Talk:Devi Sridhar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Twitter post

There seems to be a slow-moving edit war developing over whether to include content about a Twitter post and the reaction to it. Please discuss it here rather than continue to revert each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I have posted about this. If these editors feel VERY strongly about this then they should either discuss it, reach a consensus or withdraw. There is a real person involved here and their wiki biography is not the place for a spat. More constructively, does anyone have a picture of her that they took or that is freely licensed? Victuallers (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The argument for the removal of the piece was that it was supposedly "Scottish unionist campaign to discredit Professor Sridhar", aka a suggestion that what she posted wasn't actually controversial in the slightest and the controversy was actually part of some kind of political conspiracy; this idea is absurd. In regards to your claims of it being WP:Undue, what is the justification for that? The issue of Unionism vs Nationalism amongst public figures is not some obscure political debate, but actually a rather major one in Scotland and the wider United Kingdom. Furthermore, it's not posted in some obscure blog or something, but in the Herald a major publication in Scotland.

On the question of edit warring, which I direct specifically towards @Phil Bridger:; I must apologise, I did not see the posting on my talk page before making the reversion. However, I would like to point out that the inclusion of the piece has been on this page without issue since the 5/7/20 and the only reason given for its removal was that it didn't fit in with the political viewpoints of User:Anna Laura Simoni which is something that borders upon breaching WP:NOTHERE and therefore isn't a legitimate reason to remove the piece.. Alssa1 (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: given the fact that Anna Laura Simoni has not responded to either this, or the chase I posted on their talkpage, how would you recommend to progress this further? Alssa1 (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Victuallers: thoughts? Alssa1 (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for intervening. The addition by Alssa1 is wholly inaccurate, biased and irrelevant. There was no "public outcry" in regards to Professor Sridhar's tweet. There was an expression of partisan outrage from unionist politicians of minority parties and their supporters ONLY. This was part of a campaign of harassment and, indeed, abuse that has been levelled at Professor Sridhar by certain elements of Scotland's political scene. More on this can be found here https://www.thenational.scot/news/18566263.devi-sridhar-shares-screenshots-vile-abuse-sent-pandemic/ and here https://www.thenational.scot/news/18558720.devi-sridhar-hits-back-unionist-brands-so-called-expert/ . If Alssa1 insists on including his misinformation about the tweet, then we will have to include the whole history of harassment that surrounds it. That would be plainly riduclous. All of this is irrelevant to Professor Sridhar's life and accomplishments which are very prodigious. It is no exaggeration to say that she's one of the most accomplished people in the world, let alone in her own field. To have a plethora of useless information on her Wikipedia entry in regards to an internal political spat (largely taking place on Twitter) would, I'd suggest, make a mockery of the very function of Wikipedia. I'm afraid I will not stand by and see a woman of such high standing being deliberately targeted by someone whose Wikipedia profile confirms them to be a right wing British nationalist of a kind which is synonymous with Scottish unionism. Many thanks again for your intervention. In regards to a photo, I'd imagine the one used in the news story I've linked to above would be suitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Laura Simoni (talk • contribs) 11:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, your comments about me being a "right wing British nationalist" is not a legitimate way to behave, nor a reason to not include the piece; it's a perfect example of 'going for the player not the ball' and also borders upon breaching WP:AGF. Your opinions and theories about my political perspective(s) are as irrelevant to this issue as your personal political perspectives; whether this piece should be included should be based upon the merits (or demerits) of the case, not anything else. Secondly, what evidence (that fits in with WP:RS) do you have to suggest that there was no anger and that this is merely a "Scottish unionist campaign to discredit Professor Sridhar"? Because the whole assertion that people who disagree with Scottish independence are by their nature "anti-Scottish", is quite a controversial statement in itself despite it coming from supposedly "one of the most accomplished people in the world". Alssa1 (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Sound point about 'going for the player and not the ball' ... it undermines the argument, but who was it who said "didn't fit in with the political viewpoints of User:Anna Laura Simoni". I think you need to step back or play together nicely. If not then others may make an arbitrary (but comparably argued) decision. Victuallers (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It was me who said that. But the assertion that we should remove the piece was because the controversy supposedly derives from some conceited 'Unionist conspiracy' (which is an assertion backed by no presented evidence and therefore borders on WP:NOR), was a ridiculous reason to remove it. Am I wrong in this? Alssa1 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

As Victuallers said above, there is a real person involved here. Professor Sridhar fights to save lives by offering advice freely to the Scottish Government and continues to make many selfless contributions to battling disease and saving lives across the world. The fact that she once may or may not have a offended a few unionists in Scotland with a tweet - *a tweet* - would be a bizarre inclusion to her Wikipedia page and has no place there. This is especially true given the relative success of the Scottish Government in suppressing the virus, now recognised globally, where Professor Sridhar's contribution has been invaluable. See here, for example https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/world/europe/coroanvirus-scotland-england.html or here https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-scotland-england-cases-charts-latest-lockdown-strategy-a9622016.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1594931108 The bottom line is that Alssa1 is attempting to politicise this wikipedia entry and is also posting a disingenuous comment by saying there was a "public outcry". There was no public outcry. The outrage of a few unionists on Twitter is not a public outcry. Alssa1 knows that this is a political spat and, as such, it is him who is playing the man (or woman) and not the ball by trying to smear Professor Sridhar with this ridiculous inclusion of a non-event which has no relevance to her life and achievements whatsoever. Professor Sridhar is a globably renowned figure. She has no involvement in the local, parochial debates between Nationalists and Unionists in Scotland. She has been snagged into the tittle tattle of these debates simply through the mischief-making of people like Alssa1. It is an absurd situation, and its absurdity has no place in this wikipedia entry - unless, of course, we are to take the view that Wikipedia is not a serious knowledge resource but a place to spread misinformation about the people included here.

Firstly @Anna Laura Simoni: address your comments to me; we are in disagreement and we need to come to a consensus about it, you don't just get to brush it off as a 'unionist conspiracy' and then think that's the end. Now, I shall take each of your statements in turn: "there is a real person involved here", the fact that a 'real person' is the subject is irrelevant as to whether or not this should be included. "fights to save lives by offering advice freely to the Scottish Government..." this is irrelevant to the point of whether or not mention of her twitter posting should appear; if you want to offer her role on the Scottish response to the coronavirus, feel free. "offended a few unionists in Scotland with a tweet - *a tweet*" The medium in which something is delivered is irrelevant to whether it should be included on wikipedia. John Cleese's political views on Brexit were delivered fundamentally via a tweet, Elon Musk's page is awash with his twitter postings as is author JK Rowling's views. The idea that we should exclude twitter posts (and other social media posts) from public figures is silly in the modern era in which we live; among other things it offers an insight into their views. "The bottom line is that Alssa1 is attempting to politicise this wikipedia entry and is also posting a disingenuous comment..."; I am neither offering a politicising the page, nor offering a "disingenuous comment" (which is something I resent and arguably borders on breaching WP:AGF imo). When I use the term "public outcry", I think it's legitimate to say (based on WP:RS) there was a fair amount of public controversy surrounding Sridhar's comment(s). If you don't like the term "public outcry", what alternate terminology would you recommend? It would seem strange to remove a whole piece simply because you disagree with that terminology. Alssa1 (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant that there is a real person involved. That is why we have special BLP rules, and why I am particularly concerned. I need to see some evidence of an emerging common view .... which I am not. Can I suggest that you have both analysed the weaknesses of each others position... maybe a good time to think about the weaknesses in your own position? If one of you feels that a consensus is not possible then I am willing to impose a (n arbitrary) solution. Victuallers (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not relevant in the sense that the BLP rules do not offer (in my view) a justification for its removal. The piece is not libelous, it's not unsourced or poorly sourced, and the 'contentious nature' of the piece seems to be little more than the fact that one editor likes Sridhar. Finally, with all due respect Victuallers, what right do you have to "impose" a "solution"? You're not part of the arbitration team as far as I'm aware. Alssa1 (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the weakness in both our positions is, as you have stated, that there is no common view on this. This is because what we're arguing about is an extension of the Scottish debate on independence where there is no common view. Polls currently show the pro-independence side to be ahead at 54%. This could as easily shift to show the unionist side ahead at any point. It is that close. But this debate has nothing to do with Professor Sridhar and her life and achievements. That is the point here. Please, if you haven't already, take the time to look at her Wikipedia entry. Her accomplishments are astonishing. But what makes her an astonishing person, above all, is her dedication to eradicating disease and improving the lives of people around the world. To include an episode from such a petty dispute, which can only be judged subjectively, in an attempt to undermine her person, simply cannot be allowed to happen if this platform is to maintain the credibility it deserves through the efforts of those who contribute to its existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Laura Simoni (talk • contribs) 08:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You're not actually providing any justification for the removal of this piece that is within the lines of wikipedia's rules and codes of practice. Repeatedly stating Sridhar's accomplishments in her profession, is irrelevant to the issue of whether we should include what she said on twitter (and the coverage thereof). If you feel that what is written of Sridhar's professional accomplishments is lacking, feel free to improve them with reliable sources; that is after all what Wikipedia's purpose is as an online encyclopedia and you will have no opposition from me for doing so. So why specifically should we not include Sridhar's twitter postings (and the coverage thereof)? Alssa1 (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Alssa1, Arbitration is something that anyone can do. Imposition relies only on having power (and ideally justification). Arbcom take on about 6 or 8 cases a year, they expect editors to make every effort to solve the problem themselves and for administrators to not have to get involved, but to use their powers when required. I don't want to get involved in this case. I am asking you politely to consider the other view point and instead you point out that another editor is continued to restate the same argument .... but isn't that what you are doing? Why are you expecting a different result from restating your POV? Victuallers (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

What you are doing is very strange to me... It is true that it is up to editors to solve issues and disputes among themselves, it is quite another thing to appoint yourself as "the arbitrator" as well as to appoint yourself the power to 'impose solutions'; and that is something that I must admit I do take issue with. Now on the subject of the dispute itself, my position and Anna's is not equal in legitimacy; she has not provided a single reason that fits in with Wikipedia's rules and principles, that justifies the total exclusion of Sridhar's twitter posting from the page. As well as this, Anna Laura Simoni has not provided any answers to my responses and therefore the discussion has a hit a snag. But that snag is down to her failure to engage appropriately, not down to a mutual conclusion of the discussion. Alssa1 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the fact that it has been 3 days and Anna Laura Simoni has failed to respond giving a coherent justification for the removal, I will attempt to initiate a resolution via the dispute resolution mechanism. Alssa1 (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Alssa1 is politically motivated to add text which is intended to undermine the character of Professor Sridhar while failing to give the full picture of the events he refers to. Professor Sridhar has been acclaimed for her part in steering the Scottish Government towards a successful handling of the coronavirus pandemic in Scotland. This has infuriated Scottish unionists because it contrasts with what has been largely perceived as a disastrous performance by the UK government in relation to the same (See here, for example: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scotland-on-course-to-beat-coronavirus-says-independent-sage-tz25tsj07 and here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/19/plaudits-for-nicola-sturgeon-fuel-talk-of-scottish-independence-drive ). A hard core of Scottish unionists have consequently been on the attack against Professor Sridhar, seeking to discredit her and distort the reality of her contribution to saving lives in Scotland. This attempt by Alssa1 to include his text is simply an extension of that. My own reasons for challenging this are not so much political but arise from a determination to ensure that the integrity of someone whose advice and actions have undoubtedly saved lives in my country remains intact and free of political manipulation. The issue of her tweet is an irrelevance to her achievements on a global scale, irrelevant to her achievements as an advisor to the Scottish government, and an irrelevance to the vast majority of people in Scotland except for a few hardcore Scottish unionists. Indeed, Professor Sridhar has been widely praised for her contribution to suppressing the virus in Scotland. This from one of Scotland's most important contemporary cultural figures, the author Irvine Welsh, only the other day, appropriately delivered in the form of a tweet: "This woman [Professor Sridhar], and willingness of Sturgeon & govt in Scotland to listen to her, is one of the main reasons the infection rate there has gone from being one of the worst to one of the best in Europe." See: https://twitter.com/IrvineWelsh/status/1284433480198299648 This tweet by Irvine Welsh is a much truer reflection of what people in Scotland think of Devi Sridhar - not some bogus "public outcry" which didn't happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Laura Simoni (talk • contribs) 21:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Every single statement you have made has already been answered. If you want to write about Sridhar, her professional work or the Scottish Government's performance during the Coronavirus outbreak you're welcome to do that, and provided you have [[WP:RS|reliable sources to back up what you write, I won't take issue with it. But this line of discussion is irrelevant. This dispute is regarding the inclusion of the twitter posting and public reaction to it, please provide the reasoning as to why their should be no mention of it at all. You clearly take issue with the term "public outcry", then as I've said previously: provide some alternate terminology. The fact that you don't like the terminology does not justify the total removal of the piece without any explanation or discussion. Alssa1 (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Further to previous, when Devi Sridhar has been mentioned in upcoming pieces, the controversy surrounding her twitter postings have been raised. Most recently, in article in Wales online her comments have been raised again (dated 17 August). Further to this, a piece by the Spectator raised her comments as part of a commentary and opinion piece by Stephen Daisley, titled "The rise of Scotland’s Covid nationalism" see here (dated 18 August). The controversy is still being mentioned in multiple media outlets that meet the reliable source requirement, so therefore I believe it's worth making mention of it. Alssa1 (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC Twitter Posting (mk2)

In line with recommendations I have resubmitted the rfc Should this article mention Sridhar's twitter post reported on 5 July 2020? Alssa1 (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• No (sbb to previous RFC, my comment to which was deleted by Alssa1) This Twitter kerfluffle was very very minor. Per WP:BALASP: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Yes, even when "impartial", which the POV-pushing "news story" suggested as a source is not. Also, I don't know beans about Scottish politics and had never heard of Devi Sridhar until the RfC summoned me to this article. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not yet - the portrayal of public outcry seems accurate enough, see National Scot, Scottish Sun, Express, Spectator, Telegraph, etcetera.... It has not as yet shown significant life consequences or enduring impact. Put it in if it leads to being fired, or further controversy, or it’s still in news a month from now. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• I note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section makes mentions of two points: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Also on biographies of living persons it says "Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm". The fact that this article is majority dedicated to her professional work, it seems odd to omit any mention of this controversy. Alssa1 (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alssa1: The only 2 uninvolved editors responding to your RfC agreed: this twitter post should not be in the article. The "controversy" happened and vanished 3 weeks ago, with zero aftereffect on her "professional work." It never became a "prominent controversy" and a summary of "the most important parts" of her biography would not include it. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: define "prominent controversy" please. It seems to strange to tailor this wiki page to only mention her professional career and ignore everything else when we have an incident, backed up by reliabe sources. We don't do this with any other public figure, so it seems strange to do it here. Alssa1 (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BALASP we do exactly as I described with other BLPs. Look at the articles for Joy Ann Reid or Sarah Jeong. Both were publicly ambushed for social media posts, with controversies much longer and louder than the case with DS. They apologized. Their employers stood by them. The controversy went away except in the minds of those who had hoped to derail their successful careers. In those two cases (unlike the case with DS) the controversy ran long and loud enough that it got into the article. But in neither case did it have sufficient impact on the life of the bio subject to get in the lead. See also WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Far from achieving consensus to include it, you are opposed by a clear consensus of just about everyone else who looked at the matter. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: but in both the cases you've cited, controversial tweets and blogposts appear in their respective wiki pages; they're not omitted entirely. I'm not advocating having the controversy in the lead, I'm questioning why something is totally omitted from the page entirely. Alssa1 (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

{{od} The difference is the volume of media coverage -- number of stories, numbers of media outlets talking about it, number of weeks the story stayed in the news. Another difference is that Wikipedia works by consensus, and the consensus here is that the SD "Tweet" story is too trivial for the SD article, whereas the consensus there was that something should be included in the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Context

I have been trying to understand the background of this story, so bear with me if you already know it.

• 1) The apparent context is that the UK and Scotland used different strategies against COVID. ([1]NYT "In Tackling Coronavirus, Scotland Asserts Its Separateness From England"CNN "England and Scotland went separate ways on Covid-19. It may lead to a full divorce")
• 2) Sridhar, a major architect of the Scottish approach, has criticized the UK approach[2] and has in turn been criticized for criticizing the UK approach [3]
• 3) On July 7, DS posted several tweets with screenshots of abuse that had been sent to her by people she hypothesized were "anti-Scottish, pro-UK (Unionist)." ("Devi Sridhar shares screenshots of vile abuse sent during pandemic")
• 4) Sridhar again faces criticism for stating that Scotland's relative success in containing Covid is threatened by a "stream of incoming infections"[4] from Britain, which has the highest rate of coronavirus deaths in Europe.[5]

So maybe this article should have a section on DS's critique of UK COVID strategy, which has generated much more news coverage, and is much more relevant to her career, than a few words in one tweet that her opponents would love to make central to the COVID discussion. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. To start with, I don't take issue with your latest edit and am willing to accept it as a compromise position. In regards to your statements here, I think there are some issues with it. The criticism of Sridhar personally came as a result of her tweets in July, which likened opposition to Scottish Independence as being necessarily being "anti-Scottish", which is a very controversial statement and one that is frequently used by one side of the independence debate against other. I don't take issue with a section specifically dedicated to her criticism of UK Covid strategy, but relegating mention of possible insights into her political viewpoints seems to be the wrong to do particularly when it has garnered coverage in the media in its own right. We don't sanitize wiki pages and make them solely focus on their professional career, we take an encyclopedic attitude to them. If you go on JK Rowling's, Elon Musk's or Billy Connolly's pages you see pieces garnered from their twitter posts (among others). We don't say that Musk's tweets are irrelevant to his work at Tesla and therefore we don't include them. We don't ignore JK Rowling's tweets about transgenderism because they are irrelevant to the novels she's written etc. Finally, I do take issue with using articles from The Express and The National seeing as they arguably constitute WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Alssa1 (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BALASP DS's work with the Scottish COVID strategy team, and her criticism of UK COVID strategy, have both received more press attention than that one tweet, which she quickly explained had been misrepresented, but which you continue to misrepresent here in your arguments. Yet that one tweet is the ONLY topic related to her Scottish advisory role you've repeatedly tried to add to the article. Let's improve this encyclopedia article. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly I don't take issue with it the piece saying something along the lines "in response, Sridhar claimed that she had been misrepresented" or some other thing that balances it out. As I said, what I take issue with is its omission. Secondly, WP:AVOIDYOU; could you please explain how I've misrepresented it? Alssa1 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

I'm not interested in having a lovely discussion here about you (or about "you"), I am interested in editing this article to make a better encyclopedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC) You've accused me of continuing to misrepresent what is being said, what specifically has been misrepresented? Alssa1 (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC) This is misrepresentation: 'which likened opposition to Scottish Independence as being necessarily being "anti-Scottish"'. And I am going to hat utter this digression from discussing improvement to the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC) It's also not a digression, you accused me of 'continually misrepresenting her' and that statement is unjustified. Sridhar may have felt that her statement was misinterpreted, but the terminology suggested that she equated opposition to Scottish Independence as being necessarily being "anti-Scottish"; and that is the interpretation that the WP:RS follow. Now, this whole discussion is about improving the encyclopedic value of the page, so I don't follow why you've arbitrarily decided to hat it. In the case of WP:BALASP, as I have said already I don't have any problem with including her work with the COVID strategy team, what I want to know is why this specific topic should no longer be included, and why it's supposedly unbalanced to at least make mention of it (and the controversy surrounding it); if we have a whole page of her academic work, why would it be unbalanced to make mention of the controversy and of course her response to it? Alssa1 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Don't put things into quotes that are not in fact quotes. I said that you 'continue to misrepresent her' meaning that your previous talk page comment continues to make the same misrepresentation that others have made. Since people have repeatedly explained to you, above, why your repeated addition of the tweet "controversy" gets repeatedly removed, I would rather spend my own volunteer hours working on Wikipedia articles.HouseOfChange (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The "Scottish" section now contains a fair sampling of her public comments, criticism of them, and the Scottish government pointing out that she does not speak for them. Wikipedia tries to treat notable controversies in a balanced way. The tiny tweet "controversy" takes much longer to explain than it is worth to the article, IMO. The material now there makes it clear that DS feels free to express political as well as scientific opinions, and that some of her statements have been controversial. Reference 24 (David Bol piece), now in the article, describes the whole tweet controversy and even references it in the article headline. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on the above, it seems like mentioning the tweet in the article would be disproportionate to its significance. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"Not a real doctor"

I don't think I have ever seen a BLP that catalogs qualifications its subject does not have. "Steven Pinker does not have a PhD in English literature, therefore he is not qualified to write books." etc. Some blogger has decided that because Devi Sridhar is not a GP working for the NHS, she is therefore unqualified to give advice on public health. And in support of that, should we add some joking remarks by DS that she is not a "real doctor." Certainly not in the lead, but I don't see it falls to this biography or any other to explain to hypothetical idiots out there that having a degree in public health is a different expertise from knowing how to remove a wart or prescribe a month's worth of pills. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It is not our job to describe what Sridhar is not. She is an academic who has qualifications in public health, which qualifies her very well for the position that she has. I hope that it's not sexism or racism that motivates editors to rubbish her qualifications, but it very much seems that way. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Medical professionals are a closely regulated profession. It is unusual (and in someways an achievement) for someone to teach in a medical school without being qualified to practice as a doctor (where there is a professional hierarchy for doing so). It is highly relevant and in the public interest for people to know which medical commentators do or do not have medical licenses. She mentioned this was the case herself in an interview in the BMJ. The legal powers conferred by being a licensed doctors extend to advice, statement, liability and public information, etc - so it is not merely "expertise from knowing how to remove a wart or prescribe a month's worth of pills". The UK Chief Medical Officers, Oxford professors working on vaccines, treatments, medical evidence, etc all hold medical licenses. We are also in a global pandemic right now so this thing does matter. 2A01:4B00:84C7:9E00:D972:2639:7E7B:DF23 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

For Phil Bridger - can I just note that as a non-white female physician, there is certainly "not sexism or racism" that is directing my evidence - rather my own medical experience, research and training. 2A01:4B00:84C7:9E00:D972:2639:7E7B:DF23 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

So context is maintained, the comment under consideration can be found here:

Sridhar is not a medical doctor and does not appear on the General Medical Council regulatory list of medical practitioners, in an interview for the British Medical Journal she said that whilst she wasn't "a real doctor", "at least I ended up working in a medical school".

2A01:4B00:84C7:9E00:D972:2639:7E7B:DF23 (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad that this was not motivated by sexism or racism. Can you provide any reliable (not a blog written by some random person) secondary source that makes any issue of this? I'm rather surprised that a qualified medical practitioner would use such a junk source: I would certainly find it difficult to trust my health to you. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger - Harassment is unacceptable and there is absolutely no reason to engage in it. Could you please explain why the British Medical Journal is not an appropriate source?

It is an interview. Interviews are not regarded as independent. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Better citation clearly needs to be used - a way forward here would be to switch to using the following language in the education section:

In an interview for the British Medical Journal; Sridhar noted that she wasn't "a real doctor" (she does not hold a medical degree or appear on the General Medical Council's register to practice medicine), but joked "at least I ended up working in a medical school".

DrJoHeiter (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

DrJoHeiter, I note that you only started editing this evening after the latest edit by User:2A01:4B00:84C7:9E00:D972:2639:7E7B:DF23. Are you the same person or is it just coincidence that you alighted on this article? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't need "a way forward" to promote WP:SYNTH using joking comments about a D. Phil from Oxford not being "a real doctor." Until/unless respected RS (such as for example the BMJ) express concern about DS's credentials, we should not be inviting our readers to infer that the head of the Global Health program at Edinburgh is less qualified than your beloved local GP at NHS to speak to the public about coronavirus. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

While trying to assume good faith, the recently added (and then removed) text did not improve the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

As a point of clarification - what is typically needed is both a medical qualification and then academic and/or industrial experience. For example, Sarah Gilbert has both a medical license and vaccinology experience. Martin Landray and Peter Horby hold both medical licenses and treatment experiences. Carl Heneghan holds both a medical license and experience in Evidence-Based Medicine. There do seem to be many epidemiologists who lack medical licenses so don't have practical medical experience, but that is a separate regulatory question that regulators need to solve, and can't be solved in a Wikipedia Talk section of an article - which appears to be conflated here. DrJoHeiter (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Typically needed" for what? To teach at a medical school? To be invited to give expert opinions? To publish op-eds in the NYT? Where are the WP:RS describing "what is typically needed"? Or describing DS as unqualified for her post? Wikipedia does not express opinions about people's credentials unless we are quoting a consensus of published opinion, which in this case does not exist aside from one blogpost by a disgruntled antimask activist. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's be clear that either GMC database or that random blog as a source. Her profile on the GEG website doesn't say either that she not being a real doctor, doesn't say she does not hold a medical degree and doesn't say does not appear on the GMC register. (It doesn't list either a medical degree or that she is licenced to practice medicine, but that's a different point and anyone editing BLPs should understand that.) While I don't think any of us here doubts she does not hold a medical degree and doesn't appear on the GMC register, we still need sources to establish significance of such details. Nil Einne (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Recent changes

I will not read the morass above, but having looked at the Wikipedia article and the sources, the Wikipedia article does not sufficiently explain the political forays and counter-sallies. I think the way I had it was suitably worded, but Richard Nevell has reverted it. As it stands, the article is rather unbalanced, but I think a wipe of all the criticism and counter-criticism is not helpful. GPinkerton (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The article already includes substantive criticisms of DS. It is unnecessary to showcase additionally some trivial piling-on a deleted tweet, or somebody's offensive quip about a hairdryer. Per WP:BALASP "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Richard Nevell did just right. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with this characterization. It's not "trivial"; on the contrary, the spat involved the two most significant politicians at Holyrood. Wikipedia is not censored, so I'm not sure the relative "offensive"ness of the criticism is relevant. I don't even agree there is substantive criticism in the article at the moment. It simply refers to the criticism of others, without saying what that criticism is or what occasioned it, not does it elucidate the response of Sridhar. To delete a contentious tweet is itself a statement, as is the clarification posted. If some "piling-on a deleted tweet" is "trivial", then it wouldn't involve heads of government, political party leaders, or get reported in reliable sources. At present the entire controversy gets no mention at all, still less a basic summary. GPinkerton (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are some sources, beisde the two articles in The Herald which I cited before:

• 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)
• 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.
• "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)
• 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'm fairly sure this volume and breadth of coverage, over a sustained period, is worth rewriting the relevant section to include. It would be odd to omit it, and it's not true to say that this is merely a Twitter pile-on. It's clearly a long-running political dispute, and this article needs to do that reality justice. GPinkerton (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many articles on controversial figures. Yet we do not re-write them all to include sustained coverage of every colorful attack on them that had zero impact on their career. The policy reason is WP:BALASP. The "stream of infection" controversy is in the article. As for Ruth Davidson's hairdryer comment, trying and failing to make hay from a trumped up "disagreement" between Sturgeon and DS, there just isn't enough there there to be relevant to DS's biography. Davidson got extensive criticism for her remark and yet that "controversy" isn't in the Davidson bio.

The article clearly states DS has been criticized for political comments "such as" the Trump-Johnson controversy, supporting that statement with a reference to the David Bol article that describes in detail DS's deleted tweet. The deleted tweet is an example of a political comment "such as" other expressions of an anti-conservative bent. It takes more space to explain the context of that tweet than it is worth to the bio. We make that information available to readers who want to read the article cited as reference. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: It does not clearly state. It does not say what those comments are, does not state that she retracted them, and misleadingly suggests Sridhar is criticized for because of the party affiliations of her various critics, rather than because of what she said being contentious and insulting. How can you claim it "had zero impact on their career". I disagree. Much of the reason this person is notable at all is the political controversy she has engendered with her comments. If the controversy is not mentioned in the articles of Sturgeon and Davidson, that will be for one of two reasons: 1.) It has not been added in yet, or 2.) that both politicians have had long careers of attacking and insulting each other and others, that's the nature of their profession, and consequently this controversy is only a small part of their careers. But in the case of Sridhar, who started it and occasioned both criticism and support, the political controversies she's waded into are among the most significant and noteworthy things she has done. This is why the sources' coverage of her deals almost exclusively with this controversy. Keeping it out of the article altogether is plain wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The article quotes two of her most controversial statements in full and links to the Twitter controversy as well. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes important information about a topic. It is not a public hoarding where critics of public figures are entitled to post at length all the past attacks that failed to draw blood from their prey. You have expressed your opinion that the Twitter controversy and the hairdryer comment were both so notable they should be in the article. If consensus agrees with you, those two incidents will go into the article. Per WP:ONUS, the person proposing a change needs to get consensus if others object to the change -- and in this case, both Richard Nevell and I felt that adding those two petty controversies to more substantive ones already in the article would be a violation of WP:BALASP. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, the current phrasing is even worse than before. Now the whole issue goes unmentioned. The article mentions neither Sturgeon nor Davidson, and inserts an unwelcome POV that her comments were criticized because of the affiliation of her critics, not because of what she said, and then retracted. This needs to opened to wider comment. GPinkerton (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the following text:

Sridhar praised the resulting Scottish government strategy to deal with the pandemic, a strategy whose goals are 1) "to reduce exposure" and 2) "to keep daily new cases as low as possible." In June 2020, Sridhar appeared to be at odds with the policy position of First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon on the upcoming beginning of the school term and the question of whether schools might reopen as normal. Sridhar later issued a clarification, saying that in fact, Sturgeon and she "were completely aligned". Ruth Davidson, leader of the largest of the Opposition Parties of the Scottish Parliament, criticised the apparent volte-face, writing on Twitter: "Guess someone got the hairdryer treatment over the phone...", though Sturgeon responded that this was "Untrue" and "utterly disgraceful to suggest". Sridhar also repeatedly contrasted the Scottish Government's response to the pandemic to the strategy used by the British Government in managing the COVID-19 pandemic in England: "Devi Sridhar, who runs the global health governance program at the University of Edinburgh, noted that the two countries took radically different approaches from the start: England's priority was to prevent its hospitals from being overrun, while Scotland's was to drive cases down to zero. If not for imported cases from the south, Dr. Sridhar said, Scotland could come close to that goal by the end of the summer."

Sridhar has received criticism for her political comments. Murdo Fraser and Donald Cameron, Scottish Conservative opposition members of Scottish Parliament, attacked Sridhar's statement on Twitter that "it is the tragedy of history that when a serious pandemic hit the world where leadership and good governance were required, Donald Trump was US President and Boris Johnson was UK Prime Minister." In response, Sridhar wrote on Twitter that "Scotland is now doing well in its response to Covid-19 which seems to anger anti-Scottish, pro-UK people ('unionists') who are now turning their attacks on me bc I serve on scientific advisory group to Scottish Govt". Sridhar later deleted the statement and apologised, saying the "Deleted tweet describing unionists as anti-Scottish was inaccurate. I misspoke and meant to say anti-Scottish independence, trying to make distinction for my international followers who don't understand what's happening today. Apologies for any offence caused". Fraser "welcomed" the apology but continued to criticise Sridhar, calling for a further apology because "it appears that she still stands by the political attack on the Prime Minister". Writing in The Daily Telegraph, former Scottish Labour Party MP Tom Harris wrote that Sridhar's remarks were "stupid and offensive". By early August, The National reported that Sridhar had blocked Fraser on Twitter, along with Alex Cole-Hamilton, a Scottish Liberal Democrat MSP.

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 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. According to Glasgow's The Herald newspaper: "The Scottish Government said Ms Sridhar was independent and did not speak on its behalf." Nicola Sturgeon said that Sridhar's comments were "not political" and a "perfectly legitimate public health point".

The volume of coverage from across the political spectrum is too much and the people involved too significant to write off as "trivial". This is a significant part of the subject's biography and nearly all of her involvement in public life. GPinkerton (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: Please comment before going any further towards POV. Omission of other parties' criticisms is highly unbalanced. GPinkerton (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The article already contains and quotes two controversial statements (that Trump and Bojo are idiots, and that Scotland's low COVID rates are at risk from a "stream of infections" from the UK England.) GPinkerton proposes to expand the article's treatment of those controversies and discuss at length criticisms of DS for two other matters: 1) an "apparent disagreement" with Sturgeon, which both DS and Sturgeon denied was a conflict between them, with the proposed text including Ruth Davidson's unsupported claim that Sturgeon had bullied DS into submission using a "hairdryer treatment" (whatever a hairdryer treatment is.) 2) A Tweet that DS made, in the wake of abuse for her Trump-Bojo comment, where she used "pro-British and anti-Scottish" "anti-Scottish, pro-UK people ('unionists')" when meaning " people who are anti-Scottish-independence."

Concerning the first of these ("hairdryer"), I see no reason Wikipedia should showcase Davidson's hyperbolic insult of both DS and Sturgeon, which was the only newsworthy feature of this non-event. Concerning the second, the problem is that the tweet controversy requires too much text to contextualize and explain, compared to its relevance to the DS biography -- and that's even if we agree to GPinkerton's omission of the abuse DS faced from Scottish unionists, which inspired her tweet. Currently, the article cites an article by David Bol that gives a long exposition of the Twitter conflict, so readers can find that information already.

Furthermore, I oppose the uncritical inclusion of claims that DS should refrain from political comments or apologize for criticizing the British PM. Devi Sridhar is a public health policy expert who serves on an advisory panel to the Scottish government. This advisory role in no way disqualifies her from having and expressing political opinions, and Wikipedia should not be a mouthpiece for those who claim that it does.

Summing up, Devi Sridhar is a public health expert with some controversial political opinions. I believe that the article already has a fair balance of both aspects. The unbalanced and extensive changes proposed above give WP:UNDUE weight to her political critics, violating both NPOV and BALASP. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: Wikipedia follows the sources as they are reported. It is not for you to decide what is hyperbolic and what is insulting. I think it is a violation of NPOV to present selectively Sridhar's comments, to omit her retraction of them altogether, to omit all mention of criticism of her from all the major opposition parties in Scotland, to omit all the instances in which the three the largest political parties' leaders all commented on Sridhar's actions. It is hypocrisy to first deny the relevance of the "Twitter pile-on" arguing it should not be included in the article, and then to cry foul when someone suggests focusing on the top-tier politicians and omitting the petty grievances of Sridhar and her online critics. Apart from that, the article detailing these claims is cited in the proposed text, so by your own logic that's incorporation enough. In short, Devi Sridhar is a public health expert whose political statements are the bulk of her coverage in reliable sources and to which the article should give due consideration. As it stands the article is a gross POV violation, and I question the neutrality of your comments here. GPinkerton (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Now let's hear what others think about your suggested changes, per WP:ONUS. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to also point out a number of glaring errors in your comments here which suggest you do not really understand the issue. 1.) Sridhar is an impartial government adviser. Working in such a role means that it emphatically does mean that while speaking in a public capacity she is bound by government impartiality rules, and is such is specifically not supposed to make political or constitutional pronouncements, so it is quite wrong to claim it advisory role in no way disqualifies her from having and expressing political opinions. 2.) You have claimed Sridhar said pro-British and anti-Scottish, whereas she in fact said "anti-Scottish, pro-UK people ('unionists')". This is not the same thing. 3.) You said Sridhar has said Scotland's low COVID rates are at risk from a "stream of infections" from the UK but this is not what Sridhar said and betrays a basic misunderstanding. Sridhar spoke in reference to cases from "England and Wales". Not "the UK", which would make no sense, since part of the UK is Scotland, and Sridhar is speaking of Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to England and Wales. This misunderstanding is manifest further up on this page when you claimed "Sridhar again faces criticism for stating that Scotland's relative success in containing Covid is threatened by a "stream of incoming infections" from Britain, which has the highest rate of coronavirus deaths in Europe, which again suggests you believe Scotland is somehow not Britain and that the highest rate of coronavirus deaths in Europe somehow does not include Scotland. I see you are now taking WP:OWNership of this page … GPinkerton (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to GPinkerton for noting some errors I made above, which I have corrected. WP:ANI is the place to complain about other editors. Article talk pages are intended for discussing improvements to the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Thank you for raising the issue on the talk page, and apologies for not chipping in here sooner –the weekend was rather busy. My concern is to do with the overall balance of the article and there are some issues that need to be addressed.

• Much of the reason this person is notable at all is the political controversy she has engendered with her comments: This characterisation of the situation is quite inaccurate and is an important point in how the article is framed, and the extent to which particular topics should be covered. Prof. Sridhar has become an especially prominent figure in 2020 due to her field of work; anything related to Covid-19 is headline news. However, Prof. Sridhar's notability in Wikipedia terms (as opposed to being well-known) goes beyond this. She holds a named chair (criterion #5 of WP:NACADEMIC) as well as having significant coverage of her work, such as the BMJ profile from 2017 or reviews of her books. Any article about her needs to be balanced in terms of what is covered, guarding against recentism and avoid straying into WP:NOTNEWS.
• the political controversies she's waded into are among the most significant and noteworthy things she has done: I think this conflates something being newsworthy with being significant. Prof. Sridhar's career as a researcher extends back to at least 2006 (her PhD should be included in that, but I'm not sure when that started). In that time she has written two books and more than 100 papers. A social media "spat", as you described it, the impact of which seems somewhat unclear and lasted a short time does not seem especially significant or noteworthy.

Should the article address controversy? Yes, but there is a question about how this should be done and it's not easy to come to a solution. Recounting each back and forth of a Twitter disagreement is not good practice, especially since Wikipedia articles are meant to use a summary style. That level of detail may be appropriate for someone who is notable for their social media activity, but that is not the case here. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Scottish tail wagging the international dog

It is understandable that local Scottish media have published a lot about DS's membership on the Scottish COVID advisory committee as well as a number of social media kerfluffles about her political statements.

But the bigger picture is that DS is an international expert on COVID 19, who (in addition to writing papers about COVID research for BMJ and Lancet, and op-eds in The Guardian and the New York Times) also voluntarily serves on two expert advisory panels.

The more important of these committees is the Royal Society's DELVE (Data Evaluation and Learning for Viral Epidemics), whose membership includes Nobel laureates Venki Ramakrishnan and Daniel Kahneman. In addition to advising the UK's SAGE team, this group published data-driven research on COVID, e.g this data-based guidance in The Lancet, whose results were summed up in The Guardian by DS as 1) Test, trace, and isolate 2) Give public health guidance on avoiding the virus and 3) Control borders to prevent reimportation.

When the Scottish government convened its own COVID advisory group in March 2020, DS agreed in April to serve as one of its members. She is also (since June) a member of its subgroup on Education and Children’s Issues.

It is a mistake for this bio to treat DS's international participation in the COVID 19 response as a subtopic of her membership in a Scottish government advisory committee. We would also serve our readers better also if the article included more of DS's public statements on the best way for governments to address COVID.HouseOfChange (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Starting with the structure, I think the section currently titled 'Scottish Government COVID-19 Advisory Group' should be given a broader title (something along the lines of 'Covid-19 research and response'?) and the content checked with this in mind. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: I made a beginning along the lines proposed, but since now a pile of edits are waiting approval, I think I will wait before trying to make more changes, for example remarks to UNICEF about children and COVID. Apparently part of the controversy problem is that the Scottish independence movement (which was voted down a few years ago) has gained a lot of energy because of Scotland's COVID success when compared to England's approach. DS's comments praising the Scottish approach and criticizing England therefore are politically unpleasant to Scottish unionists. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

That of course is only true if you ignore all the other criticism from all other quarters, as HouseOfChange is apparently determined to do. What in fact occasioned the criticism of her is her abusive language, as the cited sources all relate. GPinkerton (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• DeviSridhar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

How is this a "controversy" that belongs in the biography of Devi Sridhar

In June 2020 (but talking about possible school re-openings in August 2020), Sridhar tweeted:

if Covid-19 numbers can be brought low enough in Scotland by 11 August (under 20 confirmed cases) & with appropriate 'test and protect' policies, my personal view is that schools should re-open as normally as possible (kids back full-time & able to play/interact together).

Then, according to Scotland's The National:

Journalist Peter Macmahon retweeted Sridhar’s thread with the angle that she, like former FM Jack McConnell, is one of the voices calling for Nicola Sturgeon to do more to get pupils back in schools on a full-time basis. Sridhar rejected the theory – saying she and the SNP leader are 'completely aligned', adding she supports her 'cautious approach' to easing lockdown

Neither of those two news stories just cited are about this trivial twitter back and forth -- which serves only as background to something that did very briefly get a bit of news coverage, a tweet by Ruth Davidson, leader of the largest of the Opposition Parties of the Scottish Parliament, that characterised DS's support of NS as a cowardly response to chastisement: "Guess someone got the hairdryer treatment over the phone...", (which Sturgeon characterized as "Untrue" and "utterly disgraceful to suggest".

In fact, all four of news stories suggested as sources by GPinkerton are written about the pushback against Davidson's insult, their titles being "Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson in Twitter spat over Scottish Government adviser," "Nicola Sturgeon slams Ruth Davidson's 'disgraceful' claim about virus expert," "Virus expert Devi Sridhar hits back at Ruth Davidson after 'disgraceful' tweet," and "SNP call for Ruth Davidson to explain why she attacked virus expert." This foolish and failed attempt by Ruth Davidson to score points against her political rival has only the most distant and diaphanous connection to anything said or done by Devi Sridhar. It does not deserve to be enshrined in this article, IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Editors should be aware that The National is explicitly pro-SNP and is to be used only per WP:BIASED. It is more than obvious why we should not, as appears to be the case here, follow its line too charitably. The fact that the controversy was reported by leading newspapers in Scotland (i.e. the more creditable WP:RS like The Herald and The Scotsman) and elsewhere (like The Telegraph and The Times). Unlike The National, it would be wise for the article here to adopt a neutral tone and include WP:DUE reporting of the controversy she occasioned with her claims in The New York Times and the notable and similarly WP:DUE criticism that controversy consisted of, as reported by the reliable sources and including the significant comments of politicians from all the major political parties involved, including party leaders and the head of the Scottish Government, all of which HouseOfChange has removed, apparently with the presumption that the SNP's denials in the SNP's own paper should be equated with fact in an encyclopaedia. GPinkerton (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

One controversy at a time, please. This section is explicitly about one single "controversy" from June 2020, related to Scottish school openings planned for August. @GPinkerton: the four references I cited are exactly the four references you cited for your own proposed treatment of the matter. If you know other sources that are more about Devi Sridhar and less about Scottish political point-scoring, please let us know. Those I have seen are all pure Scottish politics: "Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson in furious row after claims top advisor given ‘hairdryer treatment’ over schools" (Scottish Sun) "Coronavirus in Scotland: Ruth Davidson criticised after Devi Sridhar 'hairdryer treatment' jibe" (The Times "Nicola Sturgeon clashes with Ruth Davidson in spat over school reopening plan" (Glasgow Times) None of these sources claims that DS did anything controversial or abusive by stating schools could reopen if cases became very low and stringent testing was in place. The Scottish Sun also quotes quite a relevant response from NS to DS's tweet:

Then, this morning, at 7.43am, Nicola Sturgeon quoted Ms Sridhar’s tweet and said: '1/ Right now (like other UK nations), we must plan for a school model based on physical distancing. But as @devisridhar says, *if* we can suppress virus sufficiently & have other measures in place, nearer normality may be possible. It’s why we must stick with plan to suppress. 2/ We’ll be guided by evidence & won’t compromise safety (we still don’t know everything about this virus). And we’ll work with parents, young people & teachers to build confidence. All countries grappling with these tough issues - @scotgov determined to do right for children.'

I agree with GPinkerton that Sridhar's comment about Boris Johnson and her recent NYT op-ed were controversial and belong in the article. And in fact, those two notable controversies are already in the article. I have not been persuaded that the "anti-Scottish" tweet, which was deleted and called a mistake, deserves the length of explanation it would take to give it context in the article. But in this section, let us just talk about one thing at a time, that one thing being whether the "hairdryer" incident belongs in the Wikipedia bio of Devi Sridhar. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course it does. High level politicians have questioned Sridhar's high level advice to politicians. It would be bizarre to exclude it and would present an unbalanced treatment of the subject. GPinkerton (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"High level politicians" throwing mud in random directions have no relevance to an encyclopedia article that summarizes the most important facts about an international scientist. Sridhar's tweet in June about something that might happen in August if several conditions were met became the pretext for an attack on Scottish government school policy. I am surprised GPinkerton wants to see this in the article, because giving it enough context to make it meaningful would clearly show the despicable foolishness of this particular lightweight attack by unionists, who apparently feel that Devi Sridhar, a successful woman of color, is a very useful target to excite their base. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Also @HouseOfChange:, The Scottish Sun is famously not considered a valid source on Wikipedia, so it's brave to rely on its coverage to try to prove your point. See WP:THESUN. GPinkerton (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Since I used The Scottish Sun only as a source of direct quotes from NS, I don't think its unreliability should be a problem in this case. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No, HouseOfChange, deprecated sources are never to used to support statements of fact and may only be used with consensus in exceptional circumstances. Will you be citing the WP:DAILYMAIL next? Your bizarre assumption that things that happen in Devi Sridhar's life are not worthy of inclusion demonstrates a glaring bias in your approach to this subject. Your WP:IDHT attitude to the repeated facts is tiresome, and your partisan attitudes to politics shows you are in no position to WP:OWN this page, which you are trying very hard to do. Alas, Wikipedia is not here to promote political bias, and your POV pushing is becoming very tedious an explicit. GPinkerton (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Getting back to my "bizarre assumption that things that happen in Devi Sridhar's life are not worthy of inclusion" -- per WP:BALASP, I do assume that only important things that happen in Devi Sridhar's life belong in her Wikipedia bio. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

And how in your opinion is involvement in parliamentary democracy unimportant? GPinkerton (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree being insulted on Twitter (as a driveby side-effect of a one-tweet "bon mot" aimed at Nicola Sturgeon) is meaningful "involvement in parliaimentary democracy" by Devi Sridhar. DS is an American scientist, not a Scottish politician. Wikipedia has articles about Scottish partisan politics. This isn't one of them. Wikipedia has articles about Nicola Sturgeon and about Ruth Davidson. The "hairdryer" quip wasn't important enough to get into any of those articles. And it isn't important enough to the biography of Devi Sridhar to belong here. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to keep repeating the strawman argument that the controversy was about something other than Devi Sridhar and that it therefore belongs in some other article. You have already stated that you believe as such, but that belief is apparently rested on an aggrieved sympathy with Sridhar rather than a neutral assessment of the facts, which include that the controversy was covered by reliable media within and without Scotland, and in any case your belief does not equate to consensus and it is not right that you are imposing it on the article. GPinkerton (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of consensus, the "hairdryer" stays out of the article: per WP:ONUS, consensus is required to add new material. Other relevant policies here include WP:UNDUE: "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." See also WP:BLPBALANCE: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all...Beware of ...biased, malicious or overly promotional content." An unsupported-by-fact accusation by the ex-leader of a small (and shrinking) political party may seem like a juicy opportunity to get the name of that politician coatracked into a Wikipedia article, but it's not relevant to a scientist's BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Where are you getting the idea that this is 1.) "an unsupported-by-fact accusation", 2.) determined by the electoral successes of what you wrongly call "a small and shrinking" party? The Scottish Conservatives, for good or ill, are the second largest party in Scotland's legislature and if the criticism of their members, and members of all other major parties in parliament, are somehow undue in your view, then you must be arguing for Wikipedia-by-SNP-press-release. Luckily, others do not share this view, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and your unique and not-supported-by-others-or-by-reliable-sources view of what is relevant is of little concern. GPinkerton (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No RS supports Davidson's claim that DS "got the hairdryer treatment over the phone." This discussion is about whether or not that unsupported-by-RS claim should be added to the bio of Devi Sridhar. It is not censorship to abide by WP:ONUS and by WP:NPOV. For a comparison, the bio Rafael Cruz does not include the name of Donald Trump or Trump's widely-reported (but unsupported by RS) claim that RC was involved in the Kennedy assassination. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

What on earth has that to do with it? Does some reliable source claim Jews were responsible for Germany's defeat in WWI? No. Do reliable sources sources say this was a major motivation for Adolf Hitler? Yes. Do we omit this kind of information simply because it's "not true". Certainly not. Do we go into detail about the weird conspiracy theories promoted by Joseph McCarthy, even though most of his victims never were "communists"? Of course. As for your Trump example, I don't agree that that's the correct way to handle to issue. That information should be included, though according to the talk page, it was omitted because of concerns over tabloid sourcing, not because there's some strange rule about omitting criticism of notable people if in the opinion of one editor it happens not to be true, concerns not relevant in this case, in which the story had been covered from numerous angles in multiple media, including the best RS in the country. No-one is suggesting Wikipedia should repeat Davidson's remark in the encyclopaedia's voice, without attribution, as you appear to suggest, so the issue you're promoting does not arise and the argument you're making does not apply. GPinkerton (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

While I am glad we are agreed that including Davidson's comments in the encyclopaedia's voice would be in appropriate, I think we can go further and say that including them even as a quote and fully attributed adds next to no encyclopaedic value. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No, we cannot, as that would fly in the face of emerging consensus in the RfC. Neither should we, as that would grossly violate NPOV. GPinkerton (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

That is regrettable and mischaracterising the situation. The extent of the Davidson content you suggested above was Ruth Davidson, leader of the largest of the Opposition Parties of the Scottish Parliament, criticised the apparent volte-face, writing on Twitter: "Guess someone got the hairdryer treatment over the phone...", though Sturgeon responded that this was "Untrue" and "utterly disgraceful to suggest"} Not only does this overly detailed account not fit with Wikipedia's summary style, it is almost completely devoid of substance. Davidson speculated that Sturgeon had told Sridhar off for her comments on Twitter, which they both denied. It's the kind of thing that may fill the pages of the news, but does little to inform readers of an encyclopaedia. Asserting that NPOV demands we include speculation badly misunderstands the purpose of the policy and its application. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

There's no speculation involved. These events happened, are notable, are important to the biography, and involved Devi Sridhar. GPinkerton (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we're reading different bits? Davidson said "Guess someone got the hairdryer treatment over the phone" (emphasis mine). What about that is not speculation? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that it was said at all is not speculation, as did the reaction to it from various quarters and the reporting of it in numerous media. GPinkerton (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the quote. Davidson speculated about a conversation she was not involved with and was rebutted by the two people involved. The fact that Davidson speculated like that is not worth including in the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I have not. The fact that Davidson speculated on its own is not at issue. The fact that both other parties involved then felt the need to bestir themselves into denial shows that it was sufficiently important not to omit mention of, as I have been arguing here. Not to mention that it was considered important enough to have a number of editorials written in papers outwith Scotland. GPinkerton (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

While I can see your line of reasoning, I am afraid including it would place far too much weight on an incident which boils down to a politician speculating about something she had no inside knowledge about and then a routine denial. Please consider how this would reconcile with WP:SUMMARY and WP:NOTNEWS. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Put your fears to rest. GPinkerton (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Richard Nevell for your civil and policy-based explanations. Just reviewing policies that have been cited explaining why the "hairdryer" comment does not belong in the article: WP:SUMMARY,WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BALASP. Also, what does not seem to get through at all to GPinkerton is WP:ONUS. The burden is on the person who wants to add new material to get consensus from others -- and in order to get consensus, you will find that policy-based arguments are better than accusing other editors of dishonesty, bias, and censoring Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

References