Talk:Bret Weinstein

Notability change as of now

@A Fellow Editor:

[AfD decision from Sep 2017] was MERGE arguing that Bret is only notable for one event.

I am getting the suspicion that he is more notable as of now: Mention in NYT Intellectual Dark Web article. 117,000 Twitter followers. personal website looks richer than anonymous (i.e. panel invitations, 882 Patreon supporters, and a variety of wide reaching podcasts etc.

References

More info is good and called for

The article is scant and has glaring gaps. What are his degrees in? What are the titles of his theses? What have his students worked on? Who have been some of his most notable students? If he is Jewish, let's mention it, as it is part of who he is. What are his hobbies and what does he like to do in his free time? There seems to be a big political undercurrent, so where does he stand politically, does he belong to a political party, and does he promote some new political/governance solution? Bio-CLC (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 Vaccines Disinformation

Calling evolving information disinformation is disinformation itself and is defamatory. Weinstein called the lab leak - something that is accepted as the most likely explanation by MOST virologist as of today (2021-07-03). The lab leak was called misinformation as well just a week ago. Politicizing science is not the way to find truth - debate the issues - please don't simply quote fact agencies that are relying on outdated information from political bodies (CDC, NAID and WHO) that appear to have serious problems with regulatory capture. The idea that political policy organizations have some magical ability not to make errors in judging evolving science is silly.

There is are many papers and a peer reviewed meta study that support Ivermectin. It might help to note that the NAID announced $3B as the paper came out - to develop the drug that Ivermectin already is(Ivermectin is off patent). My take is that ghosting ivermectin is causing death - I could be wrong - so could the editors that are eager to cancel Weinstein. I think Weinstein is quite correct that using vaccine + Ivermectin may be the only way that we can drive CoVid to extinction - we might not get a second chance.

The fact-checkers are jumping the gun on claiming that Weinstein is wrong on Ivermectin and relying on them will discredit Wikipedia in the end. He has been very clear to talk about these things as highly probable - It is sad that editors here don't recognize what science is as it is made. The evidence on the effectiveness of Ivermectin is better than what they have for standard US treatment - Remdesivir ($3k/dose) - look at the source papers - https://ivmmeta.com/ .

There are papers that show that the spike protein that are produced by the vaccines are toxic - politifact is behind on the science. See https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.05.21252960v1

https://www.icpcovid.com/sites/default/files/2021-04/Ep%20132-12%20COVID%20vaccines%20and%20blood%20clots_%20five%20key%20questions.pdf The level of clotting problems they cause is still under study - but it is not zero - this is why they have recommended against vaccinating children - no vaccine is perfectly safe - what we don't have a perfect picture of yet is the risk-benefit levels.

https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality

If vaccine reluctant people use Ivermectin - it may help create a larger immune population and save lives. Telling people that there is zero risk is going to increase vaccine hesitancy - people know there is some risk - lying to them - hiding information - only makes the problem worse.

CoVid does not care what political ideology you identify with - people on both sides need to talk - argue politely - to find the truth so we can defeat it together. ,.,.,.

I'm not sure if there are WP:BLP or WP:MEDRS reasons why this article doesn't mention any of Weinstein's controversial claims or analysis about the COVID-19 pandemic, including Weinstein's prominent advocacy for the unproven lab leak theory, but a recent viral YouTube video from Weinstein's DarkHorse Podcast contains problematic assertions about COVID-19 vaccines that have been rated "False" by PolitiFact, citing "U.S. public health authorities and vaccine experts."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You fail to substantiate your use of the term "problematic". The notion of zoonotic origin has not been proved, so the assertion that a possible lab leak has not been "proven" has no bearing. In addition, PolitiFact first dutifully rated the lab leak hypothesis "pants on fire"--a term that makes it difficult to regard them as a serious source of information--and has since retracted this inane "rating" (in which they cite unnamed "experts"). Please be sure to enlighten us with more info if you manage to find any legitimate sources. Eric ^talk 03:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not refer to the lab leak theory as disinformation, although the great majority of scientists are not yet convinced that there is any reason to believe the current pandemic is the result of a lab leak (presumably covered up by China in a conspiracy to hide that fact from the international community) when new viruses/pandemics are generally caused by zoonotic spillover (other than the striking geographical coincidence of the Wuhan Institute of Virology's location, which is not decisive for the many reasons helpfully laid out by Novem Linguae here). In any case, Weinstein's suggestion that the vaccines are "very dangerous" because they produce a "cytotoxic" spike protein is problematic because it is false and may dissuade his followers from getting vaccinated, thereby prolonging the pandemic.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Just a quick note that PolitiFact is green at WP:RSPSOURCES, so I don't think it deserves such strong comments against it. No further opinion at this time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

There's some deep-serious woo in the air in the environs de Weinstein, right now. But no reliable sources yet commenting on it. Wikipedia needs to wait to see if/when that might happen. Alexbrn (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The assertion ...thereby prolonging the pandemic. is presented as fact. It is merely a belief. In addition, there is no "pandemic" by any established or historically cognizant use of the term. Eric ^talk 23:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

"there is no 'pandemic' ... " Eric, without running any further into WP:FORUM territory, please note that while your sentiments above may reflect what Weinstein is telling his followers, the sources that Wikipedia considers reliable virtually unanimously disagree.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting argument. I do not find it very convincing though. If COVID-19 isn't a pandemic, why are there 798 Wikipedia articles with "COVID-19 pandemic" in the title? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Good question. The quest for an objective answer could be a long one. Peter Doshi of the BMJ has written recently on the topic of defining the term "pandemic": "The elusive definition of pandemic influenza", and investigative reporters from Der Spiegel did so in 2010: "Reconstruction of a Mass Hysteria: The Swine Flu Panic of 2009" (en version of de original). Eric ^talk 13:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why a biased Vice article, Politifact (primarily funded by Facebook and Tiktok), and Reuters (The chairman of the board, Jim Smith, is also on the board of Pfizer, clear conflict of interest). The Vice article cites a single meta-analysis that cherrypicked 10 RCTs, straight up lied about the data in the Niaee study, and completely ignore the meta-analysis by Tess Lawrie, among others. Tiktok is funded by the CCP, who have a clear interest in discrediting Bret since he is a proponent of the Lab Leak Hypothesis. And, as previously explained, Reuters has a clear conflict of interest here too, because the Pfizer vaccine would directly compete with Ivermectin, a drug that is a potential competitor to the Pfizer vaccine. None of these sources that claim Bret is touting misinformation are reliable. Zombychicken (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV and BLP Reminder

The COVID-19 origins section fails WP:POVSOURCING. Chosing sources to agree with a POV [2] while ignoring sources that do not [3] is classic WP:POVsourcing. This is also a violation of WP:BLP. CutePeach (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:POVSOURCING (just an essay, but a really intelligent one) says that sources should not be chosen in support of a POV. If however, an excellent source like Science-Based Medicine discusses Weinstein, then it's useful for us, no matter what it says. Since there's no doubt SBM is among the WP:BESTSOURCES for fringe science, its use is the opposite of POV sourcing: rather, the POV cart is being drawn behind the SOURCE horse, as it should be! Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

So in all the Googling you did on our subject, you never found the New York Times piece? Are you going to read it after reading that Sceptic piece you just happened upon? CutePeach (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I tend not to use Google for sourcing. Nor do I much read American newspapers. Alexbrn (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: SBM is American. Do you and Hemiauchenia have any other American sources you would like to add to help build this WP:BLP in accordance with our WP:NPOV policy? Again, we very much want to avoid WP:POVSOURCING, an intelligent essay based on the phenomena known as source bias. CutePeach (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

See #New sources. Plenty there, particularly on Weinstein and his wife's antics wrt COVID. Alexbrn (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Bret Stephens is a right wing newpaper columnist known for his fringe views about jewish intelligence and climate change. Weinsteins views on COVID-19 are clearly due for inclusion in some form given the coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

How much coverage is there? If the only coverage is a couple of sentences in SBM then this is probably undue. If there is substantially more then coverage is probably warranted. - Bilby (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It's more than "a couple of sentences", Weinstein is mentioned throughout the piece and is central to its thesis. It ends thusly:

I agree that ivermectin shouldn’t be used to treat COVID-19 outside of the context of a well-designed clinical trial with a strong scientific rationale. / Certainly, the conspiracy mongering by Bret Weinstein, Pierre Kory, and their fans are not leading me to reconsider that opinion.

Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You're correct, it is more like three sentences. Seriously, almost everything Gorksi writes about Weinstein is currently being quioted in tthe article. Almost every other time his name comes up it is in a quote by someone other than Gorski when discussing that someone else. Is there further coverage? I don't think we can justify an entire subsection on a single source. - Bilby (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe the section is warranted. The other obvious source is Weinstein himself. Per WP:ABOUTSELF: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". He mentions these views in every one of his podcast episodes. If he's not shy about these opinions we need not demure. He clearly thinks his lab leak opinion is one of his crowning achievements, and he self administered Ivermectin live on his podcast. Once we take him at his word and give these notable opinions a section, then WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE come into play. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are discussing self published sources when we aren't using any. - Bilby (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying we should use his podcast as a source. Though it's so obvious I don't think we necessarily need to track down time codes. DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That'd likely run into WP:BLPSPS / WP:UNDUE problems, except for the most bland claims. Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current state of the section. So I'll save this debate for a time when it would make a difference in the article. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

New sources

• Browne M, Kavanagh C (23 June 2021). "You're probably not Galileo: scientific advance rarely comes from lone, contrarian outsiders". The Skeptic.

Could be useful? (I shall now read it!) Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Anna Merlan (24 June 2021). "Why Is the Intellectual Dark Web Suddenly Hyping an Unproven COVID Treatment?". Vice.

Another to add to the reading list. Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

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.

---

@Alexbrn: Your peremptory edit summary for your revert of my edit, Sourcing unreliable and not mentioning Weinstein at all, falls short of explaining your revert. Could you enlighten the community on why you find the American Journal of Therapeutics to be unreliable? You may also want to contact the journal publishers themselves to alert them to your concerns regarding their validity; You'll find their contact info at the bottom of this page. Regarding the article not making any mention of Weinstein: I cited that journal article to balance out "our" categorical assertion—not attributed to anyone—that there is no good evidence for the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating "COVID-19". Eric ^talk 01:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The source has already been discussed at Talk:Ivermectin. When we have multiple super-strength sources (EMA, WHO, etc.) saying there is no good evidence for ivermectin wrt COVID, we don't use a minor outlier journal in contradiction. WP:REDFLAG. Read the Gorski article for an explanation of additional reasons why this paper is iffy. Alexbrn (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I did read it. And I've watched interviews with multiple practicing physicians and research doctors in three languages who present the opposite view. Interesting that you believe the WHO to be a super-strength source. Since they abandoned their fall 2019 pandemic preparedness plan (decades in the making) in early 2020, their "guidance" has been like a weathervane in a hurricane. ..."we" don't use a minor outlier journal... might be interpreted as a Defense of the Faith. My edit was to help avoid having WP look like it's joining the likes of Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter in censorship. Eric ^talk 12:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:CGTW#12 probably applies. And you have confirmed you are WP:NOTHERE. Alexbrn (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Amusing assertion, especially if one compares our editing histories. I'll let you get back to your purely collaborative efforts now. Eric ^talk 15:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

Remove your lie about the Weinstein's "spreading misinformation about Covid-19." They are scientists, engaging in the scientific method of questioning a hypothesis that has been pushed at the public like an unquestionable commandment. This kind of dishonesty cheapens the value of Wikipedia. 38.123.127.144 (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done WP:V applies. Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

change "Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on numerous occasions.[5][6]"

to

"Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have provided different points of view about the COVID-19 pandemic."

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and fact checkers unequivocal statements one way or other are same of anyone else Nunoelder (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:GEVAL Wikipedia needs to make clear when misinformation is misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021 (2)

change "There is no good evidence of benefit from ivermectin in preventing or treating COVID-19.[44][45] Weinstein has erroneously described the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein which is produced through vaccination as "cytotoxic".[46][47]

to "There is no evidence as of now of benefit from ivermectin in treating COVID-19.[44][45] However, Ivermectin to be studied as possible treatment in UK. [link to BBD article i include below]"

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Reuters fact checkers etc don't know either

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57570377 Nunoelder (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done proposed new slant is unsourced/undue. Alexbrn (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

bad sources + NPOV

"Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on numerous occasions.[5][6]"

Neither source mentions his wife directly, and both sources are regarding a single recent viral occasion so more/different sources for this claim is needed if it stays. Furthermore this is a recent viral news story that is all less than 3 weeks old and the original content itself has been removed from where it was originally uploaded so you cannot even see it if you wanted to. A statement like this is too ideologically biased for an encyclopedia imo.

The same sentence and sources exist on the Heather entry as well. --24.23.4.56 (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed The lede must summarize the body, where the material on Heying was properly sourced. Although not strictly necessary, I have duplicated the cited source in the lede too. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your rapid response and edits, however the issue remains or I misunderstand the standards. Additionally according to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources there is no consensus on Vice being a strong or reliable source and thus it should not be used as one when dealing with a volatile, and viral subject where new information is coming out every day, no? Interestingly the vice article is attempting to paint an association between the current ivermectin proponents and quackery in spite of acknowledging that the larger clinical trials and studies it is implying will factually prove the presupposition (weinsten and anyone associated is a fringe quack), and disprove weinstein and associates questioning of ivermectin efficacy, have not been completed or released yet. It then acknowledges the more reasonable (in my opinion) counter-argument by saying "Some of the loudest voices now promoting ivermectin—or, more neutrally, asking why they aren't allowed to ask questions about it...". Based on Weinstein's more recent appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast, I believe a more accurate summary of his behavior is that he has been extremely careful not to directly recommend ivermectin as a cure all, and is much more in line with the neutral information seeking and questioning as defined by the Vice article quoted above. In addition to that, the CDC website officially says: "Recommendation:There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19." Independently looking at it from my own perspective, Vice appears to definitely lean left center if not a little farther (I lean left myself, just pointing out the obvious bias here). Additionally as evidence for my claim that this is a hot-button issue, the same author of the source article just released another article today dealing with the same(evolving) subject. So, to summarize if your claim is "Bret and Heather spread misinformation on multiple occasions", and your source for the latter part of the claim is a simply mentioning she is bret's spouse and has participated in his podcast but the podcast in question regarding spike protein does not feature her and the podcast they are talking about simply has her taking ivermectin which is FDA approved, how is that evidence they both spread misinformation on multiple occasions? Guilt by association is not a good encyclopedic standard nor is assuming and attributing more intent than the evidence allows you to. Additionally, the "multiple occasions" claim is still in question for weinstein himself and not even this third additional source were it reliably non-bias only deals with the recent viral podcast and very vaguely on the more recent JRE appearance. If there were evidence of multiple instances of misinformation spreading there should be multiple sources for each covering each claim independently over time, not reaching a conclusion based only on recent viral evidence that covers a single specific instance and uses bias sources. I don't really care for either sides position on the ivermectin debate but confidently saying one side is spreading misinformation while the established medical authority simply calls for patience as reliable data is gathered is not evidence of a claim of misinformation and smacks of favoring one perspective over the other. Hopefully that all makes sense. --24.23.4.56 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Vice is not a super-strength source, that is true. But here it's reporting plain facts that are easily verified, so it's fine. Ivermectin promotion is misinformation per multiple top-level medical sources, and Wikipedia needs to be clear about that to be neutral. So, overall, we're good. Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this argument not a logical fallacy? The alt-right and its media sources occasionally cite correct and easily verifiable information also, but in spite of that they should not be used as sources for their obvious bias, similar to what this Vice article is exhibiting only for the left because when your presupposition is bias it affects the quality of the reporting in favor of that presupposition. The CDC, NIH, and WHO are the organizations certified to make medical recommendations to the general public regarding medical treatments and information not individual professionals in unrelated fields (weinstein), wikipedia editors (you or I), individual medical doctors, out of context medical studies and least of all Anna Merlan of VICE Motherload. I have checked the official organization web pages indicated and they all say the same thing: More data/clinical trials are needed. Therefore if there are verifiable top level medical sources that are willing to certify as fact what appears to be an unproven assumption because of lack of evidence (for now), then please use those sources instead but I imagine you wont be able to find any because the truth is the same: More data is needed to make a factual conclusion. Finally, you seem to have ignored my earlier observation highlighted by this Vice article: "Some of the loudest voices now promoting ivermectin—or, more neutrally, asking why they aren't allowed to ask questions about it..." which is a more more apt description for what is going on in terms of weinstein in my opinion and yet we are going with a different and in my opinion heavily biased narrative....because why exactly? There is a feedback loop of non-experts saying the medical consensus exists in favor of not using Ivermectin when the actual experts in charge of public health are saying there is a lack of evidence to make a conclusion like that. Why should obviously bias media be used as sources for a clearly developing medical issues and treatments? Using medical sources to prove medical assertions, or removing the offending statements seems to be the only way to be neutral. --24.23.4.56 (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a lack of evidence so its use cannot be recommended - correct. In medicine the assumption is that something does not work unless and until sufficient evidence disproves that assumption. This is more or less what all the WPBESTSOURCES: say. Weinstein, in contrast, took the stuff on air and pronounced himself COVID-proof. General Ivermectin misinformation is covered at COVID-19 misinformation#Ivermectin. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your level head. The issue I still see is we aren't here to cover public health recommendations or opinions from non-experts regarding medicine or treatments on a case by case basis based on recent and far from concluded events, nor is weinstein or recent guests (or JRE) regarded as being notable for quackery. This statement also relies on something that was not overtly stated by weinstein or cohorts: "Please ignore your doctor or medical authority and take Ivermectin" which is why I keep referencing the line in that VICE article about questioning why questioning Ivermectin is a better description for what occurred (however inflammatory). If you want to mention how whackadoodle it was for him to take Ivermectin on air and declare himself Covid proof, source it and write it that way and you could even use the official WHO website that says Ivermectin is strictly only recommended as part of a clinical trial. But once you start attributing intent without direct evidence you are no longer writing an encyclopedia, you are defending an ideology you have an interest in whether that be defending against quackery or perceived quackery, censorship conspiracies, or a genuine belief that Ivermectin is a miracle drug. That is all irrelevant to the facts of the situation currently. In addition and more important, context matters, which is why the Fauci entry correctly cites that the email fiasco was not really a fiasco as the alt-right claimed, and that while the CDC initially sent out incorrect information regarding masks it was for very valid reasons (and interestingly for the same reasons I am citing here: Not enough evidence). This is an individual's encyclopedic entry regarding the facts of their life, credentials, academic contributions etc and not a blog or newspaper covering recent events from an ideological base. The fact that there is a statement like it currently means there is a ideological interest at play. The only thing notable about the recent Ivermectin charlie foxtrot is that it is still unfolding, and the authoritative public health experts say more evidence is required. Saying anything else is not NPOV. --24.23.4.56 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Weinstein's antivaxx and ivermectin misinformation is being picked up by secondary sources. Wikipedia articles are built on what secondary sources say about topics. Hence the content that is here. Anybody pushing a drug as effective when it is unproven is into the realm of quackery, so it's unlikely the commentary about him is going to be kind. Wikipedia cannot change reality. Alexbrn (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn: Get a grip. He's not an antivaxxer so stop misrepresenting him with an untrue label. Misinformation is not defined and you do not get to define it. Secondary sources are starting to see him such as Rogan. Things change as much as you want some narrative to not change. Many lines of evidence point to it effectiveness, if you can see past the narrative. You are calling many countries and many doctors quacks and their stories should be heard. But you can advocate for their silence. You can say, ignore him like some failing tyrant would. Be my guest. Nanabozho (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned at 16:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC), I too want to speculate on Weinstein's motivation and have seen many of his DarkHorse podcasts. It is to help people with a safe drug, to exterminate this virus. To help children which you editors are going to have to decide some time if you should help those under 18 to get the vaccines by supporting a narrative that tries to get them vaccinated. Since you have decided to influence people on such subjects, go ahead. You will be judged by your future selves. Nanabozho (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This is circular reasoning and requires a particular read on wikipedia policy and consensus to maintain validity. WP:BOLP and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Specifically: "Be very firm about using only high quality sources", "must be written conservatively" and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.". VICE does not pass that test, nor does the misinformation on multiple occasions claim and since you appear to be the one defending this particular statement I believe that makes the burden of proof using high quality sources only your barrier to adding it to this entry. Not to mention, what of the secondary sources that disagree with the VICE source, or encourage weinstein's behavior for one reason or another is their perceived reality to be rejected inherently and if so based on what? The wikipedia reliable sources list is not that comprehensive and you can keep consensus in limbo for eternity reviewing every one with a bias that has a narrative interest at heart reporting information they feel is correct (Exactly like this VICE source). Speculating on weintein's motivation without direct evidence of that motivation should not be included in an encyclopedia entry regardless of source because it is speculation and assuming intent. You are saying that the information must be covered (yet have not explained why) and it cant be helped what secondary sources report (but only certain ones like VICE) when the core validity of the information is in question by health authorities who have not weighed in for or against (or have conditionally based on clinical trials) because of a lack of evidence. The neutral stance is not to include the information, not to play mind games with NPOV and current events to craft a narrative you feel satisfies scientific consensus. I say again, we should be covering established fact about the mans life, not currently hot topics with sources that have a vested interest in encouraging or discrediting the information that as of this moment is being hotly debated both on Wikipedia talk pages and by medical authorities within global health organizations or individual silos all over the internet.--24.23.4.56 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The Vice source is but one, and used just for a mundane fact that can be easily verified. Weinstein's stuff on ivermectin/conspiracy theories has been covered in multiple sources now. In fact it's arguable it is chiefly what makes him notable now. You seem to be wanting to whitewash things. But Wikipedia cannot change reality. Alexbrn (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Not covering a currently developing and viral event using questionably bias sources on someones biographical page is not whitewashing and is in fact more in line with wikipedia guidelines than what is in the entry now nor have you made a good argument (imo) as to why what you are saying supersedes those guidelines and thus ends up in the entry with clear dissent otherwise. Furthermore I have directly stated my motivations (neutrality) and it is a violation of wikipedia:AGF to ignore my words and attribute my behavior to something else that you decide (not unlike what is happening with this entry or the VICE article). How do we proceed when no other users are weighing in and you and I are at an impasse? 24.23.4.56 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wait to see if somebody else comments? Or post at WP:FTN#Bret Weinstein for wider input. Alexbrn (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I have created a noticeboard request here for NPOV as I did not think fringe theory applied to a living biography entry. 24.23.4.56 (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The best part is that VICE's own source from the article they cite literally says that it is effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrazzleDazzler (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the way you are going about attempting to get changes made (and you are only solidifying any pre-existing bias if there is any) and I do not wish to be associated with you or the twitter brigading going on now. If you would like to voice in support or against of specific piece of information or policy please follow the rules, and do so in your own section. Thank you. 24.23.4.56 (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I've opened a RSN thread on the Vice article, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vice on Bret Weinstein. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This is 24.23.4.56, I just registered.FrederickZoltair (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Offwiki Canvassing

See https://twitter.com/thepaulmcginn/status/1411038400086478856 (Permanent archive) https://twitter.com/HeatherEHeying/status/1411043303605161985 (permanent archive) this is what explains the sudden uptick in activity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Even Wikipedia founder and general crackpot Larry Sanger is getting in on this now. https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1411067692606500867 Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia BLP Quality Control

The lead edit "have spread misinformation... on numerous occasions" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bret_Weinstein&oldid=1030798191) is an example of a Wikipedia BLP Quality Control failure which needs to be resolved via a procedural upgrade. There are much worse encyclopedic violations of this nature on the site (including direct ad hominem), all of which classify as defamation. In this context, it would be appropriate to discuss the purported spreading of misinformation in the article body, and perhaps reference this controversy in the lead, but not to frame the individual by this claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Quality_control#Wikipedia%20BLP%20Quality%20Control

Civilisation (including science) operates by proposing and arguing about hypotheses, not some form of zero tolerance consensus algorithm. While I/others might disagree regarding the application of logic/rigour in every proposition made by a public figure (in this case across 10000+ sentences of public communication), it is not the role of encyclopedias to make unqualified judgements regarding the validity of those hypotheses/analyses, nor to frame a living person by those unqualified judgements. Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The science is done elsewhere. Wikipedia just reports about what secondary reliable sources say, —PaleoNeonate – 08:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Lock in more neutral state

I get the reasons to lock this for a bit, it's going viral on Twitter,. But locking it in a state with potentially libelous statements in the name of preventing vandalism seems like a very politically driven move. Remove these controversial statements impugning his character and then have all the conversation and process. I'm confident the truth will prevail. Mckennagene (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:WRONGVERSION. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

If those statements reflect the views of reliable sources and cite them, libel claims are a non-issue. If those sources eventually retract their material, so will WP, or at least, it will have to rely on other sources if they exist. —PaleoNeonate – 08:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation is not defined

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey on lede

Should the sentence "Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on numerous occasions." be in the lead? (this is a !vote but not an RFC) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal, per both ongoing noticeboard topics there is a dire lack of consensus, issues with balance, and with VICE not being a very strong source in clear violation of Wikipedia:BOLP. On a more opinion based note, political spectrum news bias is becoming extremely common for all significant political ideologies and only does a disservice to whatever topic it infects and should not used as a source in an encyclopedia. FrederickZoltair (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE. The lede summarizes the body, so rather than trying to bomb it, it would be better to discuss what should be in the body, and how it is best summarized. Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I was not casting a vote. Due to the rampant claims of this entry failing to be impartial, the best solution in my opinion is not to engage with the controversy until the passionate mud slinging currently going on in the popular media sphere has died down.

• Support inclusion. This is one of the most notable things about Weinstein and his wife, and it's something that comes up a lot when you look for news articles about them: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] etc etc. So it's clear that this is one of the main ways RSes talk about Weinstein. Wiki policy tells us that the lead should contain the most notable and due information about a subject, based on coverage in RSes and the article body itself. For Weinstein, that means including his spread of misinformation. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for bringing up those extra sources, because it illustrates my much larger points about bias pointedly as well as other issues with the sourcing in general. Two of them are opinion pieces, and the several I checked at Media Bias are obviously unreliable. Salon.com, Daily Beast, The Olympian, The Federalist, Huff Post, Fox News. Per Wikipedia:RS these cannot be used or if they are they should also voice equal opposing ideas. Additionally, google searches are inherently affected by search engine optimization and recent event controversy, so I feel as though just googling things is an extremely slippery slope when used to arrive at non-bias sources.FrederickZoltair (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

MBFC is generally considered not a useful source for assessing source reliability on Wikipedia because it has an unclear reporting methodology and is by one guy with little media expertise, see WP:MBFC. Check WP:RSP for more relevant ratings. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the same argument I am making against Vice. Additionally my point was not that we should use media bias fact check before certifying a source, but that that a bias does exist in several of the links above and that can be confirmed outside of MBFC. FrederickZoltair (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's go link by link:

• 4. Vice News. No consensus on reliability, currently being debated on noticeboards. Not an opinion piece. However, the author (Anna Merlan) is generally considered an expert on conspiracy theories and has written at least one book about the topic that has been given considerable praise in extremely reliable outlets [15] [16] [17]. We can use this to help see how the press considers her journalism (of high quality). She describes Weinstein in detail as promoting misinformation and conspiracy theories.

• 5. Reuters is considered one of the best available sources for reliable reporting. Not an opinion piece. Describes in detail how the claims made by Weinstein in his youtube video are misleading and false.

• 6. Politifact is "generally considered reliable" for determining the veracity of claims of political candidates, and especially for attributable statements. Not an opinion piece. They describe in detail how the claims made by Weinstein in his youtube video about mRNA vaccines are misleading and false.

• 7. Salon is considered reliable for attributed statements. Arguably an opinion piece. Mentions Weinstein only in passing, but goes on to describe many of the ideas that Weinstein as promoted as misinformation, with attribution to an expert (Phil Torres, the author).

• 8 The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news, but also has lots of opinion, though this is not, strictly speaking, an "opinion piece." It's reliable for understanding how others view Weinstein, though, since it is one among many sources. Describes Weinstein as sharing "conspiracy theories."

• 9. Houston Press. Not an opinion piece. Not covered by RSP, but has an editorial board and has won a few rewards for journalistic reporting. It's a local news source, which are not the best news sources we use, but are still considered reliable, and just adds to the overall set of sources here. Has a monthly readership of ~1.6 million. Describes Weinstein's promotion of "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation."

• 10. The Olympian. Not covered by RSP, but has an editorial board and ethics standards in reporting. Local journalistic outlet, and is considered reliable just like other local outlets with editorial boards, independence, etc. Has a weekly readership of ~27,000. Especially pertinent here as it is local/regional to Weinstein. Reliable for the attributed statement that faculty/professors at his former college have described him as spreading "misinformation." (pre-pandemic).

• 11 The Skeptic (UK) is widely considered reliable, has won press awards for factual reporting, has an editorial board, etc. though not covered by RSP. Not an opinion piece. Describes in detail the claims of Weinstein and his wife as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories."

• 12. Fox News opinion piece, but reliable for repeating the attributed statement of YouTube that Weinstein "violated medical misinformation policies."

• 13. The Federalist. Opinion piece, from a generally unreliable outlet, but useful for the attributed statement of YouTube that Weinstein "violated medical misinformation policies."

• 14. Huffington Post. Reliable for the fact that other experts (professors, faculty) have said Weinstein has spread misinformation on more than one occasion (pre-pandemic, even) HuffPo is generally reliable for statements of fact and attributable quotes.

You may discount some of these sources for whatever reason, but all of them together, especially the GR sources like Reuters, The Skeptic, and the local news sources with large readerships, come together to support this claim. These sources altogether provide us a picture of how others view Weinstein, and how RSes view Weinstein, and so it is clear he is viewed as "spreading misinformation" and even as a "conspiracy theorist."--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

My argument is not against reuters or skeptic which are valid (I literally just referenced a reuters article in the noticeboard debate regarding this issue). It is against ideological narratives that unfairly represent people and issues and do not disclose their interest in doing so. If I had not engaged with Alex in my section above or created the NPOV noticeboard this debate would not be occurring at all in any capacity (except as a way to cement the current entry with its in my opinion problematic statement in the lead in place against brigading), and it is very possible you or others would be making changes to this BOLP entry or supporting edits across Wikipedia using clearly biased sources that outside of MB FC are possible to validate as extremely narrative driven and unreliable. Additionally, does the existence of the controversy of these sources here (not just by me mind you) not point to there being a lack of consensus on their validity? Yes sources exist on either side of the fence, no you cannot say Anna Merlan is more or less reliable than Ben Shapiro. One represents the left, one represents the right, neither are quacks and both are exceedingly intelligent and both have authored books (although Shapiro appears to have authored significantly more). This might make me seem like a conservative, but I hope you trust that I am not and I am merely pointing out how sinister it is to ignore people you disagree with in favor of those you do. In this case, the pre-supposition: "Weinstein is a conspiracy theorist" cannot be certified fact when there is virulent debate regarding both his claims and his status from many on both sides of the spectrum including weinstein himself. What makes this all even worse is this is all regarding a viral event that is still unfolding. I mean come on people.... I hate to be associated with these loons brigading the entry, but there is some evidence to support at least part of their collective frustration.FrederickZoltair (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

FrederickZoltair, I think the best phrasing for the sources we have is "BW and his wife HH have been criticized as spreading misinformation..." How do you feel about that? It is perhaps the way to say it that is most supported by the above.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

That is a reasonable statement in my opinion and is much more neutral. You should suggest that on the NPOV noticeboard section. FrederickZoltair (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per Shibbolethink. It's a noteworthy aspect of his career, and the main text gives enough weight to it that it deserves a line in the lede. I'm wary of lengthening that line with circumlocutions like "have been criticized for", though "wary of" is not "completely opposed on principle". XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Include and expand we should say specifically what misinformation is being shared, and possibly mention his Youtube ban/"censorship" as well. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Why is the Youtube demonetization/ban/censorship notable when other platforms have let him be? Youtube is not a reliable source itself, it is a video hosting website. Additionally, it has a troubling history with viral controversies such as this one from last week.FrederickZoltair (talk)

It's notable and duly weighted if lots of RSes are mentioning it. Regardless of what other platforms are doing.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't report on it because we think that YouTube was right or because we think that YouTube was wrong; we write about it because the extent of documentation and commentary on it indicates that it is significant. XOR'easter (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability is not the only condition that needs to be satisfied. The primary reason for the NPOV and Vice noticeboards remain. What benefit does this change bring specifically to Wikipedia:BOLP or NPOV? I think this entry has issues already with WP:RECENTISM, Wikipedia:DUE, and maybe WP:NOTNEWS already and we should resolve that before we proceed down this path of adding more current event information (I do not think we should regardless). But if we do, WP:BREAKING applies and a current event tag should be added to the entry page given that this entire situation is currently being passionately covered by popular media. FrederickZoltair (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

"Breaking news" is a tag we typically apply to something like a hurricane currently hitting a coastline — a topic where there might be hour-to-hour updates. In this case, a banner like {{Current}} would be clutter; as its documentation says, It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for enlightening me I am still learning. FrederickZoltair (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per Shibbolethink. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose in lead The lead of this article is very short and this isn't due as basically the only non-boiler plate comment about Weinstein. Additionally, Weinstein this is an area where I would be very careful about the sources like Vice misrepresenting what Weinstein has actually said. I have heard his concerns regarding the vaccines which largely relate to unknown long term risks due to a lack of data. In the discussions I have heard (which may not be the ones Vice is referencing) Weinstein has taken a sound scientific stance stating what is known and unknown and why he thinks we should be concerned about the unknowns with the clear understanding that he feels things would change with more data. I believe his comments with respect to ivermectin are similar. If I'm not mistaken the sources talking about ivermectin state we don't have data to show its effective. I believe that aligns with Weistein's claims as well. He is in a camp that argues the preliminary data is sufficient to justify further research. To paint such claims with the same broad brush as those who have said MMR vaccines causes autism is effectively misinforming our readers. I also think RECENT must come into play here. A few months back anyone promoting the lab leak hypothesis was labeled as clearly a nut (Politifact pants on fire) yet we are now seeing that line in the sand being pulled back (and PF retracted their story from what I understand). This information makes sense in the body where exact claims can be discussed but as it has been put in the lead I think it violates NPOV and needs to be removed on policy grounds. Springee (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Violation of wikipedias own rules

"For content to remain on Wikipedia it must be neutral, verifiable, and attributed to a reputable source." - who is explaining why this statement about spreading information is any of these things? I think whoever put that in and then decided to hit the "lock" button owes some answers here. Mckennagene (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised about the full protection, although a form of protection was necessary considering the disruption in the recent history. I suspect that semi or extended-confirmed protection was not enough considering the off-line canvassing that caused some sleeping and long-term accounts to appear. While full protection persists, the way is to propose specific changes, seeking consensus for them here, so that an administrator can apply them. WP:FIXBIAS is an essay but it may be useful, —PaleoNeonate – 08:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I suppose given the flare-up in disruption, protection was inevitable (Deepfriedokra was the protecting admin). This article should probably join the many other controversial COVID-19 articles that have WP:ECP, given the rabble-rousing going on off-wiki. Alexbrn (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 July 2021

Please add Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists. This should be relatively uncontroversial, as multiple RSes (not all perfect, but a few good ones) have described Weinstein this way, or have otherwise depicted experts as doing the same: [18] [19] [20] [21]. And several really good RSes have depicted Weinstein as promoting ideas that are elsewhere described as conspiracy theories: [22] ([23] [24] [25])

Thoughts? Thanks. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Do not add more fuel to the fire. Recent arguments have been made on active noticeboards that dispute the implied not controversial nature this issue. FrederickZoltair (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am strongly considering nominating that category for deletion. It is potentially committing BLP violations by conflating disagreements with government lockdown policy with "COVID vaccine causes magnetism" lunacy. If there were a category more targeted towards "People promoting claims not based in evidence about COVID vaccines being dangerous or ineffective", I would support the inclusion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  力, ah I see. Yes for these very politicized labels, I get why things like this become very hairy. It would be like if there were a "Category: Bad person." I think I still support inclusion because I think categories should be assigned based on their platonically ideal understanding, not what happens in practice. But I get why you would be hesitant. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  I won't create it without consensus (as there may be other problems), but maybe Category:COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theorists? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

How about a category for people who have and promote discussions in areas of science where there is rapidly evolving understanding, controversy, ongoing research, and the person appears to not be a total whacko but may be heterodox in some views. Basically separate this from lunatics, and recognize that science only exists and moves forward with debate and disagreement a d we should not use judgemental categorical terms like "misinformation" Mckennagene (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

JJMC89, ah sorry, did not realize that was how this was supposed to work. Please accept my apologies for wasting admin time.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak claims

One of the other things that comes up regarding Bret Weinstein's coverage of COVID-19 is that he is strong supporter of "lab leak" hypothesis. Claiming that the probablility of a lab leak is over 95% 1. Should this be included? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable source. A brief mention may be due. Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree the claim is valid, but due to ongoing issues and two active noticeboards regarding this entry and its sourcing I think it would be better to wait. FrederickZoltair (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Collapse off-topic content

Alex, you posted this article on the fringe theorists noticeboard here a little over a week ago. I have no problem with regards to the claim itself or the source, but your comment wording here makes it seem as though you both were previously unaware of it and given both of you are frequently active on that noticeboard and share fringe theorist information and publications it should be disclosed overtly that both of you likely were. This is getting into Wikipedia:Advocacy imo. FrederickZoltair (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC) I don't understand what you are trying to say, and the same is probably true for other readers too. Could you speak in whole sentences and use words which are a bit clearer than "it"? You have no problems with which claim? Hemiauchenia and Alexbrn were previously unaware of what? and likely were what? It sounds as if you are accusing them of being biased though, based on frequenting WP:FTN. Before you do that, you should read WP:FRINGE, WP:YWAB and WP:LUNATICS. There is nothing wrong with fighting fringe POVs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Of course not and I agree nor am I trying to discredit Alex (an advocacy claim is not a claim of bias or lack of credibility), it is pointing out that in due course of advocating for an idea or set of ideas (in this case regarding weinstein and psudoscience and fringe theories) you supersede the guiding policy of both BLOP and NPOV (which when in conflict with anything but another fundamental policy NPOV is to be followed) especially when those claims are hotly debated publicly (actively), and more importantly internally by Wikipedia editors regarding the subject of the entry also actively. Additionally Wikipedia:advocacy covers your defense specifically:"Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect "true" information, but aims to synthesize such information into an accurate, proportionate representation of the state of human knowledge. Our responsibility is not just to verify material, but to contextualize and weight it appropriately. Insisting on undue prominence for a true but minor or tangential viewpoint is a canonical violation of the neutral point of view." From what I can tell Alex is extremely intelligent and an accomplished veteran Wikipedia editor with many years of service and a PhD in English of all things. What would lead them to make a comment that implies they are observing new information and certifying it as reasonable for the first time, when they are the source of it being present on the noticeboard all three of you frequent? Finally Lunatics does not apply nor is Ivermectin an alternative therapy, it has a FDA approved clinical use and is being currently actively researched by many notable institutions as a covid treatment. YWAB is an essay so I wont comment on it although I disagree with the assumption that weinstein meets the test to be labeled a quack, conspiracy theorist, or psudoscientist just yet.FrederickZoltair (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC) what. OK, I won't ask you anything ever again, because you ignore the actual questions and instead pontificate about things you do not understand well. Forget it, bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC) I am sorry you feel that way. If you choose to participate further, please do so with courtesy and by citing policy rather than with personal attacks.FrederickZoltair (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Err, It was I who introduced that Skepic article to the Talk page (see above) and yes, now that I've actually read it it does seem a reasonable source. FrederickZoltair is imagining weird "implications" in a plain statement. Alexbrn (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC) I received several notifications rapidly regarding this so I apologize if there is a protocol to follow and I am behaving inappropriately in regards to it with this message. Alex, I am sorry for my offending claim and now realize I was being much too sensitive and not giving you the benefit of the doubt or assuming good faith. I should not have made the advocacy claim in this way or in this particular article's forum and if I have issues with feeling that a particular viewpoint is over-represented I will do so in the proper forum. I hope you can forgive me and we can continue in good faith. FrederickZoltair (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)