Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:09, 19 September 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Martin Kulldorff article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Molecular Biology: COMPBIO This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Computational Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. COVID-19 Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sweden Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Unnecessary emphasis on COVID a persons contribution to medicine and science shouldn’t be reduced to fear or gain.

Unnecessary emphasis on COVID a persons contribution to medicine and science shouldn’t be reduced to fear or gain. 45.53.128.229 (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

We follow the reliable sources. When they mention Kulldorff primarily because of the stupid ideas he has about COVID, that is what ends up in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes to top

I think these recent changes went against talk page consensus from extensive discussions. The top should be based on the consensus of independent WP:BESTSOURCES (per WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPSELFPUB). Does anyone besides the editor who made the changes support the changes? Llll5032 (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

New source

• Howard J (28 August 2022). "Lockdowns 'Postponed the Inevitable'. Is That a Bad Thing?". Science-Based Medicine.

Strong on the increasing absurdity of the arguments Kulldorff expounded. Bon courage (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Kullldorff identifies as an epidemiologist

He identifies himself as an epidemiologist and several, reputable organizations recognize him as one. This has been discussed at length in the past. One unsourced, parenthetical statement in an obvious hit-piece by someone who is not an expert on epidemiology is not sufficient to outweigh the sources that indicate otherwise.

To believe that Hillsdale College, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and Francis Collins himself are all wrong and that an oncologist has it right in an obvious hit-piece is to clearly show bias in an attempt to prevent Kulldorff from being represented as a legitimate epidemiologist.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A blurb by Hillsdale college is not a reliable source. We follow decent secondary ones. Also, edit warring is disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

When "the blurb" is paired with numerous other sources, it gains authority. He is an epidemiologist. It is documented by a number of sources, to include the previous head of NIH Francis Collins.

What an oncologist with an axe to grind says, without any supporting evidence is hearsay. Is it realistic to think that Gorski knows better that Collins about Kulldorff being or not being an epidemiologist? I don't think so.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 22:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

When the blurb is self-published by a college known primarily for its refusal to comply with US laws against sex discrimination (thereby depriving all of its students of Pell grants and other financial aid), one really might not want to rely on them for any sort of "authority". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Even a mediator said the neutral option is to omit the title when RS disagree, instead of saying he is or is not an epidemiologist. Did any editor besides Michael want to include it during the previous discussions? Llll5032 (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that mediation failed and additional evidence has come to light since that attempted mediation.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 22:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

For those of us that didn't participate in the old DRN discussion, is there more new evidence than just the Hillsdale bio? I wouldn't weigh that much at all, given that it's so non-independent. Often, those bios are written by the staff member themselves. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The reputation of Hillsdale College as an educational institution gives weight to the use of the term 'epidemiologist.' The act of publishing his bio and using the term 'epidemiologist' to describe Kulldorff indicates they are willing to risk their reputation on him being an epidemiologist.

To argue otherwise, to me sounds like one is arguing this:

The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, former head of the NIH Francis Collins, and Hillsdale College all have it wrong and the oncologist David Gorski has it right.

Kulldorff works in epidemiology. He identifies as an epidemiologist. He is recognized as an epidemiologist by reputable institutions.

I see no valid, unbiased reason to intentionally exclude the descriptor from his bio. It directly contributes to a reader's understanding of the more controversial and fringe opinions he has expressed. If he were a plumber, his controversial opinions would be less impactful but due to his work as an epidemiologist they become more important.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 13:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to rehash old evidence and counter-evidence. Have any new high-quality, independent secondary sources in 2022 (see WP:BESTSOURCES) described Kulldorff as an epidemiologist? Llll5032 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue was never resolved.

Persisting that Gorski is an authority of what defines an epidemiologist, over Francis Collins, let alone the Post, the Journal, and Hillsdale College is not logical and biases the article. It makes it appear that Misplaced Pages doesn't want Kulldorff recognized as an epidemiologist, despite the fact that other institutions do.

Since wiki reports on what has been reported, a more suitable and less-biased solution would be to document in the Covid-19 section that Gorski, an oncologist, personally believes Kulldorff is not an epidemiologist.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:GREL and WP:REHASH closely. Llll5032 (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

From WP:GREL:

Arguments to exclude such a source entirely must be strong and convincing, e.g., the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (a well-established news organization is normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim, or a different standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question.

1. How is Gorski an expert on who is and who is not an epidemiologist?

2. How does that compare to Francis Collins, former director of the NIH, who considered Kulldorff a fringe epidemiolgist?

I contend that Gorski—an oncologist specializing in breast surgery—does not have expertise in establishing who is and who is not an epidemiologist. Especially so, considering Francis Collins, former director of the NIH, and director at the time of the statement, called Kulldorff a "fringe epidemiologist."

To argue that Gorski's parenthetical, unsourced comment that Kulldorff is specifically "not an epidemiologist" trumps Collins' assertion that he an epidemiologist, defies logic and reason.

For example, to maybe help illustrate my argument: Gorski could reliably be sourced for his opinion that Kulldorff is a 'fringe epidemiologist' because Gorski is an accepted expert on fringy/wooy things. But I don't see that he has expertise in defining who is an epidemiologist who isn't, especially when it contradicts Collins.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 17:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

opposed some disease control measures such as lockdowns, contact tracing, and mask mandates, while supporting control measures such as "age-targeted viral testing" is WP:PROFRINGE. "Age-targeted viral testing" has 8 Google hits, all of them Barrington-related. It is a theoretical concept the GBD folks dreamed up and claim will work, but there is no evidence for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"It is a theoretical concept the GBD folks dreamed up..."

Great! Document it in the article and be sure to cite it. See new section below.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 22:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You got it ass-backwards. You want it in the lead as a "disease control measure", you need to document that it is one, and just an empty term. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

See discussion below titled What's a control measure?.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 13:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Nice attempt at diverting attention away from your attempt to shift the burden of proof. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prove anything was a control measure. See discussion below.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 13:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. That's what I am saying. You are not trying to prove anything, you are trying to shift the burden of proof to the opponents. I don't need to prove that an obscure concept is obscure, you need to show that it is due. That is how Misplaced Pages works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

1. This is now way off topic.

2. I don't see you as an opponent. I see you as a fellow editor with the same objective as mine; to improve the biography of a living person.

3. This is still way off topic. The discussion is below.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Age-targeted viral testing

Whether any editor feels it is a fantasy or not does not change the fact that Kulldorff supported age-targeted testing. That fact was clearly documented by Medpage..

Editors' opinions about Kulldorff's beliefs do not matter. Acting otherwise by removing a legitimate and sourced statement is biased editing and does not belong in a biography of living persons nor any other wiki article.

If there is a reliable article that documents an expert calling Kulldorff's support in age-targeted viral testing a fantasy, then that would be appropriate to document in the article alongside the statement that Kulldorff support it.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 22:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"age-target viral testing" is present in the body, but I don't see any reason it's WP:DUE for the lead. If it is shown to be, we need to be careful not to suggest in wiki-voice that it is a "control measure" without additional reliable sourcing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say that since they are all sourced from the same articles and because it adds context to his stance, all the measures carry the same weight. I would further argue that it adds context to the controversy; he opposed some specific measures will supporting others. In his capacity as a working epidemiologist and at the time working with the very agencies trying to react to the emerging pandemic, his stance on all measures is equally important.

Including his stance on age-targeted viral testing reports on the nuance of his position. Put simply, he controversially disagreed with some measures while supporting others. That's worth reporting because that's basically what was reported by Medpage.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What's a "disease control measure"?

@Firefangledfeathers was right. None of the cited articles for the statement regarding control measures called any of them control measures so the statement should be revised here in the talk page and consensus should be reached before the statement is replaced. Lest an edit war ensues and none of us want that, clearly.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 03:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Michael's latest edit to the top is clearly against WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PRESERVE, and probably also MOS:LEADREL and WP:POINT. I think the deleted content, including refs to two RS, should be restored immediately. Llll5032 (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I support restoration. This does feel pretty POINTy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree; this deletion spree is beginning to feel disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY is raising its head. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree there was ever any consensus. There are too few editors and a tyranny of the majority has developed, but no consensus, otherwise the content wouldn't be contended.

The question to answer now is 'what is a control measure?' Firefangledfeathers was right and the terminology "disease control measure" used was not supported by any of the cited articles.

I propose this statement be added to the section titled: Views on COVID-19

During the pandemic, Kulldorff opposed measures such as lockdowns, contact tracing, and mask mandates, while supporting measures such as "age-targeted viral testing."

That way we avoid calling anything a control measure as the cited articles did not. It also includes the example of a measure he supported, which was also referenced in the same cited article.

That edit would be closer to achieving consensus because it contains accurate statements from the article that all parties can agree on.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 13:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The main problem with this is that the things he opposes work, while there is a consensus that the thing he supports does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the consensus text, with an additional wikilink which will I hope inform the OP of what's what. Incidentally, the target article, Public health mitigation of COVID-19, is in pretty poor shape and needs expansion. Bon courage (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Repeated and disruptive reverts of good faith edits does not build consensus. We are working in the talk page to ensure the biography is accurate and fair to the subject.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It's the old "I disagree with everybody else, therefore the question is contentious, and this is a BLP, so I win by default" trick. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Text + link look good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"The main problem with this is that the things he opposes work"

That's an editor's opinion and was not a statement cited from anywhere. The cited articles did not call any of the measures disease control measures and @Firefangledfeathers is right; we as editors can not determine what is and what is not a disease control measure. We can report what has been reported.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

At this point we're in danger of getting into WP:TE territory. The lede is meant to be a summary of the article and disease control measures (not, NB just "control measures") are obviously measures which (attempt to) control disease - of which there have been many throughout history, and during this pandemic in particular. Quibbling with a good summary which guides the reader into a correct understanding does not help build the encyclopedia. And claiming that somehow ones's edits should be revert-proof is also most odd ... WP:BRD can be a good way to proceed. Bon courage (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki reports on what has been reported.

Being medical information, it is not an editor's place to interpret. Because none of the cited articles called them "disease control measures," we as editors shouldn't make that connection. That was Firefangledfeathers' point regarding age-targeted viral testing and I would agree. It therefore applies to all of the measures mentioned. Whether they control the disease or not is not something a wiki editor can determine or should infer.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This is far into WP:SKYBLUE territory. Of course they are disease control measures. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. And as well as being at 3RR the OP has now broken the page so there are reference errors. Even Kulldorff called the things "COVID-19 control measures" as is explained in the article body. Bon courage (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"Even Kulldorff called the things "COVID-19 control measures" as is explained in the article body."

Can you put together a proposed statement that is cited to reflect that Kulldorff called them that without synthesizing or interpreting? If so, then we may be getting closer to a consensus.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

We're already at consensus. You're edit warring against it though. Bon courage (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

We aren't at consensus otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. A consensus is not a majority—especially when there are so few editors involved.

As a BLP, we need to make sure we get it right. Therefore contentious copy should be sussed out in Talk Page before going to article space. That's to protect the subject and to protect Wiki from liable.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You do not understand what the word consensus means. It is not the same as unanimity. One can have a consensus with a few people arguing against it, if the reasoning of those people is clearly unreasonable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling, I understand a consensus to be define as:

Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all, even if only barely.

I also understand that what some of us are trying to do here, in the talk page; is to work through our differences, i.e. propose alternative statements that are hopefully agreeable to all, even if only barely.

Putting that attempt at consensus into the context of a biography, we need to make sure we get it right. There is no rush to have the copy in the biography if it is contentious and reflects inaccurately or incompletely the subject's controversial positions. There have been previous, recent comments from other editors that Kulldorff's biography seems biased. It is therefore our job to ensure it is neutral and accurate in reporting on what others reported about Kulldorff, nuance and all. When one side or one opinion dominates the biography, it comes across, rightly so, as biased.

There is also the added hurdle of achieving consensus in a biography that largely centers on biomedical information. All three things that Misplaced Pages takes seriously as conveyed through policies and accepted conventions.

So I think we are doing the hard work here, now, to find a consensus statement in order to clear up some of the perceived and some of the blatantly biased copy.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 16:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The same page WP:WHATISCONSENSUS says, further down, However, after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best.

Please do not ping me, I have a watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling,

"...it may become necessary..."

I would say in this case it may not become necessary. There are too few editors involved and since my opinion seems to be the minority opinion, it should be more carefully considered, so as to avoid group-think.

What I have proposed is not unreasonable. The new full, proposed statement includes copy originally covered in the originally cited article. I am not introducing anything new, so-to-speak. Kulldorff's support of age-targeted viral testing was reported alongside his opposition to lockdowns, etc.

During the pandemic, Kulldorff opposed measures such as lockdowns, contact tracing, and mask mandates, while supporting measures such as "age-targeted viral testing."

With the new statement, I as an editor am making no arguments on the efficacy of lockdowns versus age-targeted viral testing, nor is that being reflected in the new, proposed statement. I think that is where other editors are opposing the new statement. My contention is that Medpage reported on Kulldorff opposing some specific measures and supporting other, specific measures.

I would also agree with other editors that the new, proposed statement should't be in the lede, but should be in the section titled "Views on Covid-19."

I pinged you to make it clear who I was responding to. These discussions and the way they are threaded can make it less clear who's talking to who. Also, sometimes editor apps can dork up the way they display a reply, breaking indents specifically. The ping wasn't personal.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 16:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Most of your reasoning is fluff. You are wasting everybody's time with having consensus, reliable sources, expertise, and other trivial formal rookie stuff explained to you. Your suggestion is WP:PROFRINGE because it pretends that the economics-based fringe notion of "age-targeted viral testing" is on the same level as the science-based measures. The GBD is fringe, mainstream medicine rejects it, and its proponents are talking nonsense that endangers thousands of lives. Misplaced Pages will not portray it as anything else but fringe, and it will not use the postmodern some-say-this-others-say-that rhetoric. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not comparing the efficacy of age-targeted viral testing to lockdowns or any other measure. My addition to the statement reports on the fact that Medpage reported on the fact that Kulldorff opposed some named measures and supported others.

Another fact that we, as editors, should consider is that Kulldorff's statements regarding "age-targeted viral testing" were in response to specific CDC recommendations that were later reversed—something also reported by the same Medpage article (and this timeline of events lends credence to @Charles Matthews proposed Views subsection):

His commentary was written after CDC guidelines stated some asymptomatic patients may not need to be tested -- but those recommendations were later reversed."

So maybe the statement to be included in Article space becomes something like this:

During the pandemic, Kulldorff opposed specific measures such as lockdowns, contact tracing, and mask mandates, while supporting other measures such as "age-targeted viral testing." Kulldorff's support for what he called "age-targeted viral testing" was based on CDC guidelines that were later reversed.

I removed "contact tracing" from the statement because none of the three original sources mention his opposition to it, at least by the name "contact tracing."

That version of the statement makes it clear that "age-targeted viral testing" was a specific/quoted term Kulldorff used and it was based on guidelines later reversed by the CDC. That allows the reader to fully understand that his opinion on "aged-targeted viral testing" eventually diverged with published CDC guidance. AKA; a fringe idea.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 21:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling

"Of course they are disease control measures." The articles didn't call them that and as @Firefangledfeathers said, and I would agree, we shouldn't interpret or synthesize something the cited articles didn't say.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

We're allowed to use synonyms, and sourcing is plentiful (for example this for contract tracing). What are you trying to accomplish here? Do you think that these aren't diseases control measures? What is the purpose of challenging this particular phrase? MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers originally challenged the use of the term "disease control measure." I agree with their opinion.

What I am trying to accomplish here is to report the full nuance of what the original, cited articles reported. And that is—in a nutshell—that Kulldorff opposed specific measures while supporting others.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So propose a rewording that addresses your concerns - don't just blank it out and make us guess at what you have in mind. - Sorry, I see you did above. MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I would add that we can avoid this entanglement by simply not using the term and instead use this statement, cited and sourced as originally done:

During the pandemic, Kulldorff opposed measures such as lockdowns, contact tracing, and mask mandates, while supporting measures such as "age-targeted viral testing."

That copy avoids the contentious term "disease control measure" that the cited articles don't use and that Firefangledfeathers originally objected to and it reports on the nuance that is present in the cited/sourced articles.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It also slips in the disputed text you'd like to add. Deleting one bit of content as a wedge to make an addition you'd like seems rather WP:POINT to me. MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What I am trying to add is something reported by the cited article. What is contentious about it is some editors' opinions of the efficacy of "age-targeted viral testing" which is a biased and inappropriate argument for an editor to make and take action on in a biography of a living person.

As editors we report what was reported. It was reported that he supported some and opposed other measures.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 15:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it's the consensus among experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

We have a source which says just this anyway

• From the SBM source which the OP also deleted in their latest revert,

In order to maintain the illusion that his plan had any relevance in a post-vaccine world, Dr. Kulldorff has been forced to disparage vaccines, lockdowns, and all other measures that limit the spread of the virus.

Seems to sum it up nicely. Bon courage (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It sums up the opinion of an oncologist who had zero responsibility in reacting to the pandemic, commenting on an epidemiologist employed and depended on by some of the top institutions responsible for protecting the public.

The statement "In order to maintain the illusion..." is loaded with bias and conjecture about Kulldorff's intentions, something Gorski is not qualified to comment on.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 15:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You obviously have not read the source with any attention, and your misdirected ad hominem would be fallacious in any case. On Misplaced Pages SBM is recognized as WP:GREL, especially for fringe medical views of the kind Kulldorff espouses. We need such sources to achieve NPOV and treat WP:FRINGE ideas in the proper manner. Bon courage (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that SBM is recognized does not mean anything and everything published there is gospel. Gorski is not the type of medical expert who can reasonably be cited to know or intuit another human's intentions. That's not the focus of oncology. So for a wiki editor to say that Kulldorff intended to maintain the illusion...because Gorski said so, is absurd.

There is no ad hominem in stating that an oncologist is not a psychologist, a phrenologist, or other. He's an oncologist with a blog and strong opinions. That's not ad hominem. That's simply fact.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 15:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You still haven't read the source have you? The fact that SBM is recognized as an authoritative on-point source for fringe medical topics means it is the ideal source to use. The best articles follow the WP:BESTSOURCES. Them's the rules. Given that, your incompetent objections and POV pushing count for nothing. Bon courage (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

My reading the article didn't change the fact that the unqualified opinion of an oncologist regarding an epidemiologist's intentions is just that; unqualified opinion. Gorski's unqualified opinion of Kulldorff's intentions regarding epidemiological matters bears no weight on any wiki article. Gorski can't possibly know another person's intentions, nor is he qualified to comment on what another persons' intentions might be, in context of a wiki article. Therefore, for an editor to place into article space any copy regarding Kulldorff's intentions, as intuited by Gorski is inappropriate.

And as you said; them's the rules.

It is becoming clear to me now, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that your main argument is that Kulldorff's intentions were bad and therefore his biography on wiki must reflect that his intentions were bad. Is that a correct or even near-enough summary of your general stance on Kulldorff and his biography?

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 15:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

My "argument" is that the English Misplaced Pages should carry articles which accurately summarize the expert knowledge found in relevant reliable sources, in accord with the WP:PAGs. SBM is such a source, a golden one. Editors should be competent and read sources before judging them. Your argument is apparently that you personally don't rate David Gorski (as if that's even relevant – because he didn't even write the fucking article). Your deletions and argument show you're not paying proper attention before modifying the article and blustering on the Talk page, which is further evidence of disruption. Bon courage (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I am working here towards consensus. The original statement about Kulldorff's stance on specific "disease control measures" was incomplete as it only mentioned those measures he opposed, despite the cited article also listing measures he supported. I made the statement more complete by adding the measures he supported.

Firefangledfeathers had a good point in questioning what comprises a "disease control measure." I agree with that point and therefore proposed an updated version of the statement that removes the contentious statement of "disease control measure," in light of the fact that the cited article does not use the term and we as editors can not interpret or synthesize content in that way.

My proposed statement includes the gist of the original statement, removes the contentious term, and includes additional nuance as reported in the originally cited article.

My opinion of Gorski (not that it matters) is that he is an oncologist with a blog and strong opinions he likes to share.

Any recognized, generally accepted source is just that; generally recognized, generally accepted. To elevate a source to a 'golden status' that is unimpeachable and unquestionable is an absurd act. No source is unquestionable, even if some editors may believe the author's musings to be the Old Testament. No source is gospel. Context matters.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 16:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

And this is an excellent reinforcing source for the fact that Kulldorff has opposed disease mitigation measures (in any case, an obvious sky-is-blue assertion, as others have said above) ! The burden is on you to disprove the suitability of any WP:GREL in any circumstance. Bon courage (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that an editor can not report on the fact that Medpage reported on measures Kulldorff supported, such as "age-targeted viral testing." The way I understand it is you feel that way because an oncologist claims to know the intention of another human being, and those intentions are bad.

My response to that is:

1. Gorski's opinion of Kulldorff's intentions are just that; Gorski's opinion.

2. The original Medpage article covered some of the measures Kulldorff opposed and some he supported.

3. The role of an editor is to report what was reported and to ensure the biography of a living person accurately reflects even (maybe especially) the nuance of a controversial topic.

In this way, readers are able to see a bigger picture of the controversy, to make their own opinions on Kulldorff's intentions, and to decide for themselves where he went wrong and where he went right.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 16:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

In this SBM article, the sentence in question links "other measures" to a Kulldorff tweet about birds getting entangled in masks. Nothing here about "all other measures". The general antagonistic tone in the SBM article doesn't lend it credibility. I think that general statements about what Kulldorff opposed requires robust sourcing, not just a single one. I only so far see the CBS News source that says Kulldorff opposed masks for children in schools. If he opposed other interventions I would imagine they would be listed in other sources? I don't see anything that suggests he disparaged vaccines?? SmolBrane (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"From the SBM source which the OP also deleted in their latest revert..."

I don't see where I deleted any source that said this:

In order to maintain the illusion that his plan had any relevance in a post-vaccine world, Dr. Kulldorff has been forced to disparage vaccines, lockdowns, and all other measures that limit the spread of the virus.

I think that might be part of the disconnect here. You keep bringing up Gorski in context of the term "disease control measures."

The content I removed can be seen in this diff. SBM was never cited in the statement to which I am referring and of which I have proposed a new version.

The primary source that was originally cited, even before my edit (Medpage), contains the following statement:

"Testing is intended to save lives, not to detect asymptomatic people who are otherwise healthy," Kulldorff and Bhattacharya wrote. "With the new CDC guidelines, strategic age-targeted viral testing will protect older people from deadly COVID-19 exposure and children and young adults from needless school closures."

Based on Kulldorff's quote above, I added the statement that he supported age-targeted viral testing. Whether he's right about his statement "strategic age-targeted viral testing will protect older people" is not of concern. The fact that he supported age-targeted viral testing is what I am trying to report, based on what Medpage reported.

So I think bringing Gorski's opinion about Kuldorff's intentions does not contribute anything meaningful to the discussion. And in fact, I think it has caused an unnecessary diversion from the actual point trying to be made.

The SMB article that contains the quote regarding 'maintaining the illusion' does not mention age-targeted viral testing.

I would further agree with SmolBrane that the "general antagonistic tone in the SBM article doesn't lend it credibility."

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 18:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I restored part of a statement to the top that appears well-sourced, but omitted some phrases that have caused controversy on the talk page (per WP:JUSTDOIT). Llll5032 (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with your boldness with the statement I added that was also sourced from the same cited articles. I would say this is now a good, consensus statement, boldly written.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 23:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone agree that Michael's addition reflects the emphasis of reliable sources, as MOS:LEADREL recommends? I do not think it does. Llll5032 (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Molecular Biology articles
• Unknown-importance Molecular Biology articles
• Start-Class Computational Biology articles
• Low-importance Computational Biology articles
• WikiProject Computational Biology articles
• All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
• Start-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Start-Class COVID-19 articles
• Low-importance COVID-19 articles
• WikiProject COVID-19 articles
• Start-Class Sweden articles
• Low-importance Sweden articles
• All WikiProject Sweden pages