Talk:Eric Feigl-Ding

This article does not make it clear that Eric Feigl-Ding's approach to science communication has been criticized

Since the above discussion over criticisms of EFD's expertise and approach to science communication, the parts of this article discussing said criticisms have been watered down and/or interspersed with misleading caveats that make it seem like there is more support than opposition to EFD's approach. If one were to look at the introduction and the table of contents until my edit minutes ago, one would have no idea that there is any dispute at all about whether EFD is an expert, or whether he is overly sensationalistic. Since I think a broader rewrite would be controversial, I have renamed the "Debate" subsection to "Debate over epidemiological expertise" to make it more clear to skimmers that there is something important here. However, I strongly believe the debate over EFD's credentials and sensationalism is important enough to warrant a mention in the introduction. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 03:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

That said, the intro makes it clear that EFD is a nutrition and chronic disease researcher and I think is pretty neutral on whether or not EFD is to be considered a reliable source. I appreciate User:Yug and User:Sahiljain22 collaborating above to ensure this content was in the intro. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 03:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

We all spent far too much energy on this issue already. Current section Eric_Feigl-Ding#Debate_over_relevant_epidemiological_expertise announce the general issue quite clearly. Please note his expertise in epidemiology is solidly confirmed, the debate is over expertise in « epidemiology of infectious diseases ». It's an overly specific dispute for the general public of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not the place to lengthily on experts disputes. GlobeGores, the section title putting doubt upon an epidemiologist over his expertise in epidemiology is quite harsh and a poster child of character assassination. Can you come up with something better ? Or may you allow me to find something ? (Also, please be cautious, this user recent blunt edits were all reverted) Yug (talk) 🐲 20:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I do want to be honest, I disagree on this point - the article is still in my view overly generous to EFD. I am not happy with its current state, and frankly my ideal approach to the article is much more closely aligned with User:Bueller 007's edits than the current text. I also think more community attention on this article would probably back this up - when User:Joelmiller asked for feedback on the article by posting on WP:NPOV/N, the responding editor agreed that the article was overly biased in favor of EFD.

While I think the two of us could work collaboratively to figure out an appropriate text, it does seem that various other editors keep coming in (from both critical and supportive viewpoints regarding EFD) and making changes that then upset the balance. So I think we may need to try something with more teeth - for example, filing a WP:RFC to see if we can figure out an appropriate landing spot for the article. Let me know if you feel comfortable with this approach GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 19:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

So I learned recently about WP:ARBCOVID and WP:ARBBLP, both of which apply to this article. An admin has added a notice to the top of this talk page that alerts editors to these decisions, which may decrease the likelihood of people to engage in edit wars or non-constructive behavior. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 21:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I emphatically, wholeheartedly, agree with @GlobeGores. This article has massive POV issues and if i had more time I would fix it myself. But I support their efforts to do so. I will pitch in when I can as well. But it is overly supportive/biased and paints EFD in a very supportive light, and omits (or minimizes) many of the criticisms he has received (and continues to receive). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest I do not have bandwidth for this either at the moment. In general, this article attracts a lot of IP and new account editor attention and that makes settling on any specific text difficult, since people who were not involved with the discussion will take exception and change it. That's why I wonder if a RFC or similar mediation process might help us settle on a consensus wording, which we could then warn new editors against changing. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 03:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes i agree an RfC would be a good idea. But it would probably need to be about specific wording or drafts/versions. For example, if we were to get a collaboratively edited less flowery supportive draft, we could then do an RFC on the implementation of that draft. Protection would make sense if there are enough instances of IPs going against consensus or in some way violating policies or guidelines. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree too. While I've been focused on limiting harsh attack on EFD I haven't been able to revamp other sections. One sections I edited long ago about the difficulty of being an early alarmist has mostly a role to add context to deter incoming attacks on EFD for being alarmist. This section would need to be reduced in a stable BLP article not under hostile attacks. Improvement and rewriting needed there as well. The first wave of editors are too partisan, either "pro" or "against". I also don't feel comfortable with former colleagues of EFD pushing to expand the "controversies/scandals" elements, etc. WP:RfC, WP:ARBCOVID and WP:ARBBLP would be a good idea indeed. Best for the article would be to have a new wave of experienced editors coming in. Yug (talk) 🐲 11:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I need to say something more here. As far as I am concerned, the section on criticisms does not actually discuss the criticisms. All it says is people aren't sure he has the right expertise. But there are quotes from recognized experts in infectious diseases that appear in reliable sources saying things like "Science misinformation is a huge problem right now — I think we can all appreciate it — [and] he’s a constant source of it." This isn't questioning whether he has the appropriate research background to comment. Rather it is a serious, credible claim that he spreads misinformation. Nothing in the article currently suggests that (a wide range of) infectious disease experts believe he is unreliable and frequently a source of misinformation. While my own preference would be that the section focus primarily on what the actual infectious disease experts have to say (pro or con) rather than what this journalist or that journalist has to say, I think there can be no question that the section should at least mention what the experts say.
(and @Yug, I don't know who you're referring to as his "former colleagues", but it's worth pointing out that none of the infectious disease researchers at Harvard had ever heard of him before he started tweeting about COVID and claiming they were his colleagues).Joelmiller (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

JoelMiller hello,

If I understand well both you (https://scholar.harvard.edu/joelmiller/biocv) and EFD ( https://scholar.harvard.edu/ericfeiglding/bio) have been studying and teaching at Harvard, in the field of epidemiology, in the same periods.

Review of your edits shows that at least 74 of your 132 edits (56%) have been dedicated to EFD. If we counted by bits, your focus on EFD would likely make 80% of your contributions.

Qualitatively, your efforts are largely asking to add in critical sources or quotes and to remove sections praising EFG.

You can understand this triad of 1) IRL professional proximity with that person, 2) quantitative mono-engagement, and 3) qualitative focus on increasing criticism of this BLP can puzzle other Wikipedia contributors.

In the background, (4) this article was also under attack by IPs, mostly from North Eastern USA (same geographic area as yours), (5) EFD is politically involved as Democrat, and (6) NPIs and NPIs advocates became political targets.

Your suggestions nevertheless contain good quality points which should be addressed. But this situation is quite uncomfortable.

Please also note that some of your standards seems higher that what we expected for a general encyclopedia and mass media. For those, a person with a PhD in epidemiology is a certified epidemiologist. Even if you, academics, make sharp difference between sub-domains and require only sub-domain specialists with publications to speak about a given issue. Mass media don't have this high threshold. I think this higher standard from your side / lower standard from mass media and Wikipedia side is at the core of our diverging point of view on this biography. Yug (talk) 🐲 23:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Yug

1) I never knew Ding when I was at HSPH. That "IRL proximity" is weak. The list of academics at HSPH has around 1500 people (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/profiles/) which I believe doesn't include PhD students or postdocs. As I've stated I was part of the infectious disease community, which is a completely different department from nutrition. I literally never heard of him before 2020.

2) Your suggestion about this article being under attack by IPs "mostly from North Eastern USA" and then immediately pointing out that this is the "same geographic area as [me]" seems to imply you think I may have been doing the malicious edits. This is false and damaging, and it falls flat given that I live in Melbourne, Australia (a fact that is very easily checked, for example by reading the website you linked to).

3) I have been a loud advocate of NPIs. Indeed research I participated in has been directly cited by policy makers in explaining tightening of NPIs (also loosening). Suggesting I'm challenging him because he advocates policies I generally support is ridiculous. In fact I have been heavily critical (and quoted in news articles) of some of the people who most oppose Ding's goals. This is not me being partisan about COVID policies. It is entirely explained by my feelings on misinformation.

4)I generally support the Democratic party.

5)It is true that a large fraction of my edits on Wikipedia have been on this talk page. But this is a highly misleading statistic given that I rarely edit Wikipedia. A large fraction of a small number remains a small number. Based on the website you linked to, there have only been three time periods where I've made comments on this. The first two were separated by 15 months and the next two by 8 months. Calling this "quantitative mono-engagement" when you've actually looked at the data showing these gaps is also misleading. A more accurate comparison might be my public commentary on Ding versus, say, my public commentary on Levitt (https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/24/stanford-professor-and-nobel-laureate-critics-say-he-was-dangerously-misleading-on-covid/) or other academics that are sources of misinformation on COVID. If Michael Levitt's Wikipedia page were as one-sided about his COVID advocacy as this one is, I'd be commenting there too. Somehow this page has uniquely avoided balance, despite most conscientious editors on the talk page stating that they believe it violates NPOV and that it needs to more accurately reflect the concerns that I've raised. Remember, when I first visited this page, some of the editors openly stated that they were editing the page in a way that explicitly violated Wikipedia policy because they felt the criticism of Ding was unfair. This bias is what has drawn me back. I have a passionate dislike of misinformation, especially when it is close to things I have expertise in.

It has been shocking to visit this page periodically and find it still fails to mention that he has been explicitly accused of spreading misinformation by experts in the field. Almost everything about the "controversy" has focused on statements from people who support him - to the point that no-one reading the page actually knows what the controversy is, and not a single name is given of people who question him, while many of his supporters are highlighted by name and important-sounding (often irrelevant) credentials. I have asked you directly more than once whether there is a reason not to mention that experts in the field accuse him of spreading misinformation. You have never directly answered the question, except to say that self-published quotes cannot be used. The quote I have been asking about is from a reliable source that is already used as a reference in the main article, not a self-published quote. I have finally added a passing reference to the statement because I gave up on getting an answer from you (before I saw your statement here). It is clearly relevant. It is in reliable sources. And bluntly, it is true.

Suggesting I am responsible for IP attacks based on knowing where I worked a decade ago bothers me. You could have easily used publicly available information to verify that I live almost as far away from Northeast US as geographically possible... You should have been more careful before leveling an accusation. I hope it was simply a poorly worded statement (and if you can explain what you meant, I will accept that explanation), but please in the future be careful to avoid appearing to make accusations about others unless you first go through efforts to check their plausibility. If you have evidence of anything other than that I have very strong opinions about the spread of misinformation (regardless of which side of which issue) and that this page has been consistently misinforming as to whether he spreads misinformation, put it up. Otherwise, I would appreciate a retraction of the implicit accusation. Joelmiller (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

One last comment @Yug - You stated: "Even if you, academics, make sharp difference between sub-domains and require only sub-domain specialists with publications to speak about a given issue."

This makes me feel that either you have not been paying attention to what I'm saying or you're subconsciously misreading what I've said. I have already stated that I have no problem with people who are not experts saying things. I've repeatedly stated that the issue isn't his lack of expertise, it's the fact that he says things that are false. Yes, that is compounded by the fact that people believe him because of his implied expertise. But the fundamental issue is whether he reliably promotes facts. I don't believe you'll find anywhere that I've said he has no business commenting about the issue because of his background, rather than because of his history of inaccurate statements (and to be honest I don't have an opinion on whether he "should" be commenting - just on whether people should know that he's widely regarded as a source of misinformation).

Please do not falsely suggest that I've argued only experts can speak on a given issue. My focus remains that this page should make clear that the experts believe he is often a source of misinformation. I strongly disagree with the statement that only specialists should speak about a given issue, and I object to having that belief falsely attributed to me. Please don't do it again. Joelmiller (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

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

• Ericfeiglding.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Solved. Yug (talk) 🐲 14:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Things that need fixing/discussion

I'm making a list of things that I believe need fixing Joelmiller (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Since I had a glance at this page today and saw a lot of things that shocked me, here's a go at trying to document some of them for others to think about: @GlobeGores @Shibbolethink @Yug

1. The link to "Harvard Faculty Profile": The site scholar.harvard.edu is a place where people with a current or long-since lapsed affiliation with Harvard can have a website. See for example https://scholar.harvard.edu/joelmiller by someone who hasn't been affiliated with Harvard in about 10 years. To see what a Harvard Faculty Profile really looks like, consider https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/marc-lipsitch/.
2. The statement about his "rise to prominence as a leading ... commentator and expert during the COVID-19 pandemic" should not say "and expert", unless a source is provided saying that he is a leading expert on COVID. No question about being a leading commentator. But expert? Given that this is a section about questions on his expertise, seemingly calling him an expert seems to not be neutral.
3. the mention of his "epidemiologist peers" such as Simin Liu (who is a nutritionist). Certainly Liu's linkedin profile is not a valid source. And if Liu's commentary is deemed relevant, then surely the infectious disease experts who have criticized him should be heard with equal prominence.
4. The lack of a quote from a highly regarded infectious disease expert stating that he spreads misinformation.
5. There should be discussion of what to do with the mention of "Toxin Alert". I cannot find the organization. Maybe it's been abandoned? I can find a dormant facebook page with <300 followers and a link to a webpage that doesn't seem to exist (at least on my browser).
6. Is it appropriate to use a statement from the president of an organization he is a member (FAS) to provide support?
7. Is there a firm feeling on disallowing tweets as sources? If so, the reference to twitter.com should go.

I maintain that if you can read the criticism section and you do not get the impression that at least some experts on infectious disease believe he frequently mis-states facts then you are missing the primary criticisms.

Less clear to me: I don't see a purpose for the section "A case study of social web early alert" - is this worth keeping, especially if we aren't including mention of his inaccurate claims? That'll do for me for a while - I've got lots of teaching this semester. Good luck. Joelmiller (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Two quick things. One, you may want to move this section of the talk page to the end so that sections aren't out of order, or else make this a subsection.

Seconds, I think that "case study of social web early alert" is an attempt to make Feigl-Ding's early concern about COVID seem more unique than it actually is. The info is likely worth keeping, but I hope it is framed differently. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 19:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done : Moved section down.

Point 1: if I understand well, https://scholar.harvard.edu/ericfeiglding/bio is self managed by EFD, and must therefore be handled as such. Right ?

Point 2: I added "rise to prominence [in media] as a leading as commentator and expert" as a move in your direction. If we state that EFD rose to the level of media commentator alone, then why do we bother looking for his PhD and academic publication in infectious diseases epidemiology ? It's well known that a whole industry is based on the possibility of man or woman to give [dubious] opinions in medias, as long as those are entertaining. We can remove it yes. (But then I don't see why we criticize a mass media commentator for doing commentary/pundit speeches.)

Point 3: n.a. yet.

Point 4: already explained in former discussions, we have to be careful with biographies of living persons and critical quotes, the standard for inclusion is high. See BLP, WP:NOSCANDAL, WP:BLOGS/WP:TWEET, WP:LIBEL. Critical quote from self published platforms are not accepted. Critical quote must be

Point 5: no idea.

Point 6: no idea. Possible COI must be stated (?)

Point 7: Twitter quote are regulated. See WP:TWEET and WP:BLOGS. For short, if Mr. X tweets about Mr. X (himself) in a serious tone, it's okish, we can include. A person is the primary source for his/her lifepath statement. If Mr. Y tweets about Mr. X, it's not a reliable source.

Yes, this article need a revamp. @GlobeGores:, would you like us to team up in March or April to first merge current contents ? I think we can prune it some more so to have a better view and article. Yug (talk) 🐲 23:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Point 1: it is indeed self-managed by EFD.

Point 2: if worded that way it seems to open the section with an unequivocal statement that he is an expert (and not just any expert, but a leading expert). It's okay if we state that some view him as an expert. Or that he claims to have relevant expertise. We shouldn't state he is an expert - a part of the controversy is the fact he presents himself as an expert (while the main controversy is the fact that he spreads misinformation).

Point 4: My request is that a quote from a reliable source repeating what a recognized expert said to the reporter be included (namely he is a source of misinformation). I do not see any reason you mention that precludes that. Can we add it?Joelmiller (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, it's hard for me to make time for editing this page.

I noticed you (referring to User:Yug here) had a specific concern about "Lack of relevant epidemiological expertise" as a heading and changed it to "Debate over relevant epidemiological expertise". I just split that section into two pieces - one titled "Lack of expertise in infectious disease epidemiology" (which I think is more objective and clearly provable by the citations) and one titled "Debate over approach to science communication" (where I think there is genuine debate, as there has been both praise and criticism for his approach). WDYT? GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 23:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I like this change. I wonder about swapping the last two sentences in the "Debate" section. Obviously given personal biases, I'd prefer that the paragraph end with a critical statement, but I think it makes more sense in the other order. Joelmiller (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight of preprint issue mention. It was literally the last afterthought in that article. And the main expert of the article Carl Bergstrom even expressed regret for his attitude towards EFD. It was a brief thing that Bergstrom (the protagonist of that article) admits is water under the bridge. Besides, sharing a preprint is very common practice during pandemic. Sahiljain22 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the editors in this section and under #This article does not make it clear that Eric Feigl-Ding's approach to science communication has been criticized that this article has POV issues. These edits are a start at fixing that. Many sources, including the ones I and GlobeGores cited, go into great detail about his tweets having been alarmist or misleading. The Science article says so in its own voice, and while Bergstrom is somewhat forgiving, he also is clearly saying that EFD is alarmist about new variants, saying EFD thinks they will "kill us all" (hyperbole but the point about EFD is obvious) and that too much certainty is misinformation. Do not make any more removals of pertinent and well-sourced critical material. I note that almost all of your edits in the last few years pertain to this article - even commenting at a 2018 AfD, well before COVID - and that you have been given notices repeatedly about WP:COI. For a Canadian doctor (according to your userpage) you also have quite an interest in things about Boston University, where Feigl-Ding has been. If disruption occurs a report at WP:COIN will be necessary. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

There has been a few folks over the past 2 years who keep inserting 'he is a nutritionist' line as a standalone, while seemingly deleting/omitting/downplaying his epidemiology doctorate. those types of edits should be stamped out first of all.

There are already lots of discussions on EFD's science communications - any new additions should be added into relevant sections in the debate section. plenty of people have already called him alarmist, and older 2020 articles are referenced a lot already, as well as counterpoints too. the new Science one makes a passing mention of Bergstrom's early 2020 interactions with EFD, which Bergstrom has since recanted his stances. thus, its a footnote at most, especially given how long ago, and its subsequent position change of the person who made it. But i'm open to small mention in the debate section. Dthut (talk) Dthut (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

We do agree that "is a nutritionist" is not accurate and shouldn't be there, because it is nutritional epidemiology. However, the lead remains POV after your reversion by removing the fact that other scientists do criticize him for alarmism and inaccuracy. This was noted earlier in this section: "The lack of a quote from a highly regarded infectious disease expert stating that he spreads misinformation." In fact, this is more a general phenomenon by various scientists. By the way, Bergstrom did not "recant" - he was still somewhat critical in describing him, as I said.

The "Coronavirus preparedness advocacy" section also has issues as it gives space to individual scientists that favor him, and devotes much space to the more favorable David Wallace-Wells piece from March 2020, but says nothing about later criticism from individual scientists and very little from later sources that are more critical. A foremost example of this is this article from Undark Magazine, which goes into great detail on this. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources describing criticism by other scientists

• But as Feigl-Ding’s influence has grown, so have the voices of his critics, many of them fellow scientists who have expressed ongoing concern over his tweets, which they say are often unnecessarily alarmist, misleading, or sometimes just plain wrong. “Science misinformation is a huge problem right now — I think we can all appreciate it — [and] he’s a constant source of it,” said Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist at George Mason University and the University of Arizona who serves on FAS’ Covid-19 Rapid Response Taskforce, a separate arm of the organization from Feigl-Ding’s work. Tara Smith, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Kent State University, suggested that Feigl-Ding’s reach means his tweets have the power to be hugely influential. “With as large of a following as he has, when he says something that’s really wrong or misleading, it reverberates throughout the Twittersphere,” she said. Critics point to numerous problems....To Angela Rasmussen, a Columbia University virologist, this represents a pattern. “[T]his is his MO,” she wrote in an email. “He tweets something sensational and out of context, buries any caveats further down-thread, and watches the clicks and [retweets] roll in.”...And on any given day, it’s easy to find other experts picking apart a Feigl-Ding tweet, explaining what he’s gotten wrong, or what nuance he’s left out....Finding experts publicly correcting or critiquing Feigl-Ding’s tweets is not hard. [1], Undark Magazine, 11-25-2020.
• But along the way he has garnered harsh criticism from some fellow epidemiologists for opining about issues on which, they say, he knows very little. “Everyone is very frustrated with him and regretting that we didn’t band together to discredit him,” said one epidemiologist. Another called him a “guy with zero background” in infectious-disease research who is “spouting a bunch of half-truths.”...But one of the nation’s most prominent infectious-disease researchers, Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard and director of the university’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, has made no secret of his disdain for Feigl-Ding’s virus-related commentary, repeatedly calling him out as an unqualified publicity-seeker. [2], The Chronicle of Higher Education, 4-17-2020.
• Feigl-Ding’s followers rapidly grew, from around 2,000 to now more than 109,000, as they voraciously consumed Feigl-Ding’s often misleading, inaccurate or exaggerated tweets. Soon Feigl-Ding was on CNN, identified as “Public Health Expert, Harvard University,” and on CGTN as a “scientist” at Harvard. Colleagues and other experts on Twitter who tried to correct Feigl-Ding were attacked, dismissed, blocked or ignored. Feigl-Ding is a public health expert, no doubt, and he is a visiting scientist at Harvard. But that doesn’t mean he’s remotely qualified to speak on an infectious disease outbreak. Relying on someone who appears authoritative but isn’t actually an expert in the topic is dangerous, as you risk communicating inaccurate or misleading information to an anxious public. [3], Association of Health Care Journalists, 3-11-2020.
• In early 2020, for example, he took on Eric Feigl-Ding, a nutritional epidemiologist then at Harvard Chan who amassed a huge following with what many scientists felt were alarmist tweets. When Feigl-Ding tweeted about a preprint claiming that SARS-CoV-2 contained sequences from HIV and was likely engineered, Bergstrom called him an “alarmist attention-seeker.” (The preprint was withdrawn within days.) But the spat showed that defining misinformation is difficult. Feigl-Ding rang the alarm many times—he is “very, very concerned” about every new variant, Bergstrom says, and “will tweet about how it’s gonna come kill us all”—but turned out to be right on some things. “It’s misinformation if you present these things as certainties and don’t adequately reflect the degree of uncertainty that we have,” Bergstrom says. [4], Science, 3-23-2022

The above sources, except for Science, and also including this from Times Higher Education, also comment extensively on the matter of the debate over his qualifications. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The JAMA paper on Cox-2 inhibitor drugs shows that the kidney risks were evident by year 2000, according to figure 2 of the JAMA paper. The time-cumulative meta-analysis analysis shows it. this is mention in the discussion and results of the paper too, so its peer reviewed, not conjecture. 75.104.106.110 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I think its also important to highlight this Georgia Straight article that notably says EFD's twitter feed is a 'goto destination' for pandemic info. Georgia Straight's editor Charlie Smith says, "Feigl-Ding also alerted me to a massive NIH-funded study showing that U.S. school districts with mandatory mask policies had 72 percent fewer in-school COVID-19 transmissions than districts without mandatory mask policies. This isn't something that Health Minister Adrian Dix ever mentions when defending the lifting of a provincewide indoor mask mandate. Nor is this research disclosed on the websites of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control and B.C.'s health authorities.". Sahiljain22 (talk)

References

This editor is blocked for sockpuppetry, but in brief, this is WP:UNDUE to include as it is an opinionated article from a weekly alternative magazine that denigrates the mainstream public health authorities in favor of one man's opinion. Regardless of if such a thing is in favor of less COVID restrictions or more compared to the mainstream (more, naturally, in this case), it is undue. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Section currently titled "A case study of social web early alert"

This section, which already has an unencyclopedic, non-wiki complaint title for a BLP, has at least five statements that require attribution but that have none, and has at least one sweeping medical claim that does not have a MEDRS-compliant citation.

I propose that this section be dealt with by (A) deleting it; (B) moving it here to the talkpage until it is cleaned up and fixed; or (C) attributing everything that needs it and removing all medical/epidemiological claims not cited to a MEDRS source.

If the section is kept in any form, it needs a heading that works for a Wikipedia BLP (and that does not instead sound like the title to someone's term paper). Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have chosen option A; here is a diff containing the text: [5]. This article historically had an issue with sockpuppetry and evidently COI editing, with that text having been part of that favored by the sockpuppets, with the problem accounts only somewhat recently getting blocked because their socking got caught. There are more issues outlined above in the previous section(s). Crossroads ^-talk- 00:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely this should not be included here, it is blatantly WP:UNDUE and filled with PRIMARY supposition. Unencyclopedic. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Redundancy

The subsection titled Coronavirus preparedness advocacy repeats itself word for word. Does anyone object to removing the repetition? Skywriter (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)