Talk:John Ioannidis

John Ioannidis Page

Hi Hob Gadling, I have been adding some fact based information on John Ioannidis's page and you have been removing them as personal opinion. Can you please let me know which of the text below is personal opinion and what amendments can be made to add this important info on his page?

"It was subsequently confirmed that Ioannidis was the target of smearing and it was independently verified from Washington Post that he had no conflict of interest and did not receive any funds personally". Reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/12/16/john-ioannidis-coronavirus-lockdowns-fox-news/"

"The Santa Clara study was eventually published in the top scientific journal in Epidemiology" Reference: https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyab010/6146069

"Moreover, Ioannidis’s studies on COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate and the ineffectiveness of the most restrictive shutdown measures in relation to more targeted restrictive measures, have been published at the top scientific journals and have altmetric scores rendering them at the top 20 publications of all times among more than 117 million publications included in dimensions.ai" References: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13484 and https://dimensions.altmetric.com/details/97143657#score --PantelisPatra (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I moved that here from my own User Talk page.

User Talk pages are not for discussing article content. That is, unsurprisingly, what article Talk pages are for. Like this one.

Mentioning that some journal is "the top scientific journal" is non-encyclopedic bragging, and "Ioannidis was the target of smearing" can never be written here as a fact based on a single source claiming it is. Both are not "important info" but pure pro-Ioannidis WP:POV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I repeat: "Ioannidis was the target of smearing" can never be written here as a fact based on a single source claiming it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

But it can certainly be attributed to that source. Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

It could, except for the fact the Washington Post never said it. FDW777 (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it didn't say exactly that. So let's quote what the WaPo did say. Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling - Right now there is another single source in a notable position (lead intro) based on a single person's (David Freedman's) claim that he could read the faces of medical students accurately enough to deduce that Ioannidis' study supported conspiracy theories. Furthmore the face reading claim has magically transmorphed into a claim that Ioannidis himself promoted conspiracies (rather than his published study supporting some conspiracy theories).

I wonder if you called out this issue as well given your apparent concerns about low credibility sources? 87.49.43.69 (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Huh? So you read only the first paragraph of the Freedman article, the casual intro, and draw weird conclusions from that? Don't be silly. --Hob Gadling (talk)

'fringe' accusation

Unproductive comments from now-blocked IP

may i note that author is one of the most cited scientist in the history, his main field of research being meta studies and quality of research. a prejudiced opinion by some insignificant science writer should carry no weight when compared with hundreds of scientific citations proving that his publication is far from 'fringe'. in addition, such labeling could easily fall under WP:Libel. i urge wikipedia editors to control their impulse to discredit top scientists because they personally don't like his research and have found on the whole Internet one author who does agree with them and think citing such author justifies labels and libel. Top 20 scientists by citations: L S Vygotsky 581036 Ahmedin Jemal 563294 Geoffrey Hinton 546924 Yoshua Bengio 500486 Daniel Kahneman 473874 Ronald C Kessler 466308 Gregory Lip 463331 Bert Vogelstein 459791 Richard M Ryan 458699 Noam Chomsky 451044 Michael E Porter 447272 David Moher 446850 Michael Graetzel 419520 Herbert A Simon 417939 Salim Yusuf 417306 Robert Tibshirani 409804 Shizuo Akira 409348 John P A Ioannidis 405455 Philip Kotler 401116 Frank B Hu 400594 173.165.58.85 (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC) Anyone can have fringe opinions, even people who have lots of citations. Linus Pauling had a Nobel and believed that taking megadoses of Vitamin C could cure cancer. And your personal beliefs about Ioannidis's level of respectability are not a valid reason to remove properly sourced content. - MrOllie (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC) How about we put then this opinion about Fauchi "...The swindler-salesmen are Biden, Fauci, et al. The magical clothes are their deliberate “pandemic of fear,” and the duped emperor is the American public. ..." 173.165.58.85 (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC) Vitamin C and cancer: [1], [2] "... Additionally, a series of case reportsindicated that high-dose i.v. vitamin Cwas associated with long-term tumorregression in three patients with ad-vanced renal cell carcinoma, bladdercarcinoma, or B-cell lymphoma (19).Clinical plausibility has been repeatedlysuggested, and Chenet al.(1–3) nowhave convincingly demonstrated bio-logic plausibility and are poised to ex-plore the potential value of ‘‘pharmaco-logic ascorbate in cancer treatment’’ inhuma ... ". Seems you know next to nothing about Vitamin C and cancer and what is fringe and what not. 173.165.58.85 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC) You can find a couple of citations for all kinds of nonsense. Like Montagnier or Josephson's (two more Nobel winners!) belief in homeopathy. We're going to follow the preponderance of reliable sources. I'm just about done responding here, enjoy the inevitable block you will receive if you continue to act as you have been so far. MrOllie (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC) Oh, I see it happened while I was typing. MrOllie (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit war

User:Saintfevrier insists on their own version and thinks that justifies an edit war. I think it does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we may need to get page protection on the stable version of this page. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible primary research?

Wanted to mention that he further revised the infection fatality rate to 0.034% For anyone under 60 years old. The study is called "Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly informed from pre-vaccination national seroprevalence studies". It hasn't been peer reviewed yet. Patty J H (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories?

The lead states:

"Ioannidis was a prominent opponent of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, and he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories concerning COVID-19 policies and public health and safety measures."

I looked at the three sources: The BuzzFeed article does not use the word "conspiracy" at all. The Wired article uses the word once: "I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis." The author does not seem to accuse Ioannidis of promoting conspiracy theories. Instead, it appears to be a speculation about how he might be perceived by a group of medical students. The use of "may" marks the subjunctive mood, describing a hypothetical situation. The third source is an article by Ioannidis himself and does not mention any "conspiracy." Am I missing something or do the sources not support the claim of Ioannidis being "accused of promoting conspiracy theories"? 2A01:C22:8515:D800:BC65:5CFE:416A:E00 (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The sentence is well supported by the plain language of the sources cited. Your misreading of the sentence is not convincing. The lead also summarizes the article - so this is also additional supported by the text and citations found in the COVID 19 subsection. MrOllie (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

1. Okay, but is one source really enough to support a general note of this accusation in the lead section? From what I've seen, only the second source (The Wired) mentions conspiracy theories. Is a single article really enough to support such an accusation as a general introduction?

2. Could you briefly explain why my reading of the passage is not convincing? The sentence starts with "To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist...". By standards of scientific stature, Ioannidis is obviosuly not a fringe scientist (Stanford University professor with more than 500,000 citations). The article suggests that the author was aware that Ioannidis is not a fringe scientist. As I wrote, the author seems to describe a subjective perception of the students in question rather than making a factual claim about Ioannidis himself. Is this really enough to serve as the only source for the accusation of having promoted conspiracy theories? 2A01:C22:8549:5700:7424:D896:132:BE0 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

1. I have to reject the premise of this question - I do not agree that there is only one source here.

2. The Wired source is clearly accurately summarized by what we have written here, particularly if one reads the whole article and doesn't focus on trying to pick apart the use of a single word. This isn't an English lit class, we don't do close reading to try to guess at the author's hidden motives. MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I see you added another source. What seems a bit ironic is that this new source comes to the conclusion that Ionaddis did not promote conspiracy theories: "We show, however, that these two readings are equally supported under uncertainty and in particular that the second reading relates to the issue of how much transparency is needed to ensure the legitimacy of the values involved in decision-making." (Abstract) "However, we argued that though both of the above should be flagged, none of them renders a scientific dispute part of misinformation or disinformation. In science there is room for reasonable disagreement." (Conclusion) 2A01:C22:8549:5700:7424:D896:132:BE0 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

What the article actually says is he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories and it supports that perfectly well. Your cherry picked quotes are also a bit misleading. I would suggest any interested parties read the whole thing to see what the 'two readings' and the 'both of the above' actually are in context. MrOllie (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"Your cherry picked quotes are also a bit misleading." My initial concern was: Is the label "conspiracy theory" supported by the sources? The word "conspiracy" does not appear in the first source. It does not appear in the third source. It appears once in the second source in the questionable manner I described. I don't really see why this would constitute cherry picking when specifically looking for the sourcing of the label "conspiracy." The new source you provided mentions some accusations against Ioannidis and concludes that he is not guilty. However, the introduction here only mentions the accusation. The question is, why mention only one claim (someone accused him) and not the other (someone found he was not guilty)? The new source presents the accusations themselves in a critical light: "But, instead of focusing on the questions and arguments that Ioannidis posed, many took him to be the black sheep of scientific community." My criticism would be that the current sentence is one-sided - it mentions the accusation but does not mention the extent to which the controversy has been considered "a reasonable scientific disagreement," as the new source concludes. 2A01:C23:882E:8500:4164:E9E9:66B5:9307 (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie - just a bit of fact checking and concerns here:

1) it's not an scientific article - it is a blog post by a single writer.

2) Also, the claim itself is based on Freedman's personal reflection on how he interprets the faces of a group of medical students according to an anecdote (!).

https://www.wired.com/story/prophet-of-scientific-rigor-and-a-covid-contrarian/

"I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."

Is a single blogger's anecdotal interpretation of med student facial expressions a notable wikipedia source to you? Please explain why you think so.

3) The article claims that he was accused of promoted conspiracy theories. This is false. He was accused of making a sicnetific study that is now peer reviewed and published, that, according to a single blog poster's interpretation of some med student's facial expressions, was "supporting conspracy theories".

Making a scientific paper that is used by conspiracy theorists is not the same as promoting conspiracy theories yourself. If so, any downstream misuse of scientific papers becomes the scientists themselves promoting the misuse? This is not only false and defamatory, it is also deeply anti-science and very harmful, if generalized to all scientist articles on wikipedia given that very many studies have been misused by e.g. antivax or industrial interests.

I urge you to respond to this concern giving that you are defen bding these narratives.

4)

Please kindly see: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."

This is exactlky what is going on here. If not kindly explain why you don't think so.

If you disagree with these primary concerns suggesting improvement of the article, please be specific.

Thank you. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

By standards of scientific stature, Ioannidis is obviosuly not a fringe scientist Your logic is bad. Doing one thing right does not prevent you from doing something else wrong. Linus Pauling and Fred Hoyle are also both accomplished scientists but also promoters of fringe ideas. I could name several dozen other examples. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You think Linus Pauling, winner of the Nobel Prize in chemistry, is a "fringe scientist"? Have you considered the difference between expressing fringe views and being a "fringe scientist"? If you don't think it's correct to label Pauling a "fringe scientist," your post constitutes a straw man fallacy, as I never negated the view that Ioannidis or Pauling expressed fringe views, but only argued that the label "fringe scientist" does not apply. Maybe your logic is bad? 2A01:C23:882E:8500:4164:E9E9:66B5:9307 (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to questions like 'Does Vitamin C cure cancer?', Pauling is 100% a fringe scientist. MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Linus Pauling is not a fringe scientist, he received the Nobel prize and made some of the most important discoveries in science. To make a single claim that is a minority position may be called posing a fringe view, and evidence today suggests that his view on vitamin C is not scientifcally supported by systematic reviews- but to extend this to calling the professor in total a fringe scientist is a so-called extension fallacy that indicates bias and is inappropriate. This fallacy comes on top of the misleading statemt on conspiracy theories in the lead text, which is also concerning - together these edits and fallacies do not seem appropriate. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I can name multiple Nobels who believe in ESP and water memory. A Nobel is not some kind of guarantee that nothing that comes out of person's mouth in the future won't be utter nonsense. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie - With all respect, you forgot to consider the key point - the fact that you use extension fallacies to overgeneralize from a single minority view to making the person in his totality "fringe". This type of extension fallacy runs contrary to science and good faith editoring. Please see here:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Faulty_generalization

"A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon."

You (mis)use a single case of a minority view (scientists have hundreds of views) to claim that the professors (Pauling and Ioannidis) in their totaltity as such, are fringe scientists, in direct contrast to their accomplishments and scientific records. While we can agree that some of their views are controversial for sure, this wording is misleading and wrong, Wikipedia is not a place for fallacies espeically in biographies of living persons, where this becomes defamatory. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

More silliness, more bad logic. The fact that one can be a good scientist regarding one subject and a bad one regarding another is still true and will stay true, no matter how much you distort what people say. Please WP:FOCUS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are interested in facts, science, and good faith wikipedia engagement, please explain this distortion claim of yours that is entirely unsupported.

Again, the substance: If you as a scientist have 100 different views, and one of them is a minority (fringe) view, then the scientist as a whole is not a fringe scientist by any reasonable logical standard. Then very many scientists are fringe scientists and the term reduces to a derogatory form without scientific meaning - something we should always guard against in science given the many hidden interests and personal biases that exist.

Thus, Linus Pauling is not a fringe scientist, and Ioanniddis is not either, as their publication records also show.

Extension to the full person is a logical fallacy and in this case probably defamatory:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Faulty_generalization

Unless you can explain clearly where I distort something above, I kindly suggest you in good faith accept the position that "fringe scientist" is inappropriate extension fallacy of a potential defamatory nature.

Thank you. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This is bullshit. Pauling was an excellent physical chemist and a medical pseudoscientist. He is also completely irrelevant to this Talk page. He was used as an example to help you understand why Ioannidis is now off the rails, as confirmed by several experts who admired his earlier work. Since you still do not understand that and also talk about Pauling a lot, that example failed and you can forget it.

It does not matter anyway. We have enough good sources confirming Ioannidis' outsider status, and your faulty conclusions would be irrelevant even if they were correct conclusions because of WP:OR. Stop using this page as a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

your example on Linus Pauling is wrong - noone with any sane understanding of science would call him a pseudoscientist or fringe scientist. These are defamatory statements on a champion of science and harmful to the family of Pauling, based on your personal nonscientific opinion against a vast body of scientific literature suggesting otherwise. FYI you can also read wikipedia's own page about Pauling, it notes that New scientist ranked him one of the 20 most important scientists and mentions his medical views only as non mainstream (Not fringe or pseudoscience). You need to respect that sicnetists have hundreds of views, they cannot all be (and should not all be) mainstream.

Also, Ioannidis published hundreds of papers with hundreds of coauthors the last few years, directly debunking your claim that he is somehow "fringe" (however you define it)- the data show he remains central in the scientific record. There is direct evidence against your claim. A few enemies of his do not make scientific evidence, the plural of anecdotes (as the only source claiming an Ioannidis link to conspiracy theories) is misinformation. Scientific publication records on the other hand are systematic data.

In short, the article is in clear violation of wikipedia policies on

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Wikipedia states: "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."

A personal nonscientific opinion that Ioannidis is fringe (debunked by systematic publication records), and another misleading statement with defamatory content implying a link to conspiracy theories via David Freedman's personal reflections on reading med student facial expressions interpreting them as them thinking that Ioannidis' work supported conspiracy theories, is exceedingly poor source (mis)use -Thus violating wikipedia policy, especially because the statements are defamatory, and I would add, border on anti-scientist / anti-science sentiment.

I strongly suggest improving this article to protect the trust in wikipedia and leave it for others to decide -I have raised my concerns at this point and presented them for the record.

Thanks. 80.62.117.37 (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

noone with any sane understanding of science would call him a pseudoscientist or fringe scientist Again, bullshit. Again, not relevant for this talk page. I do not need to read the rest of your rant, it is probably worthless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, it's an extension fallacy, generalizing from one or a few views to a general characteristic of the person. Presumably almost all scientists have, among their many views, some views that are minority views or "fringe". Some have very many fringe views but most have only a few. Making a minority of views extending to make the scientists as a hole "fringe" is not only extension fallacy, it is also anti-scientist defamation, since it goes against the evidence in the publication record and contains the extension fallacy at the same time. Anti--scientist defamation is a grave form of anti-science that e.g. Peter HOtez has talked about - we usually see it with antivaxers but it exists ion many forms of vested interests and biases.

So the article's use of "fringe scientist" violates Wikipedia rules:

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

I am noting this only out of academic interest to see if the page is corrected after these concerns being brought forward. It is a good test of the quality control on wikipedia against vandalization, which I think is worthy of scientific study by itself (this being a notable case study), given wikipedia's prominence. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"Ioannidis was a prominent opponent of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, and he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories concerning COVID-19 policies and public health and safety measures.[5][6][7][8]"

I just saw this and it is hugely problematic. The claim about conspiracy theories is misleading, uses poor sources to the point that thgis is just the opinion of one single writer, and thus it is defamatory. The way it was constructed and added to the lead text is further aggravating and indicative of a bias entirely orthogonal to Wikipedia's mission of objectivity.

1) The sentence applies misleading citation practises: Upon inspection only 1 of the 4 references actually implies a link to conspiracy theories (!). Honest editors would put the references to the particularly grave claim on conspiracy theories separately, after these words. This choice of citation method fakes a stronger evidence for the defamatory statement than actually exists (1, not 4).

2) The claim uses poor sources and the claim itself has low credibility: The actual claim turns out upon inspection to be this single (not four) personal witness account: "I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis." Wow.

So this is a single claim by a single writer (David Freedman) and it is based on - let's see - his personal reflection not in his own head, which would still not a be notable source, but how he interprets (!) the faces of a group of medical students (!). Aside from being impressed by Freedman's ability to decude facial expressions at such precision and semantic detail, this is *not* appropriate sourcing.

3) Even the claim itself is misrepresented (actual misinformation). The wikipedia text introduced and defended by some accounts here states that Ioannidis was "accused of promoting conspiracy theories". Beyond low source confidence noted above, the actual statement in the source is "To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis." So the accusation is that he made a study that supported conspiracy theories (a study that is now peer reviewed and published in a leading epidemiology journal, which is - interestingly - omitted, also suggesting lack of objective balance) - not that he promoted conspiracy theories himself, which is entirely different. This is misinformation, and by the way it targets a notable living scientist, thus also defamatory.

4) Several of the accounts that defended these claims have now been deleted, suggesting a focused effort to mislead Wikipedia readers, which is disturbing. It will be important to explore this further including the accounts involved in this - personally I'd estimate this justifies banning given that defamation and misrepresentations are deeply toxic to Wikipedia's aims and credibility.

I think this case study of multiple violations of good editing conduct is notable enough to be considered in a review or newspaper article on misinformation and biases in Wikipedia pages. It is an important topic both for science and for democracy.

PS - Note that Prof Ioannidis has published hundreds of papers with hundreds of coautghors the last few years - claiming him to be fringe is directly disproven by his continued centrality in science publishing. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Repeating the same inaccurate claims won't get the article changed - the sources are reliable and are accurately summarized. As explained above, prior good work does not somehow mean a person's later work will never be fringe. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What is inaccurate about what I state above? Your claim on inaccurary is false, which is very concerning given yolu should know the substance of a topic you decided to edit.

Do you really want to deny that only one of the citations relate to a conspiracy claim and that this claim is based on a single person's interpretation of face expressions of medical students? When you have the exact source here:

https://www.wired.com/story/prophet-of-scientific-rigor-and-a-covid-contrarian/

Do you really argue that this source - a single person's interpretation of facial expressions according to an anecdote (!) is acceptable notable source according to Wikipedia guidelines? That is remarkable.

PS - In my view it is also defamatory because it relates to a living person. Not engaging with serious and factual concerns and claims of inaccuracy without examples is against the spirit of factual debate to resolve issues, so please be specific and help remedy the potentially defamatory misinformation asap - your reluctance to engage is fairly concerning.

As mentioned, this example and the talk page in its totality may be an important case study of defamation and misinformation by bad faith actors on wikipedia pages. Anti-scientist hate and hidden influencing by vested interests is a major threat to society, and Wikipedia's credibility could be threatened given how notable this person is. If you won't consider this, I expect others will. Thank you. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What is inaccurate? With all respect, I think your claim of inaccuracy is inaccurate. Substantial issues are raised oin an important topic of potential wikpedia defamation. Please be specific about your disagreement rather than making unsupported claims of "inaccuracy".

So again: The conspiracy claim is in a blog post by a single writer (David Freedman) - but the citation method makes readers think that there are four sources supporting this claim- why would anyone do that? This citation malpractice is easily fixed by moving the 3 other references to the first part of the sentence about lockdowns - it's a bit hard to understand why this more accurate citation method would not be endorsed by you? Please explain why you favor putting the three other citations after the conspiracy claim.

Also, the claim itself is based on a blog post by a single person, Freedman's personal reflection on how he interprets the faces of a group of medical students according to the anecdote (!).

https://www.wired.com/story/prophet-of-scientific-rigor-and-a-covid-contrarian/

"I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."

I assume everyone in here agrees that this use of source is in violation of wikipedia policies especially when potentially defamatory. Do you really endorse a single blogger's interpretation of face expressions in an anecdote as reliable source? Please explain why then, and kindly see:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

If you have arguments against these serious concerns, please let me know by being specific. Thank you. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I (and others) have been specific. I decline to repeat myself. I also decline to debate someone who is throwing around words like 'defamatory' - using legal language to try to stifle dissent is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Feel free to take the last word here if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit ironic? One could equally assume that you're using the phrase "conspiracy theory" to stifle Ioannidis' dissent. You did not choose "controversial claim," "disputed theory," or "speculation." You chose "conspiracy theory," a phrase generally charged with emotion, carrying highly negative connotations, and suggesting something incompatible with scientific principles. In political discourse, the term is frequently used polemically to discredit opposing viewpoints. Given that the phrase isn't even used in two of the linked sources, this editorial choice becomes even more apparent. 77.0.73.28 (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Just read what people wrote above. And take it seriously instead of dismissing it. Wikipedia has rules, such as WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NOTFORUM, and you are ignoring them. Also, read WP:IDHT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the posts. My criticism is this:

There are probably many valid sources that would support a claim like "Ioannidis' received significant criticism for his views on..." or something in this register. In contrast, who specifically accused him of "promoting conspiracy theories"? There's the Wired article [6] (with its indirect subjunctive framing). And [8] mentions that in 2020 Nassim Nicholas Taleb "indirectly" connected Ioannidis' views to conspiracy theories. That's all I see in the sources. The majority of articles critical of Ioannidis' views have not accused him of promoting conspiracy theories. The current Wiki phrasing is the result of having cherry-picked two sources in order to apply the damning label "conspiracy theory" on Ioannidis in the lead section. IMO this contradicts RSUW (representing "views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject") and NPOV ("representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views"). Another point is the lack of representation of sources defending Ioannidis against some of the criticism he received, such as [8], which concludes that he did not promote conspiracy theories. In both cases, the current version seems to contradict the policy of proportional representation. 2.241.26.194 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If by [8] you mean Antiochou, your statement which concludes that he did not promote conspiracy theories seems to be false. The conclusion, chapter 4.6, does not say it, and none of the four instances of the word "conspiracy" says it. If you disagree, quote the sentence you are talking about. If you can't, there is no point in listening to someone who fakes what sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems strange to instantly dismiss my entire ciriticism.

Quoting the conclusion:

"We used the recent Ioannidis-Taleb debate concerning the pandemic to achieve two things. First, to show how the quality and strength of argumentation is often clouded by the metaphorical use of language and the use of the rhetorical devices as well as logical fallacies. Second, to show how the substance of their argumentation involves reliance on various non-epistemic values and considerations. However, we argued that though both of the above should be flagged, none of them renders a scientific dispute part of misinformation or disinformation. In science there is room for reasonable disagreement."

In other words, Taleb had "indirectly" connected Ioannidis' view to conspiracy theories in response to argumentative strategies that the authors conclude to be a reasonable form of scientific dispute (cf. page 74).

See also:

"Ioannidis (2020) accuses—rightly—Taleb and social media of having misrepresented his positions."

And:

"But, instead of focusing on the questions and arguments that Ioannidis posed, many took him to be the black sheep of scientific community." 2.241.26.194 (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Even when disregarding this reading, my criticism stands:

"The majority of articles critical of Ioannidis' views have not accused him of promoting conspiracy theories. The current Wiki phrasing is the result of having cherry-picked two sources in order to apply the damning label "conspiracy theory" on Ioannidis in the lead section. IMO this contradicts RSUW (representing "views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject") and NPOV ("representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views")." 2.241.26.194 (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"The majority of articles do not say X" is not a valid reason to reject those that do. Your logic is bad. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Straw man. I have not advocated for rejection but for balanced representation. Cherry-picking minority claims to lead with the term "conspiracy theory" violates RSUW and NPOV. Can you explain how leading with the term "conspiracy theory" constitutes a view "in proportion to [its] representation among experts on the subject" (RSUW)? It's based on two sources. Meanwhile, the majority of sources critical of Ioannidis' views on COVID address his views without accusing him of promoting conspiracy theories. Thus, the current lead violates RSUW's and NPOV's policy of proportional representation. 2.241.26.194 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The article says, he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories. This is true if even one reliable sources says it. If other sources talking about JI do not mention that, that does not turn the fact that he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories into a "minority view". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

That conlusion is yours and yours alone. It is WP:OR. Antiochou et al. do not say it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how my reading is wrong? Funny, you didn't seem to have a problem when Freedman's "crazy right-wing conspiracy theory" (singular) was paraphrased as "conspiracy theories" (plural) in the lead. It was only after I questioned this in January that a second source [8] was added. This source additionally mentions only that Taleb "indirectly" connects Ioannidis' view to conspiracy theories. Again, a precise use of language would not equate this with the accusation of "promoting conspiracy theories". It seems your calls for close reading only apply in one direction. 2.241.26.194 (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Trying to summarize:

1. In January, the lead sentence in question, claiming that Ioannidis "has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories" referenced three sources, but only one of the sources actually used the phrase "conspiracy theory". A single source for the claim of having been "accused of promoting conspiracy theories" in the lead section of a living person, while two of the three citations do not support the claim? This seemed to be poorly sourced.

2. Additionally, the source ([6]) states "conspiracy theory" (singular), but the lead sentence changes the meaning to "conspiracy theories" (plural).

3. The source claims that Ioannidis published a study that "supported" a "conspiracy theory." The lead sentence claims that he was accused of "promoting" conspiracy theories. Again, these are two different claims: a study supporting a conspiracy theory is different from personally promoting conspiracy theories.

4. After I questioned the validity of the citations in January, another source was added ([8]). Apart from quoting source [6], the new source additionally claims that in a publication from 2020 Taleb "indirectly but clearly connects Ioannidis' view to conspiracy theories". Indirectly connecting Ioannidis' view to conspiracy theories does not equate "promoting conspiracy theories". Neither Freedman nor Taleb actually accuse Ioannidis of promoting conspiracy theories, according to these two sources. Additionally, the authors of [8] themselves seem to defend Ioannidis against Taleb's criticim. ("Ioannidis (2020) accuses—rightly—Taleb and social media of having misrepresented his positions.")

5. The COVID-19 section currently claims: "... future generations of scientists may remember him as 'the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis.'" But [6] states that the subject in question "are medical students at Columbia University," seen during a Zoom call. The paraphrase distorts the original meaning by expanding the subject from "medical students at Columbia University" to "future generations of scientists".

6. The question of proportionality: The majority of sources critical of Ioannidis' views on COVID seem to critique his views without accusing him of promoting conspiracy theories. A minority of sources critical of Ioannidis' views critique his views by linking them to a conspiracy theory/conspiracy theories (at least the two sources mentioned, [6] and [8]). Why put a minority view in the lead section (falsely paraphrased)? Placing a minority view in the lead section instead of representing the majority view does not seem to be "in proportion to [its] representation among experts on the subject" (RSUW) and thus seems to violate RSUW's and NPOV's policy of proportional representation.

IMO these editorial decisions appear to be biased against Ioannidis, in violation of NPOV and BLP. 95.112.162.70 (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Several have provided evidence on the talk page of violations of RSUW and NPOV, with potential defamatory consequences for a biography of a living person. But it is mworse than that: There is also use of poor source use on living persons (a single blog poster's anecdote), citation malpractice (combining references after conspiracy claim to make it look more supported) and even misinformation in the lead claim (the scinetist did not promote conspiracy theories and was not even accussd of doing it - this is the pure invention of a Wikipedia editor):

Even if Fredman's anecdotal interpretation of the med student faces was acceptable source (!), the lead text is misinformation. He was *not* himself accused of promoting conspiracy theories - he was accused of, according to facial interpretations of med students by one blogger (Freedman) - publish science that supported conspiracy theories. That's absolutely not the same. To promote conspiracy theories you need to actively spread a specific version of a conspiracy theory.

Science that is used to support crazy conspiracy theories is not equal to scientists themselves promoting conspiracy theories - the claim in the wikipæedia article is not just misinformation, it is potentially very harmful to science broadly.

Every reviewed paper can be misused by extremists on both sides first in a blog as "support" of conspiracy theory and then cited in another blog in response as the original authors's work supporting conspiracy theories. Such blogs are not notable sources for living persons. The extreme ends of any debate can then hijack in principle any biography on any living person with just 1-2 blog posts each.

Despite many clarifying this, HobGadling and MrOllie continue against the majority to defend the defamation attempt, without engaging the substance.

In my estimate we are looking at attempts at defaming a living scientist by a small group of accounts with a clear real-world personal bias against the scientist (evidence available in this talk page). The methods they used are evidence: citation malpractice, misrepresenting sources, use of minority views / false balance, and subjective claims to characterize a notable living scientist.

They are very devoted deflecting the substance of criticism by very many observers here with dismissive one-liners ("not reading your rant" "your logic is bad" etc.)

Regardless of the motives behind these actions, it's anti-science and against wikipedia's spirit and policies. The time that passes before the page is corrected is also essential here in terms of damage done to the offended, and the two accounts are doing a lot of work to delay that outcome.

PS - If of interest to anyone, the archived page is here for all the evidence of the conversation and how it was dismissed (for scientific and legal purposes:)

https://web.archive.org/web/20240716043726/https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:John_Ioannidis 80.62.117.69 (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how my reading is wrong? I don't need to. It is WP:OR, that is enough. Wikipedia editors do not draw conclusions from sources and write those conclusions in articles. You have no clue of how Wikipedia works, and you are grasping at straws. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)