Talk:Robert W. Malone

Unbiased

Unbiased means neutral comments. Calling something misinformation instead of pointing out statements and facts to support or to deny claims is biased. Calling something false without explaining what it actually false is also biased. Reaching conclusions is rare when being totally neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:447F:9CB0:49EA:5AB:12E2:1C41 (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia it means wp:npov which means we reflects what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This is why a lot of people don't consider Wikipedia to be an unbiased source anymore. Whoever curates that list of "reliable sources" controls the truth on this platform. Wikipedia has a lot of libel on its hands. It's such a pity, because I thought this site had so much promise back in 2001. Edsanville (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes from strength to strength, so far as I can see, and that the only people getting upset by it are the idiots/cranks whose stupidities don't get traction. What is your evidence for this "lot of libel on its hands" you're claiming? Alexbrn (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

For real, the article has heavy bias in the first paragraph.

And a user here resorts to name calling. What's going on here? Scientificaldan (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, as to name calling if you have an issue take it to wp:ani, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree. Alexbrn, you seem to be allowing bias by removing my edits, which aim not to defend Malone, but remove the severely negative framing and conclusion forming statements which are currently live. Editor976 (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi guys, while I share a view similar to Alexbrn on this issue and disagree with the edits made thus far, I also agree that the current wording can be seen as biased from a reader's perspective. Would "is widely attributed to have promoted" rather than "has promoted" be a satisfying compromise? Alternatively, would the discussed content better serve the "COVID-19 research and controversy" section?(Apologies if I've made any mistakes posting this here, I'm very new) Rickyflare (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If it's widely attributed then it's unnecessary to make a distinction. That'd be like "Elvis is widely claimed to be dead" when all reliable sources say that he did in fact die, and 0 sources say he is still alive but some randoms speculate about it. We don't write content to leave gaps for conspiracy theories or WP:FRINGE. Koncorde (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Whilst in the name of wp:balance that might seem to be fair, we must also be wary of false balance, when we have only one side of a debate except for "some bloke down the pub". Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I see, that is definitely a fair point @Slatersteven. While I'd personally prefer the more emotive (as evidenced by the threads below XD) text to be in the body of the article, I can see why the current wording stands. Thanks for clarifying! Rickyflare (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

PP

I have asked for page protection, if we are having to deal with SPA socks I have better ways to spend my time. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Heavy bias needs addressing.

Given that this topic is controversial and challenging, I am amazed at the level of bias throughout this article. My early attempts to correct this by softening the language and harsh framing, to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions from the facts, have been consistently reversed.

Despite Dr Malone being heavily criticised during the pandemic and today, Wikipedia ought not to bow to "going with the masses" or go to ng along with mainstream media reporting, and should be a neutral, balanced read.

For example, the claim in the introductory paragraph is that Dr Malone has promoted misinformation. Who decides what misinformation is? Surely where articles have been written criticising him in this way, Wikipedia ought to remain neutral, by merely describing the accusations, rather than stating as fact that it's misinformation?

Let's discuss. Editor976 (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes with mainstream respected sources and clearly identifies fringe views as such, for neutrality. See WP:NPOV and in particular WP:GEVAL. Also WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Who decides what misinformation is? From your language My early attempts to correct this, you seem to think it is you and nobody else. Wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy. And I don't think it's me who decides what misinformation is. The point I'm making is that this article contains few referenced sources which amount to scholarly critique, and lots of opinion pieces from journalists who clearly are biased in their framing of the issue. For this article, it appears that the original writers are unaware of the many published, scholarly critiques of COVID 19 Vaccination which form the basis for / support Dr Malone's views. This alone means that it is biased to phrase the introductory paragraph in such stark terms. I'm not claiming to be the arbiter of misinformation, but might be more aware than the original author of other sources which invalidate the black and white claim that him spreading misinformation is a fact. Editor976 (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

You offer zero sources, but your own antivax opinion instead. There are zero respectable sources that are "critiques of COVID 19 Vaccination "; such material is only found in the crank-o-sphere. Fringe bollocks can be called out by any decent source, see WP:PARITY. Alexbrn (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, to be clear, that last sentence should read: "other sources which invalidate the black and white representation of him spreading misinformation". Editor976 (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, fine, then produce some. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

You have no idea who I am or what my views are. I'm not at all anti vax. I didn't have time to complete my editing because by the time I had published the first bit, even minor edits had been reversed. I'm happy to reference, but need more than 15 minutes to complete them. I also referenced every addition I made. You are clearly so blinkered in your POV that you don't understand the literature. I never brought up anti vax. Criticism isn't anti vax. That's a term you used, and it betrays your own bias.

Editor976 (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll get the references done first, then make a new edit. Editor976 (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I would rather you posted your suggested text here first, so we can save the time of having to revert if they are not up to scratch. If your edit were already referenced, and were rejected that means they will be rejected again. Also read wp:npa, all you have done is make me warry of the likely push of your edits. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Can not prove there is misinformation

I didn't agree the content sentenced that he "promoted the misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines" as nobody including existing experts can prove that he is wrong. It is not yet a fair moment to say he promoted "misinformation" as we know nothing about the side-effect from mRNA vaccine after 10 or 20 years.

I suggest the statement should be edited as "he promoted the different view and opinion about the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccine.” Ldlch2 (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That you know nothing does not mean that nobody knows anything. It is very possible to spread misinformation on a subject although there are known unknowns. Reliable sources call it misinformation, so we call it misinformation. Your agreement is not required. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

You may not agree, wp:RS do. We go by what RS say, and not wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022

Original： During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.[1][4][5][6][7]

Suggested edition： During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has promoted different view and opinion about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Ldlch2 (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia follows reliable sources. The WP:GEVAL fallacy you espouse is forbidden by policy. Bon courage (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

And please read all the talk page comments about this issue already. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy

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

---

I propose to change, in the first sentences, "Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy..." ==> "Malone has promoted alternative information about the safety and efficacy..." 150.145.142.9 (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

See all the threads above and in the archive about why this will not be done. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Bias, name calling and the future of Wikipedia

I find it highly amusing that Wikipedia is desperate for funding, yet continues to write biased pieces like this one, and resorts to name calling when someone complains about that bias, and mislabels them antivax. Surely it is shooting itself in the foot. For years Wikipedia has been ridiculed by many critics as inaccurate. It's too bad, since it started out with good intentions, but seems to have become a liberal institution, censoring anyone with a different point of view. Dr Malone (as well as other scientists) was a well respected research scientist until he started questioning the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. What are his intentions , other than being concerned? He is the co-creator of the mRNA technology. 75.174.135.52 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)