Talk:Great Barrington Declaration

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:

• Great Barrington Declaration.pdf

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

JBchrch, you already are... Guy (help! - typo?) 20:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I think that makes the point pretty well, Hob Gadling. XOR'easter (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

JBchrch, thank you, I applaud you for your patience here. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

I added one sentence with AIER's response, viz AIER says the flood of fake signatures was promoted by a hostile British journalist, and they were largely removed very quickly. Sadly and predictably, some editor tagged this as non-primary source needed (which isn't true for a statement from AIER) and later the sentence was deleted. -- M.boli (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

References

And again reverted, on utterly specious grounds of self-published or self-serving. By that standard not even a press release could ever be cited in Wikipedia. An AIER official wrote a response explaining their view of the fake-name attack. If the fake-name attack is significant enough to warrant a paragraph of coverage in Wikipedia, then a one-line summary of their response certainly deserves to be included also. -- M.boli (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

M.boli, can you cite a reliable secondary source mentioning the AIER's statement? That would make it not WP:SELFSOURCE. Llll5032 (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

How is a response from an AIER official not a reliable source for AIER's claim as to what happened? I repeat, following this idea no press release would ever be referenced in Wikipedia. -- M.boli (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE has a five-part test. Does this pass it? Llll5032 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Why on earth would we want to use press releases? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Any open letter, petition or declaration that opens itself up to signatures from the public is going to include a number of fake ones. In light of this are the fake signatures on the GBR widespread to the degree that they're particularly notable? The section only says that there are "numerous clearly-fake names" (an example of weasel language) and that there are "more than 100... non-relevant people". --Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 12:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Depends if it's picked-up by sources. In this case, it was. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Normally, an open letter using signatures from the public would not attract attention at all; AIER's hefty funding is the only thing that called attention to it in the first place. And beyond that, AIER has made claims about it that imply the expertise of the signers is what lends it weight (rather than the raw numbers, which are otherwise completely unimpressive and non-notable for an internet petition), which naturally invites the type of scrutiny we see from the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

We're not going to countenance any WP:FRINGE editing especially on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: What exactly is it you object to in the edit, and who is this "we" you're speaking on behalf of? The article still shows undue bias in the same direction even afterwards I'd argue. Mainline421 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"associated with climate change denial" has been discussed extensively, and "numerous academic and public-health bodies" do not "WP:CLAIM", they state. After I saw those two changes, I concluded that the rest was probably WP:PROFRINGE too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:Hi there, this is not correct usage of the revert feature please WP:Revert only when necessary. Wikipedia is not biased towards the status quo and nor is it owned by any group as Nomoskedasticity appears to suggest. If you wish to make changes to improve the article please do so, but laziness and gueswork about the content are not a valid reason to make an edit to article content.

The edit in question is not pro-anything. I have changed "claim" to "say" however authoritative a source may be, "state" is not grammatically correct here as it is a *claim* about what could happen if the recommendations had been implemented i.e a statement of a prediction, and I don't think it would be necessary to increase the length of that sentence. The history of AIER was not removed from the article, only the sentence at the end of the introduction, since it duplicates the content further down, and AIER is already mentioned in the opening sentence. The only reason I can see for it being repeated there is to give it undue prominence. Mainline421 (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of WP:CLAIM. Claim is a word to watch if it introduces doubt in the Wikipedia voice that is not present in the sources; however, it is appropriate when we are reflecting a source that already expresses doubt. The same applies to eg. MOS:SCAREQUOTES. The sources are extremely skeptical of the Declaration, so we need to reflect that skepticism to avoid falling afoul of WP:PROFRINGE. Most of your other changes have been extensively discussed and rejected in the past, so you should review those discussions before re-adding them; for instance, the fact that they were sponsored (not merely supported) by AIER is emphasized in the source, as is the bit of AIER's history that makes the significance of that sponsorship clear. Likewise, I don't agree that it was redundantly repeated - it is mentioned briefly in one section where it is relevant, then given more elaboration further down in a section devoted to it. You also, as far as I can tell, removed AIER's history in both places even though sources have constantly referenced it in relation to the Great Barrington Declaration. Even if you feel the article has sweeping problems, I suggest you go more slowly, breaking your points down and getting consensus for one change at a time or starting with less-controversial things; a single sweeping series of edits that overturns the result of months of talk page discussions all at once is going to be a hard sell all at once. --Aquillion (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, stop edit-warring. See WP:WAR and WP:BRD. And do not ping me - I have a watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It's peculiar you felt the need to link that since that procedure has been followed to a tee actually, I suggest you review your own links. "Sponsored" is a disputed claim with contradictory sources while "supported" is universally agreed upon. If anyone feels changes are against any previously established consensus please link the relevant discussion, if you take issue with anything please make an appropriate edit. Wholesale reverts are not appropriate here. I have restored the word sponsored but it appears that AIER are not an 'official sponsor' per themselves or anyone involved so I think this needs noting. Mainline421 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Surprised to learn it isn't clear yet that repeated efforts to make these changes won't succeed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That isn't how this works, Wikipedia is biased towards new, not the status quo. It is impossible to obtain consensus when editors like yourself continuously refuse to engage or collaborate and instead resort to repeatedly abusing the revert function. Furthermore is is not appropriate to try and force users to "seek consensus" for any and all changes, it seems you effectively wish for no changes to be made without the consent of certain editors who frequent this page. I have repeatedly made changes and addressed all objections raised. I do thank you for your transparency in admitting WP:IDONTLIKEIT as your reason, allowing me to revert your disruptive edit. Mainline421 (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Your addition of the word previously before the phrase associated with climate change denial is not supported by any of the sources. Your edit also duplicated the primary-sourced WP:MANDY denial (however, Kulldorff has repeatedly stated that the authors 'received no money to write the Declaration' and that 'no organization influenced its content.')

Your removal of AIER's funding of a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them is at odds with the recent RfC. Kleinpecan (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

[edit conflict] You are talking to people who have many years of experience here. And not just a few hundred edits, but many thousands. You will not succeed in bluffing us with blatant falsehoods like Wikipedia is biased towards new, not the status quo or admitting WP:IDONTLIKEIT as your reason. Wikipedia is biased towards accuracy, not "the fake of the day". You will not find a shortcut that allows you to force your opinions into the article, you need to go through the discussion. So, stop the bad wikilawyering and start searching for justifications that will hold water. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Can we include AIER's approval of The War on Christmas? ? It seems as apropos to add that as mention any position on Climate Change (which is completely orthogonal to any position they take on COVID-19). Or how about the progressive destruction of the Constitution in The Fall of the Dominoes? Or the coming collapse of America in Dear America, it's time to break up. There are plenty of off-topic positions we could cite. I am sure that somebody with a non-NPOV could find plenty of articles which shows that AIER supports their POV. You might reasonably conclude that AIER is purposefully stirring the pot, so that people talk about things that need talking about. RussNelson (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Climate change denial not "completely orthogonal" because of the alignment of science-denial tactics. Hence sources bring up the connection and Wikipedia dutiful reflects sources, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Agenda

As a frequent reader and contributor to Wikipedia, I am very disturbed by the overall result of this article. It is clear the author is a supporter of current and past government policies regarding the Covid 19 pandemic. The beginning of the article informative, but quickly devolves into a hit piece. The opposing opinions, are almost entirely government officials who have a vested interest in defending their actions. It would more appropriate for this to be two articles, the second being "Opposition to the Great Barrington Declaration", linked to this article. 75.97.182.173 (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The article has 187 authors and is the result of consensus. Your suggestion is to create a classic WP:POVFORK. Wikipedia doesn't do that. Alexbrn (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for the 187 count? Does it include editors whose contributions were immediately reverted? RussNelson (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It's 197 now.[10] And yes, a lot of them are just waste-of-space POV-warriors, WP:SPAs and WP:PROFRINGErs who are WP:NOTHERE. That's inevitable for any topic about US politics (in particular). Alexbrn (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that. Don't you think it's unfair to cite "197" editors as if they help to form a consensus? Almost 90% of the article is written by just 10 editors. Don't think think it would be more accurate to say "The article has 10 authors and is still getting edited and reverted"? But that wouldn't help you to dismiss Mr. 182.173's point (or should I call him 75.97?) RussNelson (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of hit pieces, it has become clear from the FOIA-ed emails that AIER obtained that Fauci and the NIH were determined to dismiss, without serious consideration, the ideas presented in the GBD. Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? RussNelson (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

If secondary sources mention it, maybe ... assuming "real scientists dismiss political BS" is worth mentioning. Alexbrn (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Great Barringhton declaration

Who owns Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.234.234 (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You do! That remark totally pwned Wikipedia. -- M.boli (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Dismissal of the Declaration's suggestions

I think we should include mention of Fauci and Collins' dismissal of the Great Barrington Declaration without consideration. How Fauci and Collins Shut Down Covid Debate. Given that lockdowns "Travel and trade are essential to the global economy as well as to national and even local economies, and they should be maintained even in the face of a pandemic." and distancing Social distancing born in Albuquerque teen’s science project were the new idea, and relying on herd immunity and vaccines is the standard idea, it seems out of bounds for them to dismiss what has always been done in favor of something completely untried and unwarranted. We know they dismissed it because they said in FOIAed emails that they intended a "quick and devastating published take-down" of it with a public relations campaign. Collins said the three authors were "fringe epidemiologists", and noted extra concern that Michael Levitt (a Nobel Prize winner) was one of the signers. RussNelson (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)