common methodology, Sweden is at the bottom – below Australia and New Zealand, which had plenty of lockdowns but very few Covid deaths." Dicegroj (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- You need a WP:MEDRS source saying that this is the result of the GBD being a good idea. Your own reasoning saying so is WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Hob Gadling
- Understood, but it is acceptable to have dialogue about reasoning and logic in the Talk page, with the end goal of improving the article.
- The Spectator article presents a very basic argument:
- Inocontrovertible official data shows that the country that chose not to lockdown, and maligned for it at the time and expected to have more deaths during the pandemic period, actually had no notable excessive death compared to lockdowned countries. Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce that lockdowns may not be the effective strategy once thought of- perhaps the contrary.
- The article uses data from early 2022, and we as reasonble and intelligent individuals can verify the data after early 2022 (which favors Sweden even further).
- The idea of this thread is that those involved in the editing understand the argument. Even if they may disagree for some reason, to understand the basic argument.
- Then, we'll go to the article with the cited sources and we'll see if such sources adhere to Wikidpedia's rules. Dicegroj (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- It really is not, see WP:NOTFORUM. This is not a venue for you to debate the topic. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- I haven't cited all the sources yet, only some.
- I am, out of respect, just using the Talk page before making edits. My goal is to improve the article to make it as realistic and encyclopedic as possible. Dicegroj (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- You have cited precisely zero -usable- sources. Your 'goal' should be to develop an understanding of Wikipedia's policies first - right now you are wasting your time (along with everyone else's) with stuff that cannot possibly result in a change to the article. MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- It really is not, see WP:NOTFORUM. This is not a venue for you to debate the topic. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- You need a WP:MEDRS source saying that this is the result of the GBD being a good idea. Your own reasoning saying so is WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Even if this were a reliable source (it isn't, a political magazine is not a good source for medical claims), it doesn't even mention the Great Barrington Declaration. MrOllie (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- The Telegraph newspaper wrote in May 2022:
- "Sweden’s Covid death rate among lowest in Europe, despite avoiding strict lockdowns"
- This is in 2022, and in subsequent years Sweden fared even better as compared to the rest of Europe in this regard. Importantly, Sweden's excess death rate in the 2020's was similar to earlier periods in the century, before 2020. Dicegroj (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- An relevant article from the Telegraph, from February 2020 reads:
- "Take scientists who supported the Great Barrington Declaration. They, not unreasonably, believed that it would be sensible to shield the most vulnerable while allowing those at very low risk to carry on their lives, thereby preventing cataclysmic damage to the economy, mental health and education.
- Instead of the idea being sensibly debated, the signatories were pilloried and made to seem as if they were in the minority. A recent study by Stanford University revealed they weren’t; they just had fewer social media followers and so struggled in the face of more organised opposition." Dicegroj (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- The Telegraph is not remotely reliable for anything in the realm of science (in fact in many respects it is an anti-science organ). Bon courage (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- A relevant article by Unherd is:
- "Has the Great Barrington Declaration been vindicated? Lockdowns failed to serve the collective good"
- It says, based on official incontrovertible data (we can check on this) "some of the countries that locked down the hardest are also those with the highest mortality figures and excess death rate. Peru is an obvious example, while Sweden’s excess mortality is below the European average for 2020.
- This article is from January 2022. By 2023 Sweden's excessive mortality was among the very lowest in Europe if not the lowest. Dicegroj (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- More rubbish sourcing. What is the point of this? Wikipedia reflects knowledge, and does not amplify tosh. Bon courage (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Bon courage
- About "rubbish sourcing," that is obviously a personal opinion. It is not my opinion or that of many.
- Let's look at this source along with all others.
- Here is the Wiki article on Unherd, which seems relatively well balanced.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnHerd?wprov=sfla1 Dicegroj (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Quite, and a silly piece on a "news and opinion" website is not remotely reliable for public health. Bon courage (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven
- I realize that... but the Unherd article is written and published by Wikipedia rules. I used it as a response to a Wikipedia editor calling Unherd "rubbish sourcing."
- This is a dialogue in a Talk page to discuss how to improve the article, not the article itself. Dicegroj (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Discussing a rubbish source here is a waste of time, the article will not be improved by it. So, you are essentially violating WP:NOTFORUM.
- If you want this stupid "Sweden, therefore GBD not fringe" reasoning in the article, you need a WP:MEDRS source saying the GBD is not fringe because of that. No amount of wikilawyering will help you get around that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ahh I see, yes that article is. But that article can't be used to show Unheard is an RS (let alone one written by medical experts). Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven
- That's ok for now... but the argument it presents seems reasonable and can be verified in reliable official data- that is, Sweden fairing exceptionally well in excessive deaths compared to other countries.
- It can also be widely verified in RS that Sweden, in 2020, was harshly criticized and expected to perform poorly as compared to countries that imposed lockdowns. Dicegroj (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- That is wp:or, we go by what RS say, and this is not an RS for medical claims. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven
- Understood. Dicegroj (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- That is wp:or, we go by what RS say, and this is not an RS for medical claims. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- More rubbish sourcing. What is the point of this? Wikipedia reflects knowledge, and does not amplify tosh. Bon courage (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- This is published by the Wall Street Journal in Decmber 2024... it's important because this type of opinion is being seen in mass media mainstream sources that Wikipedia most often equates with what they call Reliable Sources.
- It uses the word "fringe" with quote marks to express sarcasm. The text reads "It was far from fringe."
- Jay Bhattacharya and the Vindication of the ‘Fringe’ Scientists
- His NIH nomination, years after being maligned for questioning lockdowns, is a boon for real science.
- WSJ December 1 2024 Dicegroj (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- You keep posting opinion articles from newspapers and political magazines. No number of these adds to up a single reliable source, you are wasting your time. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- Well, I was going by the Wiki rules such as the one below. Opinions and views should be valid if they come from established, published sources like Wall Street Journal.
- "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors" Dicegroj (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- No, you are not. Opinion pages do not meet this requirement. WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOR, and WP:RS (and most importantly) WP:MEDRS are 'Wiki rules', which you are clearly not going by. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- We can go over that... but remember that this article uses sources like Science Based Medicine, essentially a self-published blog, and that is to support one of the most contentious words in the article: the word "fringe" without the quotes.
- These things are not so clear-cut, in terms of what qualifies as RS per Wiki's rules and what does not. Dicegroj (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Science Based Medicine is a qualified subject matter expert writing within their expertise. It is not the same thing as trying to use a political opinion piece as a medical source. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- Science Based Medicine is not a peer-reviewed medical journal. Dicegroj (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- An accurate statement, but an irrelevant one. MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Science Based Medicine is a qualified subject matter expert writing within their expertise. It is not the same thing as trying to use a political opinion piece as a medical source. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You haven't read down that page far enough. The relevant bit of that policy to this can be found at WP:RSOPINION, which says:
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. [...] A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers.
In fact, the entry for the Wall Street Journal at the list of perennially-discussed reliable sources specifically cites this as the relevant policy to follow for WSJ opinion pieces:Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces.
Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)- @Writ Keeper
- I would not use an Opinion as fact.
- I may, however, include it in an article and label it as such. If such opinion is published on a Reliable Source, then we can include it as long as it is labeled as an opinion. Dicegroj (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- ...and as long as it's relevant. Such an opinion piece is relevant only as a citation for what Allysia Finley's opinion is, and given that she is a newspaper editor with no kind of education, training or experience on medical topics (and a fairly transparent agenda), why would anyone care what her opinion is? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- No, you are not. Opinion pages do not meet this requirement. WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOR, and WP:RS (and most importantly) WP:MEDRS are 'Wiki rules', which you are clearly not going by. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- You keep posting opinion articles from newspapers and political magazines. No number of these adds to up a single reliable source, you are wasting your time. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- This was published in medical journals in July 2023:
- The Swedish COVID-19 approach: a scientific dialogue on mitigation policies*.
- Excerpts:
- "the available data on excess all-cause mortality rates indicate that Sweden experienced fewer deaths per population unit during the pandemic (2020–2022) than most high-income countries and was comparable to neighboring Nordic countries through the pandemic. An open, objective scientific dialogue is essential for learning and preparing for future outbreaks."
- "...already early in the pandemic, other
- scientists proposed that the vulnerable groups should be strongly protected but otherwise avoid strict lockdowns (The footnote refers to Great Barrington Declaration)." Dicegroj (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- That would be a Frontiers journal right? So, junk. Bon courage (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Bon courage
- It's on National Library of Medicine (NLM) | National Institutes of Health (NIH) Dicegroj (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- The NLM puts everything, good and bad on their website, it is indiscriminate - you can find papers claiming that vaccines cause autism or supporting 'biofield energy healing' there too. You have to look at the original source, and Frontiers media is a well known predatory publisher. MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- As editors, it is not within our authority to determine what is "good" and/or "bad." Medical journals are reputable sources, and the information is in a reputable source. Dicegroj (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- This comment reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's sourcing policies, particularly WP:MEDRS. We are not bound to accept anything published in any unreliable rag just because they print 'medical journal' on the cover. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- I wasn't saying that we should "accept anything published in any unreliable rag just because they print 'medical journal' on the cover."
- I was just saying that what I presented seems to adhere to Wikipedia standards since the information is published in recognized peer reviewed journals.
- We, as editors, are not authorized to determine whether the information published is "good" or "bad" for the purposes of article editing. We can, of course, discuss our thoughts and opinions on the Talk page. Dicegroj (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- No, a collection of opinion articles and a junk article from a predatory publisher do not 'adhere to Wikipedia standards'. We, as editors, absolutely are 'authorized' to tell good sources from bad, that is the only way to keep Wikipedia clear of unreliably sourced garbage. MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- What is your basis for saying that is "a junk article"? Dicegroj (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- It's presence in a journal published by Frontiers, a well known predatory publisher. As I just said a few lines up. MrOllie (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- FYI, JUFO just downgraded this journal to level 0. Level 0 is normally reserved for publications which don't do peer review at all. MrOllie (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- "Predatory" may be the opinion of some, but the paper is also published by NLM and it is written by experts. These should be considered reliable sources. Dicegroj (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- No, it was not 'published by NLM'. I think you have misunderstood what the NLM is. MrOllie (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- It is available on NLM. Dicegroj (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Along with all kinds of junk. That has no bearing on reliability. MrOllie (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- No, it was not 'published by NLM'. I think you have misunderstood what the NLM is. MrOllie (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- For this GBD article, who decides that this paper is not a reliable source, but the article by Gorski in Science Based Medicine is? Dicegroj (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- The editors on this talk page do, by applying policies such as WP:RS and WP:PARITY. MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- Can it be asked who are "the editors" that decide? I am an editor and I can't decide that.
- If I try to change the article according to my understanding of what Reliable Sources are as per Wikipedia, and what I understand adheres to Wikipedia neutrality guidelines, the article would look different and it would get reverted. If I try again, I get blocked. Dicegroj (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:CONSENSUS. Please direct any further general questions about how Wikipedia works someplace like WP:TEAHOUSE, this talk page is not the place for it. MrOllie (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- I understand how that works.
- I wish to know what is the basis -of whatever team of people are determining the consensus for this article- to consider the Gorski article an RS but not the article "The Swedish Covid 19 approach."
- I know what they consider consensus. I'd like to know what is their basis in this particular comparison
- I wish to know how many of them, their names, qualifications etc. but I guess that is not possible. Dicegroj (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- You've been pointed to the relevant policies, several times. I decline to repeat myself any further. No need to keep pinging me about this, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- Mr. Ollie,
- Most sincerely and objectively, the Wikipedia policies for RS are interpretative, not clear-cut. That should be obvious.
- The inclusion of Gorski's article as RS and the exclusion of "The Swedish COVID-19
- approach: a scientific dialogue on mitigation policies" (among other sources mentioned) as RS is a very good example. Dicegroj (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie
- You would not be repeating yourself if you answered the question because you never answered it.
- The question is:
- What is the basis for including the Gorski Science-Based Medicine article as RS, but the "The Swedish COVID-19 approach" can not be included as RS. Why does one qualify (as per Wiki), and the other one doesn't? Dicegroj (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- You've been pointed to the relevant policies, several times. I decline to repeat myself any further. No need to keep pinging me about this, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:CONSENSUS. Please direct any further general questions about how Wikipedia works someplace like WP:TEAHOUSE, this talk page is not the place for it. MrOllie (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- The editors on this talk page do, by applying policies such as WP:RS and WP:PARITY. MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- It's presence in a journal published by Frontiers, a well known predatory publisher. As I just said a few lines up. MrOllie (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- No, a collection of opinion articles and a junk article from a predatory publisher do not 'adhere to Wikipedia standards'. We, as editors, absolutely are 'authorized' to tell good sources from bad, that is the only way to keep Wikipedia clear of unreliably sourced garbage. MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- This comment reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's sourcing policies, particularly WP:MEDRS. We are not bound to accept anything published in any unreliable rag just because they print 'medical journal' on the cover. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- The NLM puts everything, good and bad on their website, it is indiscriminate - you can find papers claiming that vaccines cause autism or supporting 'biofield energy healing' there too. You have to look at the original source, and Frontiers media is a well known predatory publisher. MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- That would be a Frontiers journal right? So, junk. Bon courage (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Recommend removing “fringe” from opening paragraph
[edit]I propose removing the word “fringe” from the sentence describing the Great Barrington Declaration’s strategy of “focused protection.” The current wording — “the fringe notion of ‘focused protection’” — is not consistent with Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
Reasons for removal:
- Non-neutral language: The term “fringe” is evaluative and introduces editorial bias. It implies marginal or discredited status, which is a judgment rather than a neutral description. Per WP:NPOV, articles should avoid language that implies a conclusion not explicitly stated by reliable sources.
- Lack of attribution: If experts or authoritative sources have characterized the strategy as fringe, that should be attributed directly — e.g., “described by [Source] as a fringe theory.” Without attribution, the label appears to be Wikipedia’s own characterization.
- Better alternatives available: The article already includes sufficient context and references showing that the strategy was widely criticized. A more neutral phrasing, such as “the controversial notion” or simply “the strategy of ‘focused protection’”, would preserve the facts without editorializing.
- Encyclopedic tone: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for debate. Neutrality doesn’t mean presenting all views as equal, but it does mean presenting them in an impartial tone and letting reliable sources carry the weight of judgment.
Suggested edit:
“…via the notion of ‘focused protection’, by which those most at risk…”
This keeps the tone factual and lets the references and subsequent explanation reflect the level of acceptance or criticism from the scientific community. Rbwhite9 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- This request is being spammed to multiple locations. Bon courage (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- No, I accidentally added it to the SARS-COVID page and when I realized my mistake I added it here. I also replied to a previous thread with a shorter explaination. Rbwhite9 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- This seems to be confusing NPOV for WP:FALSEBALANCE. Accurately identifying fringe concepts as the cited sources do is required by Wikipedia's policies. We also don't over-attribute as requested, since the article should not present the mainstream view as though it is just someone's opinion. MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- your reader should be able to draw their own conclusion without throwing little buzz words like Fringe into articles. can you define Fringe? What makes something fringe? is there like a committee who gets together and decides/votes on what’s Fringe? how is that determined? If you can’t answer that, then it’s inappropriate to include in an encyclopedia unless something has changed, that’s what Wikipedia claims to be. There have been lots of examples of things that were called words like Fringe, which turned out later to be most likely correct.
- if you want to keep Fringe in the article that’s fine but if you’re going to do so, I think you should very least be able to define what’s considered Fringe. If a handful of people called the theory Fringe is it appropriate to cite that and included in a encyclopedia article as if it’s fact? My guess is that you and some of the other editors think it’s Fringe and you have designated yourself as the all powerful deciders of what is true and not true. Rbwhite9 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also by using the word, Fringe at the beginning of the article you implied that the entire GBD is false. However, there are components of it that have actually turned out to be true, such as the effects that school closures had on kids and other points. Rbwhite9 (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:FRINGE. We also don't let the reader draw their own conclusion about whether or not the earth is flat or whether or not the star signs affect their job prospects. MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Rbwhite9 it is a fundamental fact about FRINGE topics that organizations and individuals supporting fringe perspectives also make statements that happen to be true. Your argument is akin to the situation if a flat earth advocate were to make accurate statements about the apparent direction of the sun's movement in the sky. No such statements can make a fringe perspective into a respected, mainstream view - even a respected minority view. Newimpartial (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also by using the word, Fringe at the beginning of the article you implied that the entire GBD is false. However, there are components of it that have actually turned out to be true, such as the effects that school closures had on kids and other points. Rbwhite9 (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- This seems to be confusing NPOV for WP:FALSEBALANCE. Accurately identifying fringe concepts as the cited sources do is required by Wikipedia's policies. We also don't over-attribute as requested, since the article should not present the mainstream view as though it is just someone's opinion. MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- No, I accidentally added it to the SARS-COVID page and when I realized my mistake I added it here. I also replied to a previous thread with a shorter explaination. Rbwhite9 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Seems to be re-litigating already decided consensus with no new arguments. We go by what RSM say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I just wanna know who determines what Fringe is and what makes something fringe? If you can tell me that then OK, I’ll go along with it. I also think it’s rich to compare the GBD to flat earth, not even remotely close to the same thing. using fringe is unscientific and unscholarly. using that word is unnecessary, instead just emphasize that the WHO and other organizations disagreed. Rbwhite9 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- It seems like Wikipedia editorialization through selective sourcing and appeals to “scientific consensus”, however the determined effort to keep the word fringe does provide readers with a tone-based warning that the editors who work on the whole article are biased…so mixed feelings about the change removal removal but overall support Tikitorch2 (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- This editor has been indefinitely blocked for disruption on the topic of Covid-19. Newimpartial (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
If you must keep fringe can we change the wording?
[edit]Can you change it to something along the lines of “ considered by some to be fringe” or “ has been labeled as Fringe by a certain scientists” both of those would be accurate. If you’re so bent on the word fringe, you can keep it in while still being factual. unless you can define for me what makes something “fringe” it shouldn’t be used in your article except when referencing people‘s opinions about it. this is not about a political opinion or even a scientific one. Have enough pride in your job and work to do it correctly. If it’s fringe, then fine, explain the reasons that make it fringe rather than just using that word. I’m a medical doctor and scientist and my kids use Wikipedia, I want them to be provided with information and then they can decide for themselves if something is fringe. Rbwhite9 (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- From the third paragraph of the lead:
The World Health Organization (WHO) and numerous academic and public-health bodies stated that the strategy would be dangerous and lacked a sound scientific basis
. "Dangerous, lacking a sound scientific basis, and opposed by numerous authorities on the subject" sounds like a reasonable enough definition of "fringe" to me. Do you have any reliable sources that disagree? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)- So say considered by the WHO to be fringe. One of the authors is now the director of the NIH Tikitorch2 (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:YESPOV and don't attribute reality to call it into question. This WP:SPA obsessive WP:REHASHing of the same point is beginning to get disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Actually if we said it was called fringe by the director of the NIH it would be even more authoritative sounding :)
- https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/23/at-a-time-when-the-u-s-needed-covid-19-dialogue-between-scientists-francis-collins-moved-to-shut-it-down/ Tikitorch2 (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- He called the scientists themselves "fringe". That's another matter. Bon courage (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I was making a joke because he got replaced by an author of the “fringe” GBD after a majority election Tikitorch2 (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed there is a lot of fringe/bogus and antiscience activity now within the US govt. Wikipedia policies apply to covering that too. Bon courage (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I was making a joke because he got replaced by an author of the “fringe” GBD after a majority election Tikitorch2 (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- He called the scientists themselves "fringe". That's another matter. Bon courage (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:YESPOV and don't attribute reality to call it into question. This WP:SPA obsessive WP:REHASHing of the same point is beginning to get disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- So say considered by the WHO to be fringe. One of the authors is now the director of the NIH Tikitorch2 (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Rbwhite9 please see WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Newimpartial (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Rbwhite9
- The argument you make is obviously correct. This article is the quintessential example of why Wikipedia is not what it claims to be (neutral, objective, something "anyone can edit" etc).
- This article would make a great case study to analyze and evaluate how Wikipedia operates and why it should be used with extreme caution. Dicegroj (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- You're in luck: there is plenty of published WP:SCHOLARSHIP on Wikipedi'a coverage of COVID topics, some on misinformation in particular.[5] The assessment is, it does rather well! WP:PROFRINGE attempts are not indulged. If we keep this page policy-aligned it can remain part of that good example. Bottom line, all the WP:BESTSOURCES agree the GBD is ridiclous; to be neutral Wikipedia mirrors that knowledge. Job done. Bon courage (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use Oxford spelling
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- B-Class COVID-19 articles
- Low-importance COVID-19 articles
- WikiProject COVID-19 articles
- B-Class Disaster management articles
- Low-importance Disaster management articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- B-Class pulmonology articles
- Unknown-importance pulmonology articles
- Pulmonology task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Massachusetts articles
- Low-importance Massachusetts articles
- WikiProject Massachusetts articles
- B-Class United States History articles
- Low-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class virus articles
- Low-importance virus articles
- WikiProject Viruses articles