Jump to content

Talk:Great Barrington Declaration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mainline421 (talk | contribs) at 19:28, 18 October 2021 (→Reverting of edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Suggest dumping the 'signatories' section

Let's dump the Signatories section about the online petition. Funny names in an online petition are not encyclopedia-worthy information about the GBD. And of course a public online petition that attracted three quarters of a million signatures attracts a bunch of people who aren't experts in the subject. This section makes Wikipedia look dumb. -- M.boli (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it makes the idea of an online petition as a means of informing health care decisions for millions of people dumb. For as many professionals and experts that were included, many others had no equivalent relevant experience, insight, or know-how, making it an ideological statement to associate thenselves with, rather than a peer reviewed paper or similar.
In short; they want the benefit of looking legitimate as much as possible but to avoid an actual legitimising process, while also having their signatories padded out as much as possible. Well it worked. And they got lots of silly ones. Koncorde (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, it is important to include a paragraph showing that people wrote silly names to an online petition because it makes the GBD look silly. As I said, not encyclopedia-worthy. The online petition is not a notable part of the story, absent the silly names nobody would have bothered to mention it. -- M.boli (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's important to give the context of the signatories. That a significant portion of the RS coverage highlighted grave concerns with their auditing / control of the signatory element is WP:DUE. We don't exclude coverage because it is flattering.
And, to be clear, the vast majority of coverage is very much concerned with its trial by public opinion methodology, of which the signatories are a large portion. Koncorde (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I come a little bit from a different angle: How can we know today(!) if the current signature-count provided is legitimate, verified, which is the only data that should be acceptable if we would ever discuss it, use it, etc.? FAQ does not say a word if the currently (total, adding the three groups) of 819.766 is unique signees. No, I did not ask the authors, but I have a feeling there might be a tool for filtering such lists. What is the meaning, if it is not verified, a self-confirmation? KR --17387349L8764 (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is just one of the many problems with the list, which has not been mentioned yet because it would only be interesting if such lists had any meaning. Which they don't because of all the other problems, the most damaging is that this is not how science is done. I am not saying that you should not have mentioned it, just that this is the usual situation with pseudoscience proponents: most of the time, what they do contains so many rookie mistakes, each of which alone would have doomed their argument, that it is to be expected that people find new ones all the time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
M.boli, I agree. It's a political stunt, not a scientific document, and the list of signatories lends it spurious credibility, as the sources make clear. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest only removing the first paragraph (which lacks a secondary source.) The second paragraph is well-cited, making it clear that the large number of fake names is something that has attracted significant coverage. Especially given how skeptical secondary sources are, it seems completely inappropriate to use the authors as a primary source to make a claim that those secondary sources cast doubt on; we should cover it via the secondary sources, with the context of those doubts and all. --Aquillion (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Again, serious scientists from prestigious institutions have signed and endorsed the message so saying that is is a political stunt rather than a scientific document is absolutely baffling to me and looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In any case, this information is WP:DUE and the source is acceptable per WP:SELFSOURCE. Besides, we have an entire § Counter memorandum section with the names of its signatories. Just like with the credentials issue, either we keep both or we remove both. The alleged WP:DUE issue (i.e. the idea that critics should be given more weight than the declaration itself) is still safeguarded by the long, (borderline WP:NOTEVERYTHING-non conform) § Reception section. JBchrch (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it is true that, as you say, "serious scientists from prestigious institutions have signed and endorsed the message" - and if this fact is noteworthy and relevant - then it should be easy to find secondary sources stating that. But we cannot say or imply it with only a primary cite to AIER, who is not a reliable source and who fails WP:ABOUTSELF when making plainly self-serving statements that are also about third parties (ie. the people they claim signed it.) Note that, as the secondary sources indicate, AIER did no fact-checking on its list; anyone could claim to be whoever they pleased when signing it - we absolutely need high-quality secondary sources for any individual person we want to claim signed it per WP:BLP, since stating that they signed it is a BLP-sensitive statement. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please dump the signatories section. Every petition of over a half-million names will have fake names. No evidence has been provided in this section to document that this is an actual problem. Let us consider, for example, the outdated source (Oct. 9, 2020) in The Independent[1], which listed 15,000 scientists and medical practitioners, amongst whom more than 123 people were itemized whom The Independent assumed were questionable or more than 0.82% of the total signatures. Compare this to the recall petition validity count for Governor Newsome "According to the final signature verification report from the Secretary of State, recall organizers turned in 2,161,349 signatures and county election officials found 1,719,943 were valid, meaning they came from registered voters and matched the voter's signature on file." in the Capradio website [2] or 20.4% invalid. That gives a relative indication of the size of misrepresentation that might contribute to the invalidation of a petition. But in order to invalidate a petition, there would have to be a fixed number of signatories that is considered valid, and in the case of the GBD there is no such number, and there is also no legal standing for the GBD to debate. Now allsides.com rates The Independent as "Left Leaning" [3], and I would consider that this is a manufactured issue of no significance. That is, left leaning readers might consider this to be a "gotcha," but neutral readers would be more likely to consider it Clickbait. Now on this site, it depends on what one considers evidence. In this case, heuristic reports for an issue that has no legal standing of an effect that is not claimed to exceed 1% pales in comparison to a more newsworthy report of legal petition with a 20.4% invalidation rate, which rate still only "might" mean anything. Why discuss Clickbait at all? Dump it, it contributes nothing to the discussion of the issues that are worth discussing within the GBD. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Declaration was invalid from the start because it is about a scientific subject, and science is not done by declarations or collections of signatures. The fake names are just the cream on top of that fact. Comparing this with political petitions where signatories were confirmed by some local Secretary of State does not make any sense at all. It's like you demand people put gasoline in muffins because you put it in your car, then, when that reasoning does not meet with success, showing notarized witness accounts confirming that you have indeed put gasoline in your car.
Look, you are talking to people who know how science is done, some of whom actually do it for a living. We are not as easy to bamboozle as the average voter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You again, and this time posing as a scientist. That is just another red herring. Who is claiming that the GBD is science? What it was was advice. All you and this work offer are off the cuff opinion with no science content whatsoever, no statistics, just raw opinion offered in a ruinous "abundance of caution." Consider the costs. Here is a link to a review of 80 papers http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/LockdownReport.pdf That was done a professor of economics at Simon Fraser University and is cited in lots of "secondary sources." The author, Douglas W. Allen is cited 4563 times according to Google, which suggests he is a very good academic. In that cost analysis review paper, which I would assume an expert economist is qualified to make, the impact of lockdowns in Canada was to save 22,300 years of life, whereas the cost was 6,300,000 years of life, a 282 times higher cost than benefit. According to The Epoch Times, "Lockdowns May be Canada's Biggest Policy Failure in History, Report Says." https://www.theepochtimes.com/lockdowns-could-be-canadas-biggest-policy-failure-in-history-report-says_3796311.html Now before you go on about what is and is not science, reviews are not basic research, so in that sense they are opinion, but in this case the opinion seems to have a lot of references. Also see The Economist https://fee.org/articles/economist-lockdowns-greatest-peacetime-policy-failure-in-canada-s-history/ and I don't care how many others. What I would like to see are any numbers that support the bizarre claims I see in this article, but as you have none, I guess that would be too much to hope for. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to believe this, but I am actually a scientist. Anyway, now that you understand that people here are not ignorant enough to believe that the GBD is scientifically credible, you pretend it was never intended to be. That will not fly either; its falsity is obvious from earlier contributions in this discussion alone. You then change the subject, finally showing the typical economist nothing-is-important-except-profits-and-losses attitude that is the real motivation behind the GBD. But this section is about whether fake signatories should be mentioned, so this is widely off-topic. I think the useful part of this discussion is over. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly explained that there is a difference between a petition in which the number of signatories has legal meaning and one wherein it doesn't. Then, you echo back that "Hey, these thing are different." No kidding, you are just looking at what I said out of context, not because that makes sense, but because if I said black you would say white just to be contrary. Moreover the usage rate of those false names is derisory, far less than the rate of pseudonym usage on this site. Does using a pseudonym invalidate an opinion? Not always, I would think. Now, where are the numbers that make the case for anything you say about GBD, and I have a problem with people claiming "science" without numerical evidence. As for the byzantine topic rules on this site, I can start a new topic if it pleases you. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not pretend to be a scientific authority. The GBD does. The existence of fake names further undermines its already negligible credibility. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a person and there is a lot of good science on Wikipedia, but in this article there is no science, just opinion from people who either are erring on the side of overabundant caution of authoritarian origin, or who are grinding axes in an effort to justify same. Most real names are not like yours "GUY" in capitals. That does not invalidate your opinion, but your words do that for you. If you claim negligible credibility, then you should present numbers that support that contention. That claim is off-topic here, and is nonetheless answered above. Your unscientific opinion is demonstrably damaging to the body politic. Put up numbers to support your claim to counter mine or desist. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it will be helpful to explain what the different categories of scientific evidence are in practical terms. Scientific evidence, in terms of publication of same, is fundamentally peer-reviewed basic research in which data modelling is presented and interpreted. That does not seem to be a recognized category here, but is actual science. That is what I am asking you for to support your opinion. Less basic but still peer reviewed would be review articles in which meta-analysis is presented, where meta-analysis is numeric using the rules for meta-analysis, that is also a category that appears to be unrecognized on Wikipedia, but I would happily accept that as a scientific response. Then there are publications, also peer-reviewed, that are opinions rendered by research scientists, I would accept that here as well as evidence, but not without a grain of salt. Now the GBD is an opinion piece by recognized scientists of high caliper, was not initially peer-reviewed, but more of a whistle-blower type of publication that numerous people, some of whom are indeed highly qualified (like me) agree with because of prior knowledge of epidemiology, economics or whatever. That would be called a 'post hoc' reviewed opinion, declaration or a guideline. I am on one medical society's guideline oversight review committees and a delegate to a multidisciplinary committee, so I review such things a lot, and yes post-hoc reviewed opinion is a real category for practice guidelines. What I don't have from you is any evidence of anything other than your conclusions, which in peer-reviewed circles would be cause for dismissal as "conclusions not based on information presented," an anathema in scientific circles. So put up or shut up, where is your evidence? 207.47.175.199 (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Great Barrington Declaration" is not science. It's pro-corporate activism using libertarians to argue for something that will advantage the few to the detriment of the many - exactly as we'd expect, given that it's run by a right-wing grift tank. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, GUY, the GBD is the opinion of known scientist specialists. Opinion from scientists is not science and you are off-topic and shadowboxing. You imply that they claim that opinion is science and then say that opinion is not science. Where is your evidence that they claim that the opinion of scientists is science? Then you claim that their opinion is motivated by a far-fetched conspiracy theory. How do you know? Are you an especially gifted mind-reader? I have a much more simple theory that explains a lot more. They are IMHO motivated by concern for the general welfare. That is what motivates me, and as my thinking aligns with theirs as to the particulars of what they are saying, I signed the petition. Perhaps you would wish to infer the same for me, that I am the member of some think-tank funded by some right wing group? Trust me, I am a totally independent thinker. Now, if you were to put me under the microscope you could manufacture some linkage between some bank I own stock in, and a right-wing corporate board member of one of a number of banks whom I have never met, and it would be sheer fantasy. I don't know what you are smoking, but give me some of it, please. You can settle the issue by sending them an email and asking what motivated them. I bet dollars to donuts that they will give you an honest answer, and I say this because none of their opinions is discordant with what I know of epidemiology. If your knowledge of epidemiology is profound enough, we could discuss that, but you don't seem interested, so I don't hold out much hope for that. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this still about improving the article? If not, please go somewhere else, IP. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is very much about improving the article. My suggestion is to dump the Signatories section as it detracts from the article content in the sense that it is read by anyone who knows what is petition is as both insignificant in the specific case here, and at a lower rate by comparison to other petitions. While suggesting this, equivocating side issues have been brought up that belong elsewhere in this talk section, and also need addressing from a neutral POV. You will perhaps forgive me if I do not agree that this article is at present fit for consumption, it needs work, and much of the damage has already been done by posting a list of conspiracy theories, and partisan volatile opinion; subject to change without notice. My motive here is mitigating harm, and whether or not you agree personally with me should not be an issue in and of itself. I am getting a bit tired of the "you, you, you" personal characterizations, and suggest that you address the veracity of content of the article. This reviewer says "Needs work." 207.47.175.199 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring all the hot air in that contribution, this condenses to "the signatories section should go because the fake names are insignificant compared to what happens with petitions". But the GBD starts with the words "As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have...". That means: by signing it, you are claiming you are either an "infectious disease epidemiologist" or a "public health scientist". So, the fake names demonstrate that the organizers did a very bad job in screening the people who signed it, and the reasoning that this should not be mentioned because of comparisons with petitions open for everyone does not hold water. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a thing that has been commented on by reliable sources. If this isn't significant then the entire thing is not, and the article should be deleted. I'd be fine with that, by the way. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good example of manufacturing news out of nothing. I would be fine with deleting the entire article as well, as it stands it does not discuss the issues. The whole article is mistaken opinion, and your reliable sources make the GBD signatories look inspired by contrast. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The GBD stands on its own merit. If there were no people signaling their agreement, the manufactured news would have been not an argument on merit, but that no one has such an opinion. Having a petition format with 10's of thousands of signatures obviated that claim. In its place, so-called "reputable sources" made up a fiction that a few dozen questionable signatures taints all 10's of thousands of signatures, which clearly is a biased POV, and also besides the point; there is no argument presented on the GBD merits, and when numerical support for the GBD is presented, our "reputable sources" ignore it. The cost benefit for the fear mongering of the CDC, whose story changes as each abundance of caution POV is show bogus on a nearly daily basis, is devastating people's lives. "Reputable sources," whose claims do not pass finger counting checks are so irrelevant to the discussion that it detracts from the content severely. It is just noise designed to get us from one lie to the next and obviously when caught out in a bald faced lie, we implausibly deny lying; "It can't be a lie; the sources are 'reputable'." In a pig's eye they are. If I were to go through the list of the media bias of those sources, you would ignore that too. I went through the exercise of calculating the less than 1% suspect signatures, and that was not countered, numerically. My entreaties for numerical evidence were ignored, and the retained opinions signal recalcitrance but not common sense. I see no meritorious counter arguments. You want to believe your "reputable sources" when discredited, fine, but I would really prefer to discuss things that make sense. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, Professor 207.47.175.199: my suggestion is that you simply tell us your real identity here, and then link to your own peer-reviewed academic sources where you articulate these views in a way that carries weight around here. Game over for those two-faced liberal lamestream manipulators! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia content rules do not allow for self-citation even though that makes no content sense. It's like a publisher dictating that in Chapter 2 of a book one cannot say, "In Chapter 1, we proved a conjecture. The current chapter applies those results." How dare I cite my own first chapter? As for who I am, read the aspersions cast here. As for views that carry weight, it is not the strength of an argument that counts here, i.e., the logic of things, but rather voting up or down on propositions as if that made sense; it doesn't. If we were to put the statement that "The sun rises in the East and sets in the West." versus "The Earth rotates from West to East under the sun." up to a vote, the science would lose. So, I suggest that you identify your support for deleting the Signatories section more explicitly. That would help, in context, such as it is. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have gone far into WP:OR territory here. Reliable sources are unreliable, unreliable sources are reliable, many people accepting something makes it more credible when you agree with it ("10's of thousands of signatures"), but does not when you don't ("the science would lose") - we cannot use all that. If you do not accept the premise of Wikipedia that articles are based on reliable sources and not on your armchair cogitations, there is no point in arguing with you.
Nomoskedasticity's suggestion tried to point you in that direction: give us a high-quality source for all that - written by you or someone else, it matters not - or shut up. EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not apply censorship here. Comment reduced to essentials. I have no idea what you mean when you say high quality source. Here is a statement with signatures about the GBD. History: the CPSO, The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, whose job it is to license physicians in Ontario, Canada, has issued a decree prohibiting discussion of anything that does not agree with their Covid 19 policy. https://twitter.com/cpso_ca/status/1388211577770348544, which states in part that their dictates are not to be spoken against. That is censorship, if you delete this, again, it will also be censorship. Now, their power is to cancel the medical license of any Ontario physician who does not follow their public policy the likes of which is wholly unscientific according to The Declaration of Canadian Physicians https://canadianphysicians.org/. In turn, that declaration supports the opinion of the GBD. The issue here is whether the signatories are real on not, so the link to other real signatories who support the GBD is relevant. There are lots of content experts who agree with the GBD. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean when you say high quality source. Yes, that is obvious, since you are offering a link to Twitter. I think we are finished here, until you have read and understood WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and WP:WHYMEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The twitter post was made by CPSO itself, the source is the CPSO website: https://www.cpso.on.ca/News/Key-Updates/Key-Updates/COVID-misinformation. It is one thing to state a bunch of weird rules, and another to follow them. You have no way of showing that the opinion that the signatories of GBD are fake is a majority opinion, and it does not agree with an examination of the source, saying instead that homeopaths may have signed it and other drivel. Even if you consider the opinion that the majority of signatures are correct to be a significant minority opinion, you have not honored that either. (You brought this up, it is off topic:) Rules alone are no guarantee that they are followed, and in particular http://archive.is/dDr7X did a survey of the Wikipedia Articles on 21st Century American Politicians based on Allsides media classification, and provided evidence that only one of 10 sources were right biased. On that basis, Allsides removed its "center" rating of Wikipedia, and now does not rate Wikipedia at all whilst it develops criteria to actually rate mixed bags like Wikipedia, see https://www.allsides.com/news-source/wikipedia. Overall the signatories section here is manufactured news with no significant coverage of reality. Hiding behind biased sources promoting fiction does not establish your POV as either common or more importantly real.
Because the CPSO dictate is so biased, and there is significant resistance to such an authoritarian stance the text retrieved today is next given as a direct quote in toto:

"CPSO Statement:"

"The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science." That statement is reminiscent of the reaction of the authors on this website: Totalitarianism with no descent acknowledged. Again we see the empty appeal to science and evidence. One cannot disprove a hypothesis without first entertaining it, and when alternative viewpoints are not not even allowed to be mentioned, there is no science. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AIER

What is the relevance of "Controversial research funded by AIER in the past includes a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them," to the topic of this article? Seems like a coatrack. Kenosha Forever (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gives our readers a little background into the nature of the organisation. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not an article about the organization. The nature of the organization is adequately described as "a libertarian think tank based in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.", and it is wikilinked, if people need more information. Its positions on sweatshop labor has absolutely no relevance to the topic of this article. Kenosha Forever (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:Coatrack_articles#All_About_George and tell me how this section is different. Kenosha Forever (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the similarity. In the GBD article, we have multiple sources discussing the AIER - including all the points made in our article - as part of the context in which these sources suggest the GBD should be interpreted. In your "All about George" link, the would-be article is seizing on a "GW slept here" location to slag on the former slave owner president. I don't really see the similarity: the latter is a COATRACK; the former isn't. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see the similarity? This article is seizing on a "AEIR sponsored GBD" mention to slag on AEIR as a supporter of sweatshops and a climate change denier. It is exactly the same - neither issue has anything to do with GBD Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the point of that paragraph is to "slag on the AEIR", rather than to provide context for the GBD, then I'm not sure we are reading the same paragraph. The paragraph's sources suggest that this is relevant context for understanding the declaration, and that's how I see it as well. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources for that section, except two, are from the same person - Nafeez Ahmed - who seems to be on some sort of crusade against AEIR. The two other sources are actually criticizing him for misrepresentations in his articles, which is a viewpoint not preesnt in the section, violating NPOV. This is a massive undue coatrack. Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are definitely not reading the same section. My reading of The Guardian and the Berkshire Edge pieces are not reflected at all in what you just wrote. Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, The Edge piece say this "Investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed wrote in the Byline Times, an alternative investigative newspaper in the United Kingdom, that the “think-tank behind the Great Barrington Declaration is part-funded by right-wing American billionaire Charles Koch...Ahmed did find a $68,100 donation from the Charles Koch Foundation to AIER. ....The Koch gift, however, makes up a fraction of AIER’s total revenues of more than $2.2 million for that same period." - you don't read that as criticism of the claim that AIER s fund buy Koch, when it amounts to just 3% of the funding? Kenosha Forever (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would call that context, rather than criticism. You also neglect to mention the paragraph in the Edge about the climate denial pieces on AIER's website, which I see as validating the GBD's critics. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the context in which $68K out of $2.2M would be considered "funding"? If I gave a dollar to AEIR, would I be considered "funding" them"? Technically I am , but any "investigative reporter" who reported it that way is a disgrace. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what are your sources for disgrace? I don't see that in the Edge. Anyway, the Koch bit is only one element in the paragraph. You seem to be objecting to the whole AIER section, which is absolutely do for the article - no AIER, no GBD. Period. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I object to is the massive undue weight this places on something which is not the topic of the article, to the point of it being a coatrack. I am ok with saying AEIR is a sponsor (even though that's' not completely clear), I am ok with briefly describing it as libertarian, and I'd even go as far as saying that its critics called some of its research controversial. But the current section is not appropriate, violates NPOV, and it doesn't look like you have consensus to include it.Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the previous discussions? The Koch funding bit was controversial as part of the lede and so was moved to the body, but I haven't seen anyone contest the relevance of the AIER context on general, until now, and we've had quite a lot of discussion...Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the comment below this one, where JBchrch says "I would agree that excessive WP:WEIGHT is given to the AIER's activities. A note/sentence in passing would be sufficient IMO.". You do not have consensus for this massive undue coatrack. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And you have no consensus that it is a massive undue coatrack. Please read the previous discussions before continuing your crusade. Newimpartial (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on those wishing to include disputed content to show consensus for it, not the other way around. Kenosha Forever (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I am saying that we have express consensus from previous discussions to maintain the AIER content. Newimpartial (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change , and you don't have it now (assuming you ever had it). Kenosha Forever (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One or two editors now do not outweigh the consensus previously documented, e.g., in this discussion. The article is more balanced now, with the longer discussion of AIER's role in the body and a short mention in the lede. But if you think the community's views really have changed, NPOVN is that way. Newimpartial (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
that discussion was about AEIR in the lead, and ended with a decision against it. There is no discussion I can see that supports the current "Sponsors" section, which as can be seen here, does not have consensus. Kenosha Forever (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, what you are reading and what I am reading are very different. I recommend NPOVN. Newimpartial (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the disputed content is just one sentence long, I think an RfC is more appropriate. Kenosha Forever, if you want to do it but don't know how to just tell me.--JBchrch (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JBchrch, I haven't done it before, so yeah, you could start one Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the sources the article is based on generally mention the AIER connection, including its activities and track record. However, I would agree that excessive WP:WEIGHT is given to the AIER's activities. A note/sentence in passing would be sufficient IMO. JBchrch (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't have an issue with mentioning AEIR as a sponsor, and describing(as currently in the article) as libertarian think tank, perhaps with a note that it is has controversial views or has been criticized. But as it currently stands, there are 3000+ bytes of irrelevant content, a massive coatrack. Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind that quote institution embedded in a Koch-funded network gives the game away, viz: there is nothing substantive. Weasel words to obscure that the dreaded Taint of the Koch is by transitivity, AEIR collaborates with other institutions that received Koch funding. I think at one point that embarrassing line was run into the article. After a lot of dispute it is retained as a quote. Only the lede part was put to a vote, where it lost by a large margin. Personally, I've given up arguing the Koch issue, but very happy to see it out of the lede. The there are numbers of editors on both sides, and the faction who see it as important context are more persistent.

Regarding that longish 2nd paragraph in the Sponsor section, I'd cut everything in that paragraph before the sentence Controversial research funded by AIER in the past.... That sentence to the end leaves a brief mention of the sweatshops and a bit longer mention of climate denial. To me, that provides just enough taste of context and eliminates the ridiculous Koch fixation. -- M.boli (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Including criticism of this declaration makes complete sense - yet referring to the declarations sponsor as supporting climate change denial seems, in my eyes at least, an Ad Hominem, which doesn’t seem entirely appropriate for an impartial page. Especially when the relevancy of climate change to covid is somewhat dubious. Raidiohead55 (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: "Controversial research funded by AIER in the past includes a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Although closers are instructed that assessing consensus is not merely a matter of counting noses, it is clear that the editors expressing a preference to retain the contested text are in the majority. The editors in favor of removing the contested text do not present arguments that can be considered to overcome this disadvantage on strength of argument grounds nor on policy grounds and so there is a consensus to retain the challenged text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to clarify:After updating the close requeest at WP:ANRFC, I think it important to note that consensus has never been held to require 100% clarity Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In § Sponsor, should the sentence Controversial research funded by AIER in the past includes a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them,[4] be removed?--JBchrch (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Remove, and also remove the subsequent paragraph - This article is not about AIER, but about Great Barrington Declaration. AIER's only connection is that their website hosted the declaration. Any work AEIR has done on Climate change or sweatshops is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and only serves as a coatrack - associating presumably negative aspects of AIER's work with the GBD. We should briefly describe their role (sponsor/ web host), but without this undue content. Something along the lines of "The declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), a libertarian think tank based in Great Barrington, Massachusetts" , and maybe add ", that has conducted research that was considered controversial by critics". But right now we have a 3000 byte paragraph that describes all sort of irrelevant AEIR materiel. Kenosha Forever (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kenosha Forever: WP:COAT is not a policy/guideline. It's an WP:ESSAY so it may or may not be honored. It depends entirely on consensus. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meta-discussion about the wording of the Rfc question; now resolved.
  • Comment (edit conflict) : Kenosha Forever, can you say whether the Rfc question as stated above, is the issue you are trying to resolve? My concern is that you mentioned in the AEIR discussion above that "there are 3000+ bytes of irrelevant content" but this Rfc question seeks to remove a sentence of ~ 140 characters. Is this a faithful representation of your issue? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reping: Kenosha Forever this question was directed to you; sorry; repinging. Mathglot (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathglot, In the discussion abode, I was trying to solve a bigger problem. I think the entire "Sponsors' Section should go, save for a singe line description of AEIR which could go into the section right above. But this is a good first step, which might be easier to get agreement on. Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Kenosha Forever: Based on your comment of 17:51 above [reinforced by your 18:08 comment], the Rfc question clearly does not state your concerns. I recommend that you change the Rfc statement (starting, "should the statement...") above, so it corresponds with your concern. No one else has responded with !votes yet, so the Rfc question may still be changed. Ideally, make it a yes-no question, which doesn't make an argument for your PoV, but just states the question that you would like to see answered. "Should the statement (section/paragraph/four sentences/whatever) starting with "FOO..." and ending with "...BAR" in section BAZ be removed from the article?" would work. Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Missed that last part; if you think the question as stated is satisfactory because easier to get consensus on and you're good with going ahead with the Rfc as stated, that's fine; feel free to leave the Rfc as is, if you're happy with it, or change it, if you're not. Up to you. Mathglot (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kenosha Forever: if you feel like I've misunderstood your concerns, first of all I am sorry, and second go ahead and edit my question as you please. --JBchrch (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a bigger concern, but I am ok with the question as is, let's see if we can get agreement for that. Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, so we can proceed with the current Rfc question as is; thanks for your feedback. Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment collapsed meta-discussion about wording. Rfc remains open for !votes and comments. Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fuck no! If a text attacking a scientific consensus in order to protect the Holy Free Market comes from a pro-free-market organization that has in the past attacked another scientific consensus as well as attempts to protect poor people from being exploited, both in order to protect the Holy Free Market, and both to the detriment of the well-being of humanity in general, that is very much worth noting. It puts the whole thing in a perspective similar to WP:MANDY. The GBD is just what you would expect from a pro-greed organization, and the reader needs to know that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No This declaration did not fall out of the sky, but was sponsored by an organisation who's sketchy past is highly relevant to the sketchy declaration that is the subject of the article. The ideological context that stood behind the writing of this document should not, and can not, be ignored. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the said statement (it should be probably moved to «Controversy» sub-section). --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. It is too far-removed from the declaration to deserve inclusion (per WP:DUE), and was only brought up by one source. In response to Hob Gadling, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or to prevent readers from accidentally becoming paleocons: as I am sure you know, we have to write articles from a neutral point of view. JBchrch (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The credibility of a source is important information. Not mentioning it would help the propagandists spread their lies. Wikipedia needs to supply context that allows the reader to categorize standpoints: "this is what the top scientists say, and that is what the loons with an ideological agenda who have spread misinformation about other subjects say". This is not righting great wrongs, it is supplying necessary information. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Note for eventual closer: because the Rfc was worded as a "removal" question, no and keep votes are on the same side of this question. Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor Kenosha Forever is a sock. Their vote should be disregarded. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ |newspaper=The Independent|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-herd-immunity-great-barrington-declaration-scientists-signatures-fake-names-b912778.html}}
  2. ^ |radio=capradio|url=https://www.capradio.org/articles/2021/05/06/signatures-are-in-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-gavin-newsom-recall-effort/
  3. ^ |website=allsides|url=https://www.allsides.com/news-source/independent-0
  4. ^ Greenhalgh, Trish; McKee, Martin; Kelly-Irving, Michelle (18 October 2020). "The pursuit of herd immunity is a folly – so who's funding this bad science?". The Guardian. Retrieved 18 October 2020.
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.

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signatories

I am sure nobody needs me to run down all the reasons why listing, or boosting, or characterising, the signatories, based on AIER's own website, is a truly terrible idea. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. We do not give undue weight to fringe ideas.

In fact we should avoid all self-sourced content here, per WP:PROFRINGE. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Again, serious scientists from prestigious institutions have signed and endorsed the declaration so saying that it is WP:FRINGE, akin to climate change denial and political stunt rather than a scientific document (as you have argued above) is absolutely baffling to me. This information is clearly WP:DUE and the source is acceptable per WP:SELFSOURCE. Besides, we have an entire § Counter memorandum section with the names of its signatories. Just like with the credentials issue, either we keep both or we remove both. The alleged WP:DUE issue (i.e. the idea that critics should be given more weight than the declaration itself) is still safeguarded by the long, (borderline WP:NOTEVERYTHING-non conform) § Reception section.
In any case, you should follow the WP:BRD process and not edit-war [1][2] your preferred version of a page of which there is significant dispute — admin or not. JBchrch (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JBchrch, See fallacy of misleading vividness. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming for an excellent summary of why it does not matter how illustrious the associations of a proponent of a fringe view, when that view is fringe.
Oh, and self-sourcing it is WP:UNDUE anyway. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the logical fallacy! I'll keep it in mind next time I am short on arguments. JBchrch (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JBchrch, you already are... Guy (help! - typo?) 20:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my repliy above. AIER is not a reliable source; they are usable only via the very limited restrictions of WP:ABOUTSELF. Claims that third parties have endorsed their position are obviously unduly self-serving (especially given the secondary sources casting doubt on the accuracy and fact-checking given to the content of their list), so we need secondary sourcing before we can describe any individual person as having signed it per WP:BLP, or at least sources directly from those people rather than via AIER; and more generally, any descriptions that characterize the list or its supporters in a self-serving way also cannot be cited to AIER. If you think it is notable that a particular individual has signed (or not), it should be easy to find secondary sourcing stating it; if all you can find is AIER claiming they signed then they obviously cannot be listed here. Note that while you object to the idea that the idea that critics should be given more weight than the declaration itself, you are understating it. The declaration itself and its websites are primary sources, which means that for self-serving claims or claims about third parties, they have zero weight. None. Their position can be cited via secondary sources that cover it, but when they start making self-serving claims we cannot cite them directly at all, and if nobody else covers those claims then they are both WP:UNDUE and fail WP:V, meaning we cannot include even a single word hinting at them. Due weight is about giving sources weight appropriate to their notability, significance, reliability, and so on; it is not about giving everyone equal weight, or about giving every organization the freedom to write large swaths of any article they're involved in. --Aquillion (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my interpretation of the policies. [3] is reliable because these individuals have accepted to sign the declaration and to associate their names with it. This is very different from a news article at ilovepseudoscience.com which claims that according to Matthew Walker you can in fact sleep 2 hours/night: this is the kind of problematic material that WP:ABOUTSELF was meant to address. When individuals associate themselves publicly with a project — and always provided that this is not disputed by them — I would argue that the primary source is reliable. Whether it is WP:DUE is, of course, a completely different matter.
Regardless, though, here are a few sources. I have to get off for a while, but I may have the time to look for more tomorrow. According to Infection Control Today, a specialised publication whose editorial board is made up of MDs and MPHs working at big hospitals, The cosigners represent a host of scientific disciplines such as public health, biostatistics, finance, and psychiatry. They include Michael Levitt, PhD, (who received the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2013), Jonas Ludvigsson, MD, Angus Dalgleish, PhD, David Katz, PhD, and Mike Hulme, PhD. [4] Regarding Mike Hulme, see also [5]. According to the Independent, It has won the support of UK scientists including Professor Karol Sikora [6]. And Prof. David Livermore has written about his involvement on The Telegraph [7]. JBchrch (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that ideas get credible by being signed by serious scientists from prestigious institutions is seriously misguided for several reasons, some of which have been pointed out above:
  • This century, and last century, a typical scientist is someone who specializes in one specific part of one field, who may know next to nothing about other fields or even of other parts of the same field. So, when the idea is about a pandemic caused by a virus, the opinion of every scientist who specializes in something else than that is as good as the opinion of some random person from the street. Using the category "scientist" for such purposes is therefore ignorant or dishonest.
  • The source for the list is some organization which has spread other misinformation about science in the past. It cannot be trusted.
  • Lists like this have never, ever, been instrumental in lending credence to an idea among scientists. Instead, ideas gain a standing by sound reasoning based on solid data, published in peer-reviewed journals.
  • Lists like this have instead only been used by anti-science clowns like creationists, climate change deniers, opponents of Einstein, and such.
  • The most essential one: Confusing opinions and expertise. A science degree does not make your opinions more valid. It does not turn them into knowledge like the Philosopher's Stone turns lead into gold. Instead, it teaches you methods which, if you actually use them in designing your studies, prevent your opinion from influencing the result too much. That is necessary because your opinion is, as likely as not, unrealistic crap. If someone asks a lot of scientists to sign some random unrealistic crap, there will be quite a number whose unrealistic crap opinions agree with it.
Every one of these reasons alone would be enough to reject the list, and anybody who suggests that such a list should sway people, clearly does either not understand how science works or hopes that his audience doesn't, and should not be taken seriously until he starts using good reasoning instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that makes the point pretty well, Hob Gadling. XOR'easter (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to bludgeon the conversation, so I will keep this one short and informal. I agree with everything you said. Hell, you know — I don't even think the GBD is good policy. I just think we have a duty to our readers to give them an important element, i.e. the name of its notable signatories. What is currently happening feels like withholding information. A lot of conspiracies are actually born this way: people find out some stuff (here, for instance: the fact that a Nobel prize winner has signed it 😨) and then begin to think that everybody is lying to them. JBchrch (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If someone actually signed it (as AIER claims), and if the fact that they signed it is notable, then it should be easy to find high-quality WP:RSes saying that they signed it. If no such sources can be found, then we have no way of knowing if they actually signed it or not, since AIER performed no verification and is not a reliable source in any case... and even beyond that, even if we were to accept AIER's unsubstantiated claims about who signed it at face value, the fact that they signed it is probably not as notable as you claim if no high-quality sources took notice of that fact. (This double-whammy, where the fact that a claim is not validated in WP:RSes shows that it is both unsubstantiated and would not be notable even if we were to accept it, is extremely common when dealing with WP:FRINGE topics.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion, and we do know that other petitions run by right wing think-tanks have attracted fake signatures. When AIER actually have to have a page explaining how all the signatures are genuine, honest, despite it including Johnny Banana and Mickey Mouse, then I think we know we can't trust the primary source. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is currently happening feels like withholding information Imagine a Wikipedia which tries to make conspiracy theorists happy by supplying every piece of "information" that could, if withheld, make them "think that everybody is lying to them". That Wikipedia would be very, very different from what we have now. I guess Larry Sanger would like it though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JBchrch, no, you are wrong. We can self-source uncontroversial facts. The canonical example is birthdays and founding dates. In this case, we would be using a primary, affiliated and unreliable source to elevate a WP:FRINGE agenda. That's not how Wikipedia works. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I have dropped the issue and took note of the consensus. So what's the point of patronising me with sentences like That's not how Wikipedia works? I have not breached any policy on the mainspace and I am not editing disruptively. JBchrch (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JBchrch, it's not patronising, I am explaining. You have much less experience than I do in fringe areas. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[8] is reliable because these individuals have accepted to sign the declaration and to associate their names with it. No, AIER itself is not reliable (in fact, they specifically said, in as many words, that they did not fact-check the names that were submitted on their online form - anyone could input any name with no efforts at verification.) Their claim that someone signed something controversial or took some controversial position - especially one that is self-serving from AIER's perspective, as this one is - is completely unusable as a primary source. This means that no, you have not established that those people have signed the declaration. You need a WP:SECONDARY source for that fact - and, in fact, a high-quality one, because stating that someone signed the declaration, as fact, is clearly WP:BLP-sensitive given its controversial nature. And, at a glance, "infectioncontroltoday.com" is unlikely to qualify either - it looks like a personal website of no particular notability (note that even being written by a subject-matter expert itself would not qualify for what you're trying to use it for, since you're trying to cite sensitive claims about third parties - you need an actual high-quality WP:RS for that.) As I said, we could theoretically cite someone's own website, if we know it is unequivocally them, where they say "I signed the declaration" to establish that they did so (although yes, WP:DUE might also be a concern at that pint.) But we aren't even at that point in the discussion yet - WP:DUE is debatable, but WP:RS and WP:BLP are a hard stop. We absolutely cannot use a primary cite to the fact that AIER claims someone signed the declaration for anything, fullstop, because AIER itself is not a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Aquillion, Infection Control Today is certainly not a personal website of no particular notability, it's a monthly print magazine, written by health professionals, with a wide readership. You know, even a Lancet outlet writes the GBR has since been endorsed by thousands of medical practitioners, researchers, and public health scientists. [9]. But surely, we at Wikipedia know better and we have determined that all of these people have WP:FRINGE views and have clearly no idea what they are talking about. JBchrch (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, the "Infection Control Today" site isn't loading at all in my browser, but I do recall it came up at RSN a while back, and overall people were not impressed. The Lancet item gives no details about who the GBD signatories were. XOR'easter (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter, yup. Also, as noted above and especially when we deleted the article on the list of "scientists" opposing the consensus on global warming, which list and topic has vastly more coverage than this dreck, to include lists of signatories of fringe petitions run by think-tanks is a fundamental abrogation of NPOV. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am an actual signatory to the GBD. Unlike for the GBD, I will not sign in to establish that and reveal my identity because of the severe left bias herein. Yes, bias. Here, people with monikers like "GUY" can comment with impunity about a small fraction of people, who might even include "GUY," who make up false names to discredit those who are sincere, qualified, and GBD signatories. So have you completed any fact checking to establish what percentage of people are real signatories? Also, criticism has been leveled because the signatories are petitioners. So what? Does that invalidate signing petitions? The rule here seems to be that if the petition is left leaning, that is good, but if it can be interpreted as right leaning, the petition is "obviously" invalid. I would suggest that the last hair on the tail of a dog does not even wag the tail, never mind the dog. I support eliminating the statements about funny names in the GBD, that is, unless you will equally accept that funny names for contributors here also invalidates this article.207.47.175.199 (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm the Queen of Sheba. Regardless, this is a collection of contrarians motivated by the usual political BS. See also Project Steve. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Counting the absurd while discounting the genuine is a bit like advertising that you are the Queen of Sheba, it doesn't help your cause and turns people off. It may feel good to vent, but sources such as (read it->) https://www.allsides.com/news-source/wikipedia who recently decided they no longer even want to rate Wikipedia on the left/right political spectrum because this site doesn't "fit", are increasingly questioning Wikipedia's neutrality. Despite have good articles on statistics, mathematics, and the like, please note that Wikipedia is losing credibility on political issues. If you wish to damage your own arguments further keep dealing with non-issues, like those few people who disingenuously signed the GBD petition. It detracts from, and does not help your presentation.207.47.175.199 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The very existence of the absurd calls into question the genuineness of the allegedly genuine. This underlines the wrongheadedness-from-the-start of the whole thing and is therefore important information. That you seem to categorize this subject as a political issue shows that your opinion on it is not motivated by scientific facts and that, if you are indeed a signatory, your signature carries as much weight as that of Dr. Person Fakename.
We are used to people whining that Wikipedia is somehow less credible because it does not embrace the opinion of the whiners. Well, that's what happens when your opinion is not good enough to gain support from real science. Suck it up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but it is the absurdity of arguing that because some activist interlopers provided fake names that could not be removed quickly enough as the GBD website was literally swamped with signatures that is at issue here. Then, because you are apparently hopelessly biased yourself, you ironically latch onto those whose views likely echo your own as proof of disingenuousness. Yes, but whose disingenuousness? Certainly not mine, and your argument is circular. Yes, you have identified the absurd, and it is your argument. Calling me names doesn't look good, and does not make a silk purse of a sow's ear. This is really so basic that I am taken aback, how can you not see that the lunatic fringe signatures in a lengthy petition were put there by people acting out lunacy and not by people who believe the tenants of the GBD? Remove the argumentative spurious text or own it, and if you own it, be aware of the nonsensical appearance it creates. It is true that I have identified the vitriol herein as political theater. I see "GBD is bad, because the only people who matter say so. And, if someone doesn't agree with us brainiacs, they are 'whiners' who don't know actual 'science'." Do tell, science requires the acceptance of hypothesis in order to disprove it. We aren't there here, this piece isn't science. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone made a dumpster available for people to dump their opinions in, and they did. Result: a heap of something, most of which is definitely worthless crap and some of which may have come from people who have shown that they are, when they are not occupied with signing Declarations, capable of doing science. Now what? If they can do science showing the Declaration is right, why aren't they doing that instead?
Just commenting on a few parts extracted from this rant:
  • GBD is bad, because the only people who matter say so Exactly right. The people who matter are those who are qualified to tell good reasoning from bad reasoning - the experts. And they publish their conclusions in venues where they are checked by other experts. Science is not done by guessing followed by voting.
  • if someone doesn't agree with us brainiacs, they are 'whiners' who don't know actual 'science' No, a whiner is someone who whines. If his reasoning reveals that he does not know how science works, then that is another, independent property. Calling scientists "brainiacs" is another sign for that second property.
  • science requires the acceptance of hypothesis in order to disprove it This does not make any sense. It sounds as if you had read parts of sentences in a text about Popper and put them together at random.
I do not think useful material for improving the article is to be found in any further exchanges, and we should stop here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I will stop trying to convince you because your language and ability to reason are too flawed to continue. Such language: "Someone made a dumpster available for people to dump their opinions in, and they did," is actually more appropriate as a description of the poppycock here than of the GBD, as you are not in the least concerned with appearances, language, or reasoned argument and confine yourself to regurgitating opinion rather than developing ideas. I do give up on you for now, at least. Perhaps someone else can convince you to keep a civil tongue in your mouth and stick to facts, but apparently that is not I.207.47.175.199 (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
dude, if you had any idea how many homeopaths have made near-identical arguments, you'd shut up. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the recent discussion on this talk page, I just wanted to say that I have realised that my reasoning above was wrong. I did some additional research on the GBD, the scientific consensus around these questions and the way this type of texts are written and published (see e.g. Merchants of Doubt), and figured that JzG and Hob Gadling were actually correct. Thanks for the enlightenment. Cheers. JBchrch (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JBchrch, thank you, I applaud you for your patience here. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. It is also nice when people not only listen, but acknowledge that they did. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting of edits

@Hob Gadling: Please could you explain what about my edit you feel was previously rejected on the talk page, it was checked before any edits were made. This article reads more like an opinion column in a newspaper than an encyclopedia at present, the purpose of the edit is to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:Tone. There are even original interpretations in the article that go beyond any sources "For instance it could..." sic The only material removed was entirely off-topic and still easily accessible from this page in the the linked articles. Mainline421 (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to countenance any WP:FRINGE editing especially on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity: What exactly is it you object to in the edit? The article still shows undue bias in the same direction even afterwards I'd argue. Mainline421 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Barrington_Declaration&oldid=1050592032"