Talk:Great Barrington Declaration

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)

"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 it 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."

Indeed. That being the case, instead of promoting the unrealistic crap opinions turned religious beliefs of incompetent policymakers, you may want to turn your attention to the data published by the John Hopkins Website and see for yourself that the number of Covid19 cases spikes spectacularly following mass vaccination. In the case of Australia, the number of weekly cases shot up from virtually 0 to 552.78K following the injection of 45,423,554 doses of vaccines. The same can be seen in South Korea with 110,959,467 doses of vaccines injected followed by a peak of 47,326K weekly cases. Same in Israel that must be the most vaccinated country in the world. Meanwhile, the exact same pattern can be observed in every country. Source: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html 2403:6200:8856:A97A:28DB:F613:CFEA:30CF (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

See wp:or, you need an RS saying there is causation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Also where does the Declaration talk about vaccinations?Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It is disingenuous for a website that allows editing by individuals identified by pseudonyms to criticize pseudonym signatories to a deceleration, which declaration was written about epidemiology by epidemiologists, and then to criticize based on the opinion of conflicted virologists, and others with limited or no training in epidemiology. You should follow the money for the critics of the GBD if you want to see special interests. What I do not see here is any discussion of epidemiology and quarantine, and the topic is not simple, e.g., see https://www.academia.edu/download/37751556/2002MathBiosci.pdf, Failing that, there is no scientific content in this post. What I want paid attention to is just how nuanced epidemiology and quarantine are in the 1986 article cited above, and cited in the literature 416 times to the effect that the majority of quarantine models have no solutions. Failing that, this post is just axe-grinding.207.47.175.199 (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

We are not, we are repeating RS that do.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2022 (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)

It's a shame for that idea that social distancing was used in 1916, and again in 1918, and again in... well a few times before 2015. So no if anything that student just claimed credit for an old idea.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that your link is to an opinion piece - our comment at WP:RSNP for the WSJ is use WP:RSOPINION. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

There are now multiple news sources that confirm the response of Collins and Fauci to the GBD, including last week's congressional testimony by Fauci. Examples here:

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]

Whether you agree with Collins & Fauci's position or not, the fact that they called for a "takedown" of scientists that they labeled "fringe epidemiologists" in the media is absolutely a part of the Great Barrington Declaration's history and needs to be included in this article. FranciscoWS (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Article appears to support false narrative of balance between public health and the economy

For what it's worth, as a mere editor with no qualified expertise, I agree that the GBD "ignores sound public health expertise", which is what the public health groups said. However, I disagree that it does this "despite public health experts agreeing 'better balance must be found between protecting public health and helping the economy.'" It seems to me that public health experts do not agree this and that either there is a significant division of opinion among these experts or that the consensus between them lies elsewhere. I note that the quotation about a balance between public health and the economy appears to repeat a false narrative often platformed in UK media that there is such a balance and that the quotation does not appear to be pf the public health experts but instead is a claim made by the article on the Hill website. It claims "Public health experts generally acknowledge the negative impact of the restrictions and agree that a better balance must be found between protecting public health and helping the economy, especially with regards to children who have been kept out of school." This is a false dichotomy: acting on public health grounds to bring down the levels of infection of the virus helps protect and keep open the economy. There isn't a balance between the two, some respected scientists agree with myself on this and I dispute the claim by the Hill website article. I await evidence to show that public health experts do agree on the better balance which pits public health, in my view falsely, against the economy when the two in fact support each other, as acting on public health also protects the economy (as agreed by some or perhaps even the consensus of experts, or the consensus of experts that are not potentially compromised by being part of official bodies that support governments that claim there is such a balance).

As there may be some matter of dispute over what I say here, I have not taken it to edit the article, instead I consider the claim on the Hill website to be disputed, as I dispute it, and that it is not substantiated at present. Yet it is repeated in this article: it is not a fact, I see that public health experts either do not agree that there is a balance between public health and the economy or else that public health action supports the economy (by keeping infection levels low so that the economy can function more, as opposed to being disrupted by self-isolation being needed by vast numbers of people due to infections being out of control due to failure to take public health action). I agree that a false political debate has been created about this matter, supported by a complicit media in the UK, so that what I say may be polticially controversial. I dispute the Hill's assertion that public health experts agree on this balance between health and economy. I believe the 'balance' argument to be false when the two support each other and think many public health experts support me on this. This Wikipedia article therefore currently falsely claims, on the basis of the unsubstantiated assertion at the source, that public health experts agree about a balance when in fact they either don't agree on this or there is significant dispute by many of the experts who see health as supporting economy and it therefore not being a case of balancing the two as if the two are to be weighed up against each other - a false argument. I note this is not a quote from what the public health groups said but is instead the Hill's own claim and one that provides no evidence to me to show that it is true. It ought not be here, because we should not be including unsubstantiated claims, in this case about public health expert alleged agreement, within a Wikipedia article. Those that disagree with me are politically biased on the matter in my view as the issue has been politicised (which is another reason why I object to it as it is a political point in the Wikipedia article and not Wikipedia neutral). But, given that this last point by me is controversial, I have not taken it upon myself to delete the objectionable material from the article. aspaa (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I read the first part of this and do not understand what exactly you see as incorrect and what you want to replace it with. Can you be clearer and especially more concise? More importantly, we will not change the article just because you disagree with it. You need reliable sources. See WP:RS and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Biased

This is a laughably biased, editorialized article. Why is so much commentary included? The clear and substantial bias presented here goes to discredit wikipedia as an objective source of information. Most of this article should be deleted. A description of the Declerarion, list of authors, and link to the website is really all that's needed. Any editorializing or criticism of it belongs in a seperate section titled "Criticism." As it's currently written, 95% of this article is subjective criticism spread throughout nearly every paragraph. Regardless of how many contributors there are, this article is anything but objectively written. Save your opinionated blogging for an external site. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 2601:285:8080:A560:B9DD:FC94:2158:CF9F (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• For the "biased" part, see WP:FRINGE and WP:YWAB.
• For your suggestion to ghetto the criticism into a single section, see WP:CSECTION.
• For your opinion on what belongs on Wikipedia and what does not, see WP:CIR.

You are wrong on all points. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. In the introduction to analysis of the SARS-CoV-1 contagion, where Covid-19 is SARS-CoV-2, "The use of quarantine for contacts of diseases in modern society has, however, been essentially abandoned for more than a generation." See Understanding, compliance and psychological impact of the SARS quarantine experience — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.175.199 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

A source from 2008 pre-dates COVID. Alexbrn (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Precisely, so it predates current political bias. The evidence in favour of abandoning classical epidemiological wisdom would have to be stated much more strongly than it is in the post here. In particular, what is lacking is any discussion of epidemiological models for disease, and instead we are treated to a discussion of "Who says what, when, and who are they?" which begs the question. For more recent analysis, please consider the first sentence of the Discussion section of LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON COVID-19 MORTALIT "Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic." This study from "Researchers at Johns Hopkins University" was widely reported by multiple news media, e.g., Health News Florida 207.47.175.199 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

How does a source that predates CXovid (and therefore cannot know about Covid) tell us anything about Covid?Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Asked and answered. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOR is policy, and these sources have no relevance to the article unless there are reliable sources saying so. Alexbrn (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

And per this and wp:synthesis we can't draw conclusions from sources, a source must EXPLICITLY support a text. So if it does not mention Covid its, not about Covid.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The report being advertised is a meta-analysis of about 2 dozen papers that studied "non-pharmaceutical interventions" and their effect on Covid rates. It is a meta-analysis in the sense that the authors read all the papers, summarized common results. (It isn't a meta-analysis in the statistics sense of mathematically combining the results of multiple statistical studies.) They seem to be enamored of the "stringency index", which is supposed to be a quantitative measure of lockdown severity. The third (final) author is Steve Hanke, a bright and accomplished economist who is also a raging libertarian and leader of the libertarian-oriented institute at Johns Hopkins institute which issued this report. Conceivably there are Wikipedia articles where this report could be a reliable source of information.

Having noted that, note this Wiki-page is about the Great Barrington Declaration, Not A Forum about lockdowns. The report in question appears to make no mention of GBD. Connecting this report to GBD is possibly Original Research, it is likely not useful for this Wiki-page. -- M.boli (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a very limited discussion in "fact-checked" sources on GBD that is unbiased, and this post has contributed to that substantially. Here is one that applauded the GBD in the Toronto Sun . The Toronto Sun is rated by https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/toronto-sun/ as "Mostly Factual" and "Highly Creditable." Now let us consider what "Mostly Factual" means. Quote: "Overall, we rate the Toronto Sun, Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that favor the right and Mostly Factual for reporting, rather than High due to a lack of sourcing and scientific positions that do not align with the scientific consensus. (7/28/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 05/24/2021)" So let us check what the fact checkers said. Cited in mediabiasfactcheck is https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/08/south-west-news-service/Evidence-lacking-that-cats-eaten-as-COVID-19-cure/ as "Failed Fact Checks: Black cats in Vietnam are being killed and consumed as a COVID-19 cure. – False" which appeared in the Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11418545/sales-dog-cat-meat-surge-food-apps-doctors-coronavirus/. Now try to follow this, mediabias cited politifact which cited an article in the UK paper "The Sun" to fact check the "Toronto Sun." I can't make stuff like this up. I would urge you to consider fact checking dialogue as unsubstantiated until proven otherwise. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You found a Toronto Sun newspaper article that says 2 physicians in Canada support the GBD. Conceivably this could be cited in this Wiki-article, if people judged it to be sufficiently significant or representative.

Regarding a long rambling claim about fact-checking: I disagree, but it is irrelevant to this discussion so there is no point in litigating it. -- M.boli (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

What percentage of Candian physicians is this, 50, 10, 1? if it is less than 1%, no it would not be relvant.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Note, the topic here is potential bias, not Canadian physicians' views. "The Epoch Times" is said, in Wikipedia https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-wikipedia to be "far-right" whereas "The Epoch Times" behind a sign-up wall says this very post in "Wikipedia" is in effect "far-left". Of "The Epoch Times" AllSides rates it "Lean Right." , i.e., between Center and Right. Thus, many people do not see "The Epoch Times" as biased. AllSides has noted 5 studies that cite Wikipedia as biased with the pertinent accusation being the exclusion of information sources. Please open this discussion up to include sources that may not agree with your POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.175.199 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller has mentioned uses of allsides.com in this page on WP:RSN]. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter what "many people" think. Many people are stupid. What matters is the categorization of a source in WP:RS, specifically WP:RSP. If you want to recategorize, you'll have to convince the people there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Of the "5 studies" that you refer to only two are actual studies. The rest are a blog post and a forum thread on Wikipediocracy and an article in Breitbart News written by an editor who has been banned for harassment regurgitating an article in a "contrarian conservative" magazine written by two pseudonymous authors (see also Newslinger's analysis of that article).

I suggest that the next time you want to whine about Wikipedia's biases you actually do something more than type "Wikipedia left-wing bias" into your favorite search engine, pick random low-quality articles and hope some of them turn out to actually be somewhat accurate. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"It does not matter what "many people" think. Many people are stupid." ---Good grief, what you consider important is not science but what scientifically untrained journalists think, because those are the rules you accept, and anything else is "primary research." Gee, low quality articles---what do you think this post is---high quality? I must convince you? Funny how smart you are, so smart that no one's evidence is admissible. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules. I linked a few of them. So you want to ignore them? That is your problem, not ours. Another rule is WP:TALK. Your contribution is just chitchat, it does not help improving the article. If you want to do that, do it somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

According to arbitration of the attack on my person I have not broken any rules, at most bent a few. I understand that you do not like me because you do not like my POV. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that this post is fringe theoryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories, with evidence as follows: You cite people, e.g., like Fauci, to make your arguments whose opinions are increasingly distrusted. Take for example the centrist rating for WGN https://www.allsides.com/news-source/wgn-media-bias, and its centrist reliable publication newsnation now https://adfontesmedia.com/newsnation-now-bias-reliability/. In particular, they, and many other sources show eroding confidence in Biden, and by name Fauci https://www.newsnationnow.com/polls/newsnation-poll-voters-trust-in-biden-health-officials-eroding/. Quoting that

"But when asked who they trusted, only 31 percent (Sic, of people surveyed) chose Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease; and 16 percent chose Biden, according to the NewsNation/Decision Desk HQ poll. In addition, only 10 percent trust information from the news media."

So far, anyone who disagrees with you, and I quote you, is "stupid." And yet, your narrative is failing, and that failure is becoming increasingly obvious with elapsing time, and that is because it was media promulgated fringe theory to begin with, and eventually the truth will out. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

References

A predictably biased article, and why this should be concerning

I agree that this article is extremely biased and poorly presented. The problem seems to be a a failure to disentangle scientific methods from moral values. Science can help you predict what will happen, but what you want to happen depends on your moral outlook. The problem is, there are different moral outlooks / values and none of them are correct or incorrect, merely different. Failing to acknowledge this leads to the butting of heads and kneejerk reactions seen above in this talk page, where each party thinks the other is either evil or stupid, when they may just have a different set of moral values. For example, the appropriate balance between quality and quantity of life is not obvious, and yet we make this trade off in various decisions, for example when we decide on the speed limits for cars. The inability to instrospect by the mainstream view in this talk page should be concerning, because the proper debate of the GBD might have been beneficial to many (but alas, and this is why this is concerning - not so much for a typical person editing the article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:B000:600:B0:0:0:0:F8C (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Excluding the references section, the article is currently 5,633 words. 2,687 of those words are in the "critical commentaries" selection alone. Most of the text in the "Sponsor" and "Signatories" section is also critical (making up another 390 words). And several of the same criticisms are repeated in other sections. By comparison, the sections describing the GBD and its authors are only 969 words total (and even more critical quotations are sprinkled throughout that). There is merit to including critical commentaries as appropriate context. But currently it's well over half of the entire article, creating an undue weight on criticism as per WP's NPOV. The result is a hopelessly biased and cluttered article that is also very difficult to obtain any useful information from, since it's basically just a long list of any and every attack on the GBD that has aggregated over the year. FranciscoWS (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Sensible sources think the GBD is bollocks, so it's not surprising Wikipedia reflects that weighting. To be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Note the circularity of your argument. No_true_Scotsman. FranciscoWS (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is we have to go with the scientific consensus. Especially when we have such experts as "Prof Cominic Dummings" signing it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

On a related note I currently count 11 different citations in this article to Nafeez Ahmed of the Byline Times. For those who don't remember him, Ahmed was a prominent figure in the 9/11 Truth conspiracy theory movement for almost two decades. And the Byline Times is a fringe website outlet that's also come under criticism for indulging in conspiracy theories. Is that what is considered a "sensible source" here? FranciscoWS (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It has not been discussed at RSN. But it seems to be a print newspaper. I am unsure so will raise it at RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And the smear of Nafeez Ahmed seems like a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

My mistake it has been discussed, I am unsure there was a consensus about it really.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not a "smear" of Nafeez Ahmed to say he was involved in 9/11 Truthers. His own personal website [14] gives credence to "controlled demolition" theories, favorably quotes well known conspiracy theorists such as Robert David Steele, suggests the 9/11 hijackers are still alive, etc. It seems relevant when evaluating a source's credibility to consider whether that source has a propensity for spreading other crazy conspiracy theories, no? FranciscoWS (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion ar RSN about this matter, make your case there [[15]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to be careful about what you say here, BLP and all, our article on Nafeez Ahmed is not exactly reflecting your assertions.Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This is why I am raising the issue on the talk page, as opposed to editing Nafeez Ahmed's WP bio. In reading that bio it appears to have neutrality problems of its own due to pro-Ahmed editors trying to downplay his history with conspiracy theory movements. Surely you'd agree that this article by Ahmed promotes several fringe claims about 9/11 being a controlled demolition, no? [16] Or here's Ahmed writing a glowing profile of Robert David Steele for the Guardian, which got him fired as a columnist there and caused him to move to the Byline Times [17]. FranciscoWS (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Then do not, as this is not the place to discuss his article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is why this is fringe there are 985,000 practicing physicians in the USA alone. This was signed by "40,000 medical practitioners" (note practitioners not just physicians). That means (and this assumes all "practitioners" were real and physicians) less than 5% (of American ones) signed this document. That is a fringe, even if we are very generous.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And since Cominic Dummings is very likely not an American, it is not only less, but far less than 5%. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like an arbitrary way to assess "fringe". What does this imply for the 270 'professionals, scientists and professors' who are worried about Joe Rogan's disinformation? SmolBrane (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We have a scientific consensus. The GBD signers disagree with it, and that is not enough to overturn the consensus. It does not really matter how many they are, since science is not done by signing declarations.

The GBD-opposition signers are just some people who agree with the consensus and are interested in fighting anti-science movements. They are not needed to reinforce the consensus - the consensus is based on studies published in peer-reviewed journals - so it matters even less how many they are. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That there are a lot more in the USA alone who did not sign it, and yes that is how were determined Fringe, what percentage of experts agree.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• One does wonder why a corporate rights manifesto qualifies as a “declaration”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)