Talk:Devi Sridhar

DS "is an anthropologist"

It is WP:SYNTH (and highly misleading) to insert into the lead that DS "is an anthropologist", based on her Oxford D.Phil thesis from 2006 (whose topic was World Bank policy and its effect on nutrition in India.) HouseOfChange (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I had been wondering about that. Anthropology is an aspect of global health, but I'm not sure about the current wording. I would be more comfortable leading with her job title as it is descriptive and tell us what her area of expertise is. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Global Health is a theme, not a discipline. If someone has a doctorate in economics, and focuses on public health, they'd be described as 'an economist specialising in public health'. Sridhar's training is in anthropology. Her MSc is in anthropology, as was her PhD. Additionally, Oxford has no DPhil in 'Public Health'. Hence, she should be described as 'an anthropologist specialising in public health'. This is factually accurate. There is no other discipline that she could claim to be.

It is worth noting that in 2005, Sridhar wrote in Anthropology Today 'I have learned that to present oneself as an anthropologist arouses suspicion and prompts questions, and results in unanswered phone calls and cancelled appointments. Obtaining access is almost impossible. However, when I introduce myself as 'working in public health', doors open.' (Sridhar, D. (2005). Review of Ethics and Development: Some Concerns with David Mosse's Cultivating Development, Anthropology Today, Vol. 21, No.6, pp.19). Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3694943. This quote suggests that she is well aware that she is an anthropologist, but has chosen to downplay this as it is not politically helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RustySockets (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sridhar wrote her DPhil thesis for an Oxford social anthropologist, but its topic is clearly health policy: The Art of the Bank: Nutrition Policy and Practice in India. Her MPhil thesis was on "The political economy of child hunger in Tamil Nadu, India." To describe her as an "anthropologist" is misleading, and to to give top billing in the lead to anthropology over public health is wrong, e.g. "social anthropologist and public health advisor"[1][2][3] or "anthropologist and public health researcher"[4] or "anthropologist specialising in public health"[5] Information about her anthropology degree belongs in the body, and inserting it into the lead violates OR as well as 3RR. When RS describe Sridhar, they call her "chair of global public health" (NYT)[6], "an expert in public health" (The Times)[7], or "public health expert" (Guardian)[8]. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Public health is an interdisciplinary field, Sridhar is an anthropologist first and anything else second. I’m confused by your argument, what do you mean by OR? I’m also not sure how describing someone who has a doctorate in anthropology as an anthropologist is misleading, can you elaborate? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sridhar wrote a thesis on public health in the School of Anthropology in Oxford. Her field of research and work is public health and not Anthropology. Publications and research records are related to public health. It is therefore misleading to talk about her being an Anthropologist when she is a public health researcher. The opening of the article should make clear what the work and field of the person is. A mathematicians that works on epidemiology is called an epidemiologists (see e.g. John Edmunds wiki entry) even though by training they are mathematicians. Clarifying what her academic background is happens further down in the article where it makes sense in terms of the flow. We also do not start by saying that she is a biologist even though she has a degree in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.4.26 (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

But John Edmunds masters and PhD are not in mathematics as far as I can tell. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Also just FYI your IP address is registered to the University of Edinburgh. I assume that means there is a conflict of interest you need to disclose? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I neither work with Sridhar, know her personally or am a member of the college of medicine. I am studying at Edinburgh University tough. If this is not enough distance I am happy to abstain from further comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.4.136 (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It is WP:OR to call DS an "anthropologist" based on the specialty title of her 15 years-ago thesis advisor. She studied global public health policy and WP:RS describing her refer to her, consistently, as "an expert in public health." Feel free to add information about her DPhil to the BODY of the article, but the lead summarizes the most important material in the article. The most important material in the article is that she is a public health specialist, something that RS writing about her repeatedly reference. Giving top or equal billing to her training as an anthropologist does not reflect what OR say about her. Looking for examples elsewhere Jonas Salk "was an American virologist and medical researcher", not "Jonas Salk was an MD/PhD and medical researcher". Linus Pauling's PhD was "in physical chemistry and mathematical physics" but the lead of his article talks about what he was known for in his adult career. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is; anthropology and public health are not mutually exclusive and I don't see an issue with mentioning her anthropological background. Following the Salk example, Sridhar would be "an American anthropologist and public health expert". GPinkerton (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thats not what WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH is. Calling a Doctor of Anthropology an anthropologist is not now and will never be OR. Its perfectly OK to argue that "public health researcher” works better in the lead than “anthropologist” but you’re arguing much more than that. You should also calm down, you’re operating on the edge of WP:BATTLEGROUND and I think its causing you to write things you don’t mean. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems misleading to give "anthropologist" top billing, especially when her degree was in social anthropology and her MPhil and Dphil research were on global public health policy. How does it benefit our readers to introduce non-essential and confusing material into the lead? If we want to say she is "a public health policy expert and also a something else", it would make more sense to say that she is also an author, or to say that she is an advisor on UK and Scottish health policy. Either of those facts about Sridhar is more important than the academic specialty of her thesis advisor. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, the DPhil is an anthropology DPhil on an anthropological subject? Her advice to governments is on an anthropological matter. GPinkerton (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

According to the Scottish government website the advisory group is advising on "the scientific and technical concepts and processes ...". Assuming Sridhar is advising using anthropological methods is not supported and speculative.. Having a look at Google scholar shows that her work is not anthropological.

And how does it benefit our readers to mention anthropology in the article lead? "Anthropology is the scientific study of humanity, concerned with human behavior, human biology, and societies, in both the present and past, including past human species." Does this content add to their understanding of why we have a Wikipedia article about Devi Sridhar? I don't think it does. Meanwhile Social anthropology is the study of patterns of behaviour in human societies and cultures. It is the dominant constituent of anthropology throughout the United Kingdom" (but not in the US, where most people think of cultural anthropology ("branch of anthropology focused on the study of cultural variation among humans.") So I think calling her an "anthropologist" is probably more confusing to USians than to UKers. The third sentence of the lead says she got her DPhil in anthropology, it seems a bit bludgeoning to demand having that word in the first sentence also. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It is of benefit to our readers because the subject is a practicing anthropologist primarily notable for their application of anthropology to the field of public health. Whether or not we have to mention it twice in the lead is another question entirely, I’d say its safe to cut that last sentence if anthropologist is in the first sentence. Also your musings about how Americans view anthropology is inaccurate and you appear to have misread the wikipedia pages. The subfields of anthropology are slightly different on either side of the Atlantic... It doesn’t mean that Americans will be misled by us calling the subject an anthropologist, its the opposite in fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I fear the confusion Americans may experience while using English language concepts is not our responsibility to mitigate. GPinkerton (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You’re the only person talking about the academic specialty of her thesis advisor. I’m talking about the academic specialty in which she was awarded both her masters and doctorate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

doesn't need mentioning in lead, not a CV, her current position, and research specialty, suffices, further educational background can be covered in main body. Acousmana (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sidebar on same sentence

HouseOfChange I don’t know if you’ve noticed but I think there *is* actually WP:OR in the first sentence. Any idea what I think it is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect. Its actually "British-American” which we don’t have anything in the body on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: You are absolutely right. That is new in the last 24 hours, there have been many edits to the lead today. I didn't put it there and I don't endorse it. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Haha, something told me you weren’t gonna endorse that. Ok, I am reverting per WP:BLP. It looks like the diff is this one [9] and the IP resolves to the University of Edinburgh just like the other one. The IP changed the citations, but I can’t find anything in the new citations about the subject’s citizenship. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually taking another look *all* of the recent IPs resolve to the University of Edinburgh and it seems they’re reverting each other's edits. Looks like we’ve been dragged into some sort of non-wikipedia dispute. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Bless their hearts. I don't have time right now for a bunch of ding-dong reverting, so I will wait until it settles down and try to clean up some mess. As for "anthropologist," I mentally categorized it with the "DS is not a real doctor" kerfluffle a few months ago, basically trying to make it look as if she isn't trained for public health policy work. Well, we will see how it settles out. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Disentangling DS's educational background, including anthropology

I want to take a step back from the discussion to the RS:

• From the article: at Miami, she was in a 6 year program that fast-tracks students to med school, giving them a BA after 2 of those years.[10]
• In December 2002, several reports she got Rhodes Scholarship and "is finishing her second year" at Miami.
• Website for Oxford's Institute of Social & Cultural Anthropology lists her MPhil thesis" "The political economy of child hunger in Tamil Nadu, India: nutritional anthropological analysis of the green revolution"[11]
• According to SagePub, "She received her M.Phil in Medical Anthropology and her D.Phil in Social Anthropology from Oxford."[12]
• But Oxford's Anthropology Department lists her 2006 DPhil thesis on its page for "Medical Anthropology DPhil Research." It lists two supervisors for the research, Stanley Ulijaszek as well as David Gellner. [13]
• According to Oxford, Ulijaszek is a "nutritional anthropologist"[14]. Gellner is professor of "social anthropology."[15]
• BMJ says "At Oxford she was first a research fellow at All Souls College then associate professor from 2007 to 2012, and her research has focused on the governance and financing of global health."[16]
• GEG cited in article: "She was previously a University Lecturer in Global Health Politics in the Department of Public Health, Oxford (2011 to 2012), Postdoctoral Research Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford (2007 to 2011) and Director of the Global health Governance Project at the Global Economic Governance Programme Oxford (2006 onwards)."[17]

So maybe it will be clearer and more accurate if we describe her as a "medical anthropologist," since that is what I read in her Oxford background. Or "social anthropologist"? What do others think? I want us to find a consensus way to go forward. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

In my mind the question is about two points, the accurate description of the person's work and their academic/educational background. As for the first, following the line of evidence presented above and also corroborate by the publication record on Google Scholar Her work over the last 15 years has no anthropology in it and only public health. This would support the view of calling her a public health researcher in the lead of the article followed by an explanation in the main body on the anthropology bit. As for the academic/educational background point, her last academic grade appointment is Chair of global health, and again based on the references provided above all her appointments (lecturer etc.) over the last 15 years were in public health and not anthropology. Having had a look at the University of Edinburgh's website on the procedure to be appointed Chair you can see that this involves "Sustained achievement of the highest distinction, in the advancement of knowledge and understanding ..."; "Recognition in an international context". . The last two points support that the peers and the scientific community in global health see her as a global health researcher and not anthropologist. Finally, being appointed lecturer/professor in my view is the highest academic grade she achieved via an evaluation process similar to an examination, and would therefor be the latest stage of her education. OK, that is it from me. Getting all a bit too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.4.80 (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Finally, being appointed lecturer/professor" not equivalent in the UK, lecturer is two grades below prof on pay scale, to hold a chair at the University of Edinburgh you need a professorship, she also self-identifies as 'Prof.' on Twitter. Acousmana (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC on newsworthy comments and criticisms

Should the article include criticism of Devi Sridhar (Scottish Government impartial adviser on COVID-19) and her forays into politics? The leaders of three main political parties have been quoted in reliable media specifically on the subject. An example text including citations to the following media is presented in the section above this. Please give suggestions as to how this should be handled. GPinkerton (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC) ( this sentence moved from below for technical reasons GPinkerton (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC))

• Bol, David (17 June 2020). "Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson in Twitter spat over Scottish Government adviser". HeraldScotland. Retrieved 2020-10-15.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Haugh, Jack (17 June 2020). "Sturgeon clashes with Davidson in spat over school reopening plan". Glasgow Times. Retrieved 2020-10-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Webster, Laura (17 June 2020). "Virus expert Devi Sridhar hits back at Ruth Davidson after 'disgraceful' tweet". The National. Retrieved 2020-10-17.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Learmonth, Andrew (18 June 2020). "SNP call for Ruth Davidson to explain why she attacked virus expert". The National. Retrieved 2020-10-17.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• "Devi Sridhar hits back as Unionist's tweet brands her a 'so-called' expert". The National. 3 July 2020. Retrieved 2020-10-17.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Richards, Xander (4 July 2020). "Top coronavirus expert slams 'cheap and sad' attacks from 'anti-Scottish' Tories". The National. Retrieved 2020-10-17.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Bol, David (5 July 2020). "Scottish Government adviser apologises after labelling unionists as 'anti-Scottish'". Herald Scotland. Retrieved 31 August 2020. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Webster, Laura (7 July 2020). "Virus expert Devi Sridhar shares vile abuse she's received during pandemic". The National. Retrieved 2020-10-17.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Harris, Tom (7 July 2020). "Why does Nicola Sturgeon get such an easy ride over bigoted supporters?". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2020-10-17.
• Landler, Mark (10 July 2020). "In Tackling Coronavirus, Scotland Asserts Its Separateness From England". New York Times. Retrieved 31 August 2020.
• Hill, Henry (13 July 2020). "Sturgeon's threat to quarantine the English is a new low for Scottish nationalism". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
• "Scotland's papers: Anger at online teaching 'postcode lottery'". BBC News. 18 July 2020. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
• "Virus expert Devi Sridhar blocks 'troll' Murdo Fraser on Twitter". The National. 2 August 2020. Retrieved 2020-10-17.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Cochrane, Alan (2020-08-17). "Nicola Sturgeon's Covid-19 adviser should choose words carefully after English cases 'stream' claim". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
• Conor, Matchett (18 August 2020). "Nicola Sturgeon says Scottish Government adviser's 'stream of infection' from England and Wales comment 'not political'". www.scotsman.com. Retrieved 2020-10-17.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

I have asked for input at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#RFC GPinkerton (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment According to The Scottish Civil Service Code, advisers should be politically impartial in the advice they give the government and "comply with any restrictions that have been laid down on your political activities." Since the Scottish Government has not imposed restrictions on the public comments of Devi Sridhar, it is incorrect to claim that criticizing Boris Johnson in her private Twitter account somehow violates her government requirement to give impartial advice about COVID. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  Rebuttal This is OR and deeply misleading. HouseOfChange does not know what is in Sridhar's contract, and it is quite extraordinary to claim that she, uniquely, does not have to follow civil service rules while in a civil service job. GPinkerton (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• @GPinkerton: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 5,300 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Redrose64: Rectified, I think. Thanks for pointing that out. GPinkerton (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, that worked. Thanks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Strong include, but we must not go further than what the most reliable WP:RS say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Please read the article before adding an opinion. This RfC misrepresents the problem. 1) The article already contains substantial discussion of controversies. This proposal is to COATRACK into the article multiple inflammatory statements about DS made by political opponents of the Scottish National Party. 2) No RS has been provided to support GPinkerton's belief that DS's "impartiality" in giving health advice forbids her to criticize Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. I have seen no RS to support the claim that being invited to join an expert advisory board requires the experts to submit to civil service requirements that the Scottish government's paid employees are expected to follow. 3) Wikipedia should avoid being recruited to increase the racist and sexist abuse already being aimed at Devi Sridhar. I believe that a balanced treatment of controversies does NOT require publishing verbatim the inflammatory statements made about Devi Sridhar by political opponents of the current Scottish government. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @HouseOfChange:You haven't actually read the sources have you? They do say she is an impartial adviser. Besides that, you have yourself adduced the civil service code, which Sridhar must follow. The purpose of this article is not to present the Scottish Government as immune to criticism and it is not the purpose of this article to present Sridhar's career without including the controversy she has caused by her manner of pursuing it. As I have said, you do not WP:OWN this page, and neither does the SNP. Your POV that political debate in Scotland is "inflammatory" is irrelevant and it is not this project's job to push it for you; rather it is the job of Wikipedia to present the controversies as reported in reliable sources. You also appear be opposing the inclusion of even Sturgeon's comments, so even your own justification that no critic of the government be included is itself incoherent. GPinkerton (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • There is also no basis for the accusation of racist and sexist abuse. Nothing of that kind is proposed and it is shameful to suggest otherwise, HouseOfChange. GPinkerton (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    Please give the URL of at least one source that says being an impartial adviser to Scotland on COVID means that DS should refrain from criticizing the disastrous mishandling of COVID by Boris Johnson. Please give the URL of at least one source that describes membership on Scotland's COVID advisory board as a position governed by civil service codes. (According to Sridhar, "I’m an independent academic & have no funding from Scottish govt.") And please stop the ad hominem attacks. I did not "suggest" you are engaged in racist and sexist attacks, nor would any reasonable person infer that from what I said. Cool down and stick to the subject, which is your proposed expansion of the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    @HouseOfChange: "Impartial adviser". The subject here is less expansion, more WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You are trying insert your POV where it does not belong. GPinkerton (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "impartial adviser" in a newspaper article, or in the mouths of DS's critics, is not proof that DS has a civil service position with the Scottish government. Recall that Devi Sridhar said she is not an employee of the Scottish government and (according to Glasgow's The Herald newspaper) "The Scottish Government said Ms Sridhar was independent and did not speak on its behalf." HouseOfChange (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: No that's not right. The article, not the critics, says: "The impartial Scottish Government adviser hit back at the criticism, addressing her American followers on Twitter." It is proof, if proof were required, that she is an impartial government adviser. The fact that the government has distanced itself from her comments does not contradict this - quite the contrary. Wikipedia follows the sources, not extraordinary assumptions that contradict the reported facts. GPinkerton (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose— Unless you have a balanced biography as a reliable source you will end up parroting the current political discourse. It will almost impossible to take a NPOV and would inevitably be biased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly the case right now. The article reads like partisan puffery. GPinkerton (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• 'Include Without it, the article is a horse without feet . GPinkerton (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• Comment The opening statement implies that the article did not include any criticism, which it did. It seems instead that GPinkerton is asking for more criticism to be included, which as I mentioned in the section above would unbalance the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Include, per Horse Eye's Back - Idealigic (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as much is undue weight, though the 'stream' reference could be improved. Oppose until there is a specific proposal. Whether any or all of it is WP:UNDUE requires specific discussion. Some of the sources don't match the RfC question. Summoned by bot. The NYT source doesn't include anything about political criticism of Sridhar. Nor does the Haugh piece. The Matchett, Cochrane material is already included in the article. The Harris column seems a non-notable spat over a tweet. Several of the others are back-and-forths of a similar nature -- in the news fo a day or two. It seems like including many of these as events in their own right would be undue weight. If there's a proposal for what to include in the article, we could evaluate whether the sources support it, whether the weight is right. Until then... Chris vLS (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chrisvls: Specific proposal is in the section above this. GPinkerton (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Sorry about that! Now I see the three paragraphs proposed in the above section. The schools reopening discussion and the 'anti-Scottish' paragraphs would give a small-scale back-and-forth over a tweet undue weight. The NYT op-ed "streams" is already covered in the article. It could be expanded, but the proposed edit still seems like a lot for the scale of the event. Is there a good source to support an edit that states that Sridhar's work on COVID involved these kind of interactions? Chris vLS (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

UK/Scottish politics and Devi Sridhar: the "stream of infections" comment

Chrisvls proposed that this article might do more to discuss DS's "stream of infections" comment in an op-ed, which caused controversy when Nicola Sturgeon did not immediately disavow the idea of a cross-border quarantine between Scotland and England.

Should this bio repeat attacks on DS for claiming that COVID cases in Scotland are caused by English visitors, when DS has never made any such claim? What other sources and discussion should the bio include about the "stream of infections" controversy? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

What the article currently says

In August, Sridhar used a New York Times op-ed to urge "strict border measures" for European countries, to contain the coronavirus. Noting the different coronavirus rates in Scotland and in Northern Ireland versus in England and in Wales she expressed concern that Scotland and Northern Ireland both "face a stream of incoming infections from England and Wales." The "stream of incoming infections" comment has been criticised by Scottish unionists and others, with Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, accusing Sridhar of "feeding a divisive nationalist narrative without scientific evidence to back it up." Nicola Sturgeon said that Sridhar's comments were "not political" and a "perfectly legitimate public health point". The Scottish Government said Sridhar "was independent" and "did not speak on its behalf."

Additions proposed by GPinkerton

• 1 The "stream of incoming infections" comment has been criticised by Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats and others, who accused Sridhar of "feeding a divisive nationalist narrative without scientific evidence to back it up" and pointing out that outbreaks in the Orkney Islands, in Glasgow and Lanarkshire, and in Aberdeen could not be attributed to arrivals from England.
• 2 Nicola Sturgeon said that Sridhar's comments were "not political" and a "perfectly legitimate public health point".

Update

The article now includes all of *2 and most of *1. It omits the part of Rennie's statement implying that DS blamed England for COVID outbreaks all over Scotland. Thanks to GPinkerton for helpful suggestions. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

More background on Scottish politics and COVID

Several RS state that the differing treatment of COVID-19 in Scotland versus overall-UK has been divisive. Unionists and Scottish conservatives fear COVID policy is being used by pro-independence partisans "to drive a wedge between Scotland and England."

Praising Scottish successes and criticizing Boris Johnson's COVID policy, as DS frequently does on Twitter and in many op-eds, can therefore be seen in one of two ways. Perhaps DS is giving her professional opinion concerning two different health policies--or perhaps DS is helping to drive a wedge between Scotland and England, promoting the cause of Scottish independence.

Concerning COVID, pro-union opinion says that Scotland's "many Covid failures replicate the blunderings of Westminster, but her [SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon's] reassuring language has boosted her standing. She has deployed Scotland’s devolved powers over health to eye-catching effect." Similarly, according to this op-ed, the SNP made much of small temporary COVID differences between Scotland and England, with the result that "nationalists in hazmat suits shout at vehicles with English number plates." HouseOfChange (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

It looks as though my points are finally sinking in. The ambiguity and potentially pro-SNP government statements of Sridhar have drawn criticism from across the political spectrum (it's wrong to characterize it as having much to do with independence; the ruling party is the only one for which this is a primary issue) and across the parliament and the subsequent backlash is plenty worth including on this page, just as one would include it on the page of any political figure. Without reading minds, we don't know what Sridhar was thinking or why, and it doesn't matter. She wrote a controversial column, controversy ensued. The controversy should be treated fully and properly and should not try and take sides, which HouseOfChange appears to have done in comments further up in this discussion. The jabs at Johnson and Trump are not the point; the issue with cross border traffic in Great Britain is. GPinkerton (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This section is intended particularly to discuss the "stream of infections" op-ed, so let's do that. I also just added to the article part of what you suggested: the part of Rennie's comment that is not counterfactual is in the article now. I will also add the other comment by NS you suggested. One problem with GPinkerton's earlier proposal was that it cobbled together such diverse issues. So let's find consensus on the talk page, one topic at a time. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The current and proposed text are both factually accurate, and verifiable. It does summarise the incident, I suppose the main issue is how much detail should be covered. One thing that occurs to me is that the op-ed was a reflection on the role of tourism and travel in community transmission of the virus and how countries are addressing it. As part of that, Sridhar mentioned that Scotland and Northern Ireland "face a stream of incoming infections from England and Wales."

She also said The only way to stop constant increases in the coronavirus is to eliminate community transmission and to use robust test, trace and isolate policies to continue catching imported cases and clusters as they emerge. .... Stopping community transmission requires mandatory, enforced quarantine for incoming travelers and testing before release.

I think it would therefore we worth altering the start of this bit to reflect the main point of the op-ed. That's not to say the "stream of infections" comment isn't significant. What you mean to convey and what message people hear can be two very different things, but both important. I'm reluctant to say that the answer is to include even more detail due to reasons of balance. Various politicians did indeed chime in one way or another, but what is the real-world significance of the whole episode? By contrast, I'm thinking of Marcus Rashford's campaign to get school meals extended over the school holidays. That led to not only a debate in Parliament, but a grassroots campaign in which individuals and organisations have mobilised to have an impact on society. Do we have evidence that the op-ed has had a significant impact? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: debate in parliament, debate in parliament, debate in parliament, debate in parliament, reference to the op-ed in another opinion piece by the same author. Mention of the last link, referred to in a different op-ed in The Times that reviewed the saga (proving it was not forgotten), was removed by HouseOfChange, in this edit. And yes, reports at the time were of a flag-waving hard-core gathered at the border, as mentioned in the sources. Comparison with a England footballer's campaign for vouchers for parents children, in England, is neither here, nor there, as they say. GPinkerton (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Much obliged, GPinkerton, that was helpful. I'm still unclear on whether it's had a discernible impact on how the pandemic is being handled but safe to say it's generated a lot of discussion. If we're including it in the article, the start of the statement should be adjusted. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: The op-ed has been widely discussed. Do any RS support the link you imply between DS and "flag-waving hard-core gathered at the border"? Your 4 "debate in parliament" links above should be dated as follows: 17 June, 23 June, 12 August, and 30 July. All include mentions of "Devi Sridhar," but none discuss Sridhar's 14 August op-ed. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: Concerning the op-ed: I added its title "We Will Pay for Our Summer Vacations With Winter Lockdowns" as a step toward meeting your concern. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This is missing the point. Sridhar used her op-ed to claim "neither nation [Scotland and Northern Ireland] has control over its borders because they are parts of the United Kingdom". This is much more demonstrably false than is Davidson's comment, and it is this is going unchallenged, and her subsequent apology is going unrelated, even though an article with a headline mentioning this is cited. GPinkerton (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: Yes, this one and possibly others, I haven't checked. GPinkerton (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I had taken it for granted the links would relate to the op-ed, I see from the dates I was mistaken. In which case, I'm not sure GPinkerton's point holds water as much water as I thought it did.

Thanks for adding the title of the op-ed. I think that helps to some extent, though may need some finessing. It's getting late, so I'll think on it tomorrow. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: I don't understand what you think is "demonstrably false," but if you cite some RS that agrees with you, I could learn. Is it also "demonstrably false" when Boris Johnson says "there’s no such thing as a border between England and Scotland"? Opinion pieces such as McWhirter's are typically not good RS for a BLP, and certainly not for linking a NYT op-ed to "masked nationalists in hazmat suits" when no causal connection is shown. Furthermore, the quote from McWhirter that you added to the bio (and which I removed) makes two distinctly false claims: that DS has changed her mind about COVID 1) by giving up on Scotland-only elimination and 2) by "now" saying we must learn to live with COVID (this latter is something she has been saying since April at least. I found no support in RS for either claim by McWhirter, which is why I removed the quote, and other sources give a less-POV picture of Scottish COVID strategy in September. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The RS you didn't find is Sridhar's own piece in The Guardian, here. And yes, demonstrably false because it would have to be shown that Northern Ireland or Scotland controlled their own borders before the formation of the UK. There is also, as has been mooted throughout the summer, the power already devolved to Holyrood to make people quarantine, which is all that's required. Johnson is correct insofar as there is no Scottish Border Force, but that's irrelevant. Sridhar is reliably reported to have changed her mind, so it's not "demonstrably false" to claim she might do on other topics. GPinkerton (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

DS's September op-ed supports neither claim by McWhirter. GPinkerton's charitable stretch to "truthify" Boris Johnson's hyperbole seems an apt counterpart to the stretch that "falsifies" DS by saying that she should have considered pre-UK border conditions (before 1922?). Anyway, this talk page is about improvements to the article. Please share some WP:RS that illuminate responses to the August 14 op-ed, which is our topic in this section. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You can see that the changes I propose are amply justified by the sources. There are plenty of RS cited multiple times already, only you have decided to overlook them. The falsification or otherwise of Sridhar's comments are irrelevant and you must acknowledge that our coverage should follow the sources, not what you had adjudged to be true or false. GPinkerton (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have done a great deal of work to find RS and to create proper format to cite them, in the bio and on its talk page. My civil request was for others to suggest RS I had missed related to the "stream of infections" op-ed. Richard Nevell can you please check the latest revised description of the op-ed to see if it meets your concern. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The idea that it would have to be shown that Northern Ireland or Scotland controlled their own borders before the formation of the UK is completely spurious and I'm not sure makes sense in any case. However, moving forward to something more positive, I think this change explaining the purpose of the op-ed works well. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Source URL

Something is wrong with the URL to the article labelled as The Herald and titled "Infections streaming in …". The URL does not link to the article and presents a login page to the The Sunday Herald. Can someone fix this? I can't find the article elsewhere and I'm not sure the citation adds up. GPinkerton (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: The site is paywalled; only paid subscribers can access the story. That does not make the source unusable, though. —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I just added {{Subscription required}} so that readers will know what's going on. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred:, @Richard Nevell:, the reason I ask is because the citation was in fact very misleading. The article referred to was not published in The Herald or The Sunday Herald, as claimed in the citation. Neither was it titled "Infections 'streaming in from England and Wales'". Instead, it was published by the explicitly biased and pro-SNP government newspaper The National. You can see read the story they published here, titled: Scotland facing 'stream of infections' from England and Wales, Devi Sridhar warns. Unlike in the text I proposed, the article at present relies on this publication for statements of fact uncorroborated by reliable sources. I propose that this be removed or at least changed to make it less misleading and false. The citation, if it must be used, ought to be: Cochrane, Angus (16 August 2020). "Scotland facing 'stream of infections' from England and Wales, Devi Sridhar warns". The National. Retrieved 2020-10-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link). GPinkerton (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I also could not find that article with a search on the Herald Scotland site, but I did find a letter to the editor responding to it: "PROFESSOR Devi Sridhar claims that "Scotland is facing a stream of infections from England" ("'Infections ‘streaming in from England and Wales’", The Herald, August 17). This is a Herald article, not a National article, and has a different title from the national article. I made a mistake changing the URL form the Herald to the National. (A subscription is still needed to read the letter to the editor if you have viewed more than a few free articles.) HouseOfChange (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: No, it's a National article. The same "William Loneskie, Lauder" wrote a near identical letter to The Scotsman, published on the 18th, which paper clearly also did not publish The National's article, so this person is clearly sending letters at random. You can read the Scotsman one here. GPinkerton (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't just search the Herald's website, I searched the entire British press corpus. GPinkerton (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I found the Herald article, which is different from the National article, using Google -- found it in the PressReader website, see screencaps above. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton The two screen captures I posted above as evidence are about to be deleted, because free use images are only for use in articles (not on talk pages.) I hope, having had time to review them, you will not renew your claim that no Herald article existed, and that it was "misleading and false" to cite it in the bio. (The fact that the Herald failed to index its story in an accessible way shows just how minor they found the dispute. Fortunately, I found several pointers to the article using Google, and obtained a screen-capture of the PressReader by paying PressReader for access to that day's issue of the Herald. You can do the same, if you need more evidence concerning the article.) The full article was easy to see online, back in August, on the original access-date given in the citation. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Picture of Devi Sridhar

Colorblind1 has tried to add a new photo from Commons, but it is not clear who owns the rights to that image (at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sridhar_Devi_pic.jpg ) Because that image is likely to be deleted from Commons, I think we should keep our current picture until there is a better one with the right license. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The image source is given as Twitter, so it seems likely that the image is copyrighted. So while I appreciate Colorblind1 is making good faith efforts to improve the article, we'd need more evidence that the image is available under an open licence. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Update, there is now an even-better photo on the article, and its Wikimedia page confirms that it has the appropriate free license--glad this problem has found a good solution. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)