Talk:Martin Kulldorff/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

March 2021

This article is not written in a neutral way. It gives the impression that is has been edited by those against Kulldorff's position, and then edited again by those defending Kulldorff. Somebody outside of the pandemic debates should have a look at it.

"The American Institute for Economic Research did not fund the Declaration, they only provided the location, camera equipment, and a camera person Pro bono." This comes suddenly, as a kind of polemic against those claiming such funding. Providing location, camera equipment, etc, seems to be some kind of economic support. Also if it is about Kulldorff, what is his relation to the institute? Why is it relevant with such sentence, if the institute did not fund Kulldorff?

"Some scientists have criticized the Declaration, saying its claims are implausible, including that herd immunity would occur in a timely enough fashion to be impactful, and that focused protection emphasizing primarily the most vulnerable populations would be insufficient." This is also not neutral. The argument by those criticizing the Declaration is not primarily that protection of vulnerable population is insuffucient, but rather that such protection is not possible given a wider spread of the virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.20.168 (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it looks reasonable now. It is important to emphasise that he is not anti-vaxx, and I added a quote to underline that, but he is against consensus on many strategies adopted by major health authorities during the pandemic, such as lock-downs, masks, and so forth. It would be nice to have a bit more on his non-covid career as he seems like a pretty eminent academic in his field. 46.7.85.200 (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, we need more information on the rest of his career. We also need more independent sources for some information already in the article per WP:PSTS. Llll5032 (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

SaTScan

I would like to remove the template "non-primary source needed" from the statement "These methods include spatial and space-time scan statistics..."

The citation of cancer.gov is a non-primary source that supports the statement.

Are there any objections to the removal of the template?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. We should keep this tag. A secondary source (for example, a journal or a book) should be cited to evaluate his contributions to statistics per WP:RELIABLE and WP:BLPSTYLE. Llll5032 (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. I was about to delete this request when I saw your reply. I had an incorrect understanding of what a primary source was and why secondary sources are preferred. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael. This makes me think we may be able to come to agreement about some of the other questions. Llll5032 (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Science-based Medicine as a source

I would like to remove the link to sciencebasedmedicine.org as it does not conform with WP:MEDRS which states:

"Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields [emphasis added] and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies."

1. It is a self-proclaimed blog and according to WP:MEDRS: "Press releases, newsletters, advocacy and self-help publications, blogs and other websites, and other sources contain a wide range of biomedical information ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a high percentage being of low quality."

2. David Gorski, as an oncologist specializing in breast cancer surgery, is not an expert in the relevant fields of virology or epidemiology.

The consensus of this archived conversation about sciencebasedmedicine.org states:

"Some editors note that submissions from both staff writers and contributors are subject to fact-checking. For avoidance of doubt, this does not imply that Science-Based Medicine is a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS."

This archived conversation (without consensus), also about sciencebasedmedicine.org states:

"Dr. Gorski, for example, might be a reliable source when it comes to surgical oncology, but if he writes a blog post about ghosts and ESP, citing him would be in error."

Are there any objections to the removal of that link?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Because the RfC concluded with "strong consensus" that it is generally reliable and "consensus" that it is not self-published, that suggests it is probably usable. The RfC concluded it was fact-checked although not peer-reviewed. The article is opinionated, though. Do you want to consult the RSN, or the editor who closed the RfC, to ask for an opinion about if the source is appropriate for this article? Llll5032 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I have reached out to Newslinger on his talk page. However, he hasn't made a contribution since May of last year. We may need to take this one elsewhere for help as well. Let's see. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Very valuable source for woo of all kinds, necessary in many contexts for WP:PARITY. This has been discussed multiple times before. Alexbrn (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Kulldorff's contributions to VSD (resolved)

Resolved

 – Replaced "is responsible for..." with "has helped develop..." Michael.C.Wright (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added additional citations to the statement regarding his contributions to VSD and also included a footquote from the paper he co-authored. The quote clearly indicates the methods documented in the paper were incorporated into VSD.

I would therefore like to remove the template "verification needed" from that statement as all sources are verifiable and the statement adds important context to the article (that Kulldorff is an expert in vaccine safety statistics and has contributed to important programs within the CDC).

Are there any objections to the removal of the template?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The article wording says "Kulldorff is responsible for developing and implementing", suggesting that he is more responsible than anyone else for this. Can you quote a primary or secondary source saying this outright? Llll5032 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

If no source is available to say this, "worked on" or "helped develop" would be acceptable. Llll5032 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Changes made. Are there any more objections to removing the template? Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I made some edits and removed the tag. I'd welcome future advice from editors on the Wikipedia science and academia project about this sourcing. Llll5032 (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to remind you that per the warning regarding edit-waring: "You may be blocked if you revert again at Martin Kulldorff without first getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page."

Per WP:3RR: "The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually."

I respectfully request that you seek consensus before reverting any further changes made by me. Thank you.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove personal information? (resolved)

Resolved

 – Removed the link to Kulldorff's CV. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY states "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses [emphasis added]."

In the External Links section is a link to his CV that is published by the FDA. The CV includes his office address and should therefore not be used in his biography page.

Are there any objections to the removal of that link?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you about removing the link. Llll5032 (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sound Science (resolved)

Resolved

I would like to remove the statement "such a policy lacked a sound scientific basis" as neither source supports that assertion.

I have added the template "better source needed."

Are there any objections to the removal of the statement?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The Wall Street Journal article supports this language ("A group of scientists is pushing back on renewed calls for a herd-immunity approach to Covid-19, calling the method of managing viral outbreaks dangerous and unsupported by scientific evidence."), and so does the PRX article and several other sources. I think the statement should stay and the tag should be removed. It may be clearer if all the citations are moved to the end of the sentence. Llll5032 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg articles are all three behind a paywall. Without a subscription, casual readers can not verify their content so editors should make it as easy as possible to find supporting evidence for contentious claims. Editors of BLP have a responsibility "to get it right."

Per WP:BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

Please provide a quote from PRX that supports the statement "such a policy lacked a sound scientific basis".

Also, please arrange the citations as close as possible to the statement they are supporting and include footquotes to clarify how the article supports the claim.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I am adding quote fields within the refs regarding these questions. Do you see any other claims to be referenced more clearly? Llll5032 (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel this has been adequately resolved. Is there any objection to me marking it "resolved?" Michael.C.Wright (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No objections, thanks. Llll5032 (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

While switching a citation to a better source, I moved it to interrupt the sentence less per WP:CITEFOOT: "[i]t is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." Any objection? Llll5032 (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Salon as a source (resolved)

Resolved

 – Removed both instances of Salon as a source Michael.C.Wright (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to remove both uses of Salon as a source, per WP:RSP and WP:BLP.

From WP:BLP "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."

Are there any objections to the removal of Salon as a source?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree about removing the citation to Salon. Llll5032 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Kulldorff is highly published (resolved)

Resolved

I have added secondary citations to the statement "Kulldorff has published or co-authored research on subjects..." Both sources are secondary:

Research gate generates published papers automatically: https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Authorship

Catalyst builds profiles automatically: https://connects.catalyst.harvard.edu/Profiles/about/default.aspx?type=About

Both are verifiable and reputable.

I would like to remove the template "non-primary source needed".

Are there any objections to the removal of the template?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard did not endorse ResearchGate as a cited source on its own. I think the content can stay because it is true, but a secondary source should confirm its notability and weight per WP:MEDPRI. Llll5032 (talk)

Harvard Catalyst is also cited as another secondary source. As mentioned above, data in catalyst is not generated by the content subject (Kulldorff in this case).

Are there any more objections to the removal of the template?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree to removing the template, because a list isn't generally a secondary reliable source. The rules are at WP:SECONDARY. Llll5032 (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Catalyst is not merely a list and "generally" does not mean all lists are universally "not secondary."

Are there any more objections to the removal of the template or should we move to mediated dispute resolution?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You could start a RfC or seek a third opinion if you feel strongly. Llll5032 (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I have requested mediation. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed the tag, based on the third opinion we received. Llll5032 (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Content reached by consensus removed

Drmies, the removal you made here was of content that had already achieved consensus in the discussion above, which included mediation. Can you please revert your edit and restore the statement? Thank you. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No. User:Michael.C.Wright, please consider that we use secondary sources here, lest we write up people's resumes. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I ask that you refer to the mediated discussion linked to above, namely this statement by the volunteer, Robert McClenon:

"In my opinion, the secondary-source tag can be removed. The statement that is tagged says that he has published or co-authored research on certain subjects. A statement that he has published research on a subject is essentially a secondary statement about the existence of the research. It doesn't make any statement as to the content of the research."

And also my statement here: "I could provide additional sources indicating a high number of works published and a high number of citations of that work. However, they will all be similar, verifiable sources that are primary, lists, or violate BLP's restriction on personal information. For example, Kulldorff's CV is publicly available and published by the FDA. It clearly indicates he is highly published (201 published works), with a long list of funded projects, presentations, etc. Because the article is BLP, Kulldorff's publicly available CV is "off limits" because it contains his office address."

The statement is being used to balance the POV that his ideas about the pandemic are WP:FRINGE (which is not in dispute) but also well informed, hence the statement regarding publications.

Also note the precedent set in Fauci's BLP. The statement "Fauci was the 13th most-cited scientist among the 2.5 to 3.0 million authors in all disciplines throughout the world who published articles in scientific journals." is supported solely by a primary source and remains uncontested.

I ask again for you to revert the edit, as there was already a lengthy discussion here as well as an established, mediated consensus for the version you removed.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a high regard for Robert McClenon and their work in dispute resolution. I usually agree with them, doing a job for which they will never be rewarded or praised enough. Here, I disagree. Is it really so hard to find a proper secondary source that says something about the man's work? So that we don't have the kind of link that we would put in a tenure and promotion file?

I don't understand the point of your Fauci comparison, but I'll entertain it--first of all, so what? His article is not a Featured, or even Good, Article, so the comparison is pretty useless. That it hasn't been challenged, meh. Second, the Fauci claim is NOT sourced to a frigging Google Search or to his own page on a social network (which is what ResearchGate is); rather it is sourced to his employer's website, where we can safely assume that there is some professional oversight, even though it's not a peer-reviewed publication or whatever. In other words, apples and pears.

Really, if you want to throw Fauci in the mix, rather than make the comparison (which is fatally flawed), you might as well just drop this for the moment and improve the Fauci article. You could use this, and that would actually help you with a rationale for whatever selection was made in Anthony_Fauci#Selected_works_and_publications. If I digress, well, I'm just following your suggestion. So, no. I do not agree. I also think it's time for you to indicate precisely what interest you have here--please see WP:DISCLOSE. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Points well-taken.

Since I was the original editor of that comment and it was contested, I assume leaving it off the article is the consensus and I am marking this dispute as resolved.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

POV language at top (resolved)

Resolved

 – Resolved by recent edit

I tagged non-neutral language added recently to the top. "Respected" is considered MOS:PUFFERY and is not DUE for a first sentence. Achievements may be mentioned in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, but puffery is a violation of NPOV, especially when some secondary sources describe the subject as controversial. Also, descriptive copy for an interview video with the subject may be used in the article, but it should not be interpreted unduly at the top per MOS:LEADREL. Llll5032 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you on the use of puffery. I will remove the word and your administrative template attached to it. The removal of your template is not a case of edit warring, as leaving the template after removing the puffery would leave an awkward, misplaced template and reduce readability.

The statement "He has a long history of work in epidemiology and developing new epidemiological methods" speaks directly to the controversy at hand that has made Kulldorff notable enough for a BLP. It is also primarily what he is known for outside of the controversy that has overshadowed the rest of his work.

If he had not had a long history of relevant work, his controversial statements would not be as controversial.

Maybe that statement would be better, placed later in the article, in the career section, for example, instead of in the lead.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The language should be factual and specific. If we say he has a long history of this work, how long and what work? The source is usable to answer these questions. Llll5032 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I have moved the statement to the career section of the article. I would now like to remove the admin template "undue weight?."

Are there any objections to the removal of the template?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed the tag but added a tag for making the sentence less WP:FLOWERY. Llll5032 (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Claims of what Kulldorff opposes

I have made changes to this previous statement: "He opposed measures against the coronavirus such as lockdowns, contact tracing and mask mandates."

Lockdowns

He does generally oppose lockdowns, as evident by co-authoring the Great Barrington Declaration as well as directly saying they are now a bad idea (in his opinion): [1]https://richardhelppie.com/dr-martin_kulldorff/

Contact tracing

Neither source previously cited mentions Kulldorff was against contact tracing (neither even mentions contact tracing) so I removed that claim. Kulldorff is in fact in favor of contact tracing: [2]https://richardhelppie.com/dr-martin_kulldorff/ However, he did claim that contact tracing is "hopeless" at this point (as of October, 2020). He doesn't seem to oppose contact tracing as he opposes mandatory, mass lockdowns.

Mask Mandates

One source indicated he opposes mask mandates specifically for children so I clarified that claim and kept the original source.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.C.Wright (talk • contribs) 05:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDPRI we use reliable independent secondary sources over primary sources: "Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field. If material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources – the secondary sources should be used. Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources." Llll5032 (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

To what are you referring with that quote? Michael.C.Wright (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The Great Barrington Declaration and the interview podcasts. The declaration is a primary source, and Kulldorff's statements in podcasts are WP:ABOUTSELF. The article must be based mostly on independent secondary reliable sources per WP:MEDPRI and WP:BLPSTYLE, not primary and self-published sources. Llll5032 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The article clearly has mostly independent, second sources with 27 total sources and only 4 marked as primary (and some after a secondary source is removed based on the opinion they are unreliable).

It is very clear you do not intend to edit this article in a neutral way and are instead resorting to removing adequate sources and changing neutral language to loaded language with the obvious intent of biasing the article.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:AGF, and again, per WP:MEDPRI, "Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content." Llll5032 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"normally" doesn't mean "absolutely." It is not a hard line.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, we should avoid sources marked as "generally unreliable for facts" (red) at WP:RSP. Llll5032 (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The secondary source in question (the Federalist) is being used to demonstrate that Kulldorff did indeed develop the statistical methods in use by the VSD. That is a fact that is supported by peer-reviewed papers on the subject as well as his CV publish on the FDA's website. Therefore the source, even if you don't like it's political leanings, is appopriate per WP:RSP:

"Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations."

Again, it is very clear you are forcing bias into the article unnecessarily.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Please "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital" (WP:FOC). Do any reliable secondary sources support this claim? Llll5032 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Michael.C.Wright, per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", so please revert your re-inclusion of the unreliable source until consensus is reached on this talk page. Llll5032 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:RSP:

"...even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves."

The source is merely being used to support the fact that Kulldorff did indeed develop the statistical methods in use by the VSD. That fact is indisputable and my use of that source therefore complies with WP:RSP even without consensus.

You are merely trying to discredit or devalue a factual statement (Kulldorff contributed significantly to VSD) and again, you are showing clear bias.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, please review WP:FOC and WP:ONUS. Llll5032 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I've reviewed it and it is clear that my edits are appropriate, factual, and neutral.

Do you dispute that Kulldorff significantly attributed to VSD?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source should say it, per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Also please review WP:MEDPRI. Llll5032 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

See: his CV published on FDA.com and https://www.jstor.org/stable/40221562

Are you saying the FDA and JSTOR are unreliable?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

They are not unreliable, but The Federalist is "generally unreliable for facts" per WP:RSP and should be removed as a reference. Llll5032 (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP clearly indicates situations where it can be referenced.

"The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories. However, it may be usable for attributed opinions [emphasis added]."

There is no requirement to remove the reference to the Federalist when primary sources can verify the accuracy of the statement being referenced (that Kulldorff significantly contributed to VSD).

Whether the Federalist is generally unreliable for facts or not is in this case irrelevant because the fact at hand is verifiable by primary, peer-reviewed sources.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

"Generally unreliable for facts" means it adds no more verifiability than the primary sources. You are not using it to attribute an opinion, you are using it to make a factual interpretation. So the reference should be removed per WP:QUESTIONED: "The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." Use other sources instead. Llll5032 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I am using the source specifically in support of a descriptive statement of fact (that Kulldorff significantly contributed to VSD). There is no interpretation needed nor none used, as evidenced by his CV published by the FDA as well as the research paper published by JSTOR.

I honestly don't understand the hang-up here.

The problem we have run into, as I understand it, is this:

1. Kulldorff's contribution to VSD is evidenced by a primary source: a peer-reviewed research paper he co-authored.

2. To avoid the label "non-primary source needed", I have included a secondary source that is deemed "generally unreliable"

3. However, the statement in question (that Kulldorff significantly contributed to VSD), is evidenced by the primary source. Therefore the two sources agree with and support each other.

Even though the Federalist is deemed "generally unreliable," in this case, for this factual statement, it is reliable. Therefore, I assert that in this case, it appears to be a proper use of a questionable source.

The alternative is to leave the primary source stand without the need for non-primary source, given that it is a peer-reviewed paper and the statement "Kulldorff significantly contributed to VSD" is not in contention.

Do we have consensus that:

1. Kulldorff significantly contributed to VSD

2. The peer-reviewed paper from JSTOR is sufficient evidence as such? Michael.C.Wright (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The paper may help make this claim. I marked that a reliable secondary RS was needed to confirm notability, but I did not delete the claim. Llll5032 (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

So I ask again: Do we have consensus that:

1. Kulldorff significantly contributed to VSD

2. The peer-reviewed paper from JSTOR is sufficient evidence as such

The peer-reviewed paper should be able to stand on its own as direct, verified, incontrovertible evidence that Kulldorff significantly contributed to VSD. It is neither an interpretation nor a contentious statement and the information (as well as his CV) is openly available and published by highly credible organizations.

Not to mention the fact that the JSTOR article is arguably not a primary source as 1) he was co-author and 2) the article has been peer-reviewed.

I will happily remove the citation to the Federalist if we have consensus of the two statements above.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The Federalist articles must be removed regardless. I agree to keeping the primary-sourced study; I think it should be tagged with "non-primary source needed", which can be removed when a reliable secondary source is found to confirm the interpretive claim and notability per WP:MEDPRI and WP:ABOUTSELF. Do other editors agree? Llll5032 (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Stating "The Federalist articles must be removed regardless" is not operating in good faith.

I have clearly demonstrated an appropriate exception that is permitted within WP:QUESTIONED and WP:RSP. Neither state that the Federalist can't be sourced and both state there are exceptional cases when sources deemed questionable can be used. As I've previously stated, WP:RSP clearly indicates situations where it can be referenced. "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories. However, it may be usable for attributed opinions [emphasis added]."

Furthermore, primary sources are permitted by WP:PRIMARY:

"primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

Since we agree that JSTOR is reputable, that source should not be tagged with "non-primary source needed."

The statement in question is indisputable. Primary sources are permitted and in this case used appropriately and carefully. Your complaint seems to rest solely on my use of the Federalist as a resource. Therefore our best compromise is for me to remove the Federalist and for you not to tag the JSTOR with "non-primary source needed."

Are we in agreement?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you add a quotation field within the study's citation footnote, with text in which it can clearly support the claim that "Kulldorff is responsible for developing and implementing statistical methods used by the Vaccine Safety Datalink project that the CDC uses—among other tools—to discover and evaluate vaccine health and safety risks"? Llll5032 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea. I could add a footnote that is then cited. For example:

I would add a /Notes/ section to the article for the quote, like below:

==Notes==

==References==

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it can be added to the footnote as in WP:FOOTQUOTE: "A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible." Please make sure that it or other sources support the full claim as stated in the article to avoid any WP:SYNTH ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."). Llll5032 (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the link to the Federalist that I added. The scientific paper can be used as a source per WP:PRIMARY:

"...a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment."

"primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

JSTOR is a reputable publisher, the source is a scientific paper, and the paper clearly supports the claim. Therefore there is no need for a secondary.

There is also no need to utilize a WP:FOOTQUOTE because the study itself is in direct support of the statement made:

"Kulldorff is responsible for developing and implementing statistical methods used by the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) project..."

The study repeatedly references the use of the methods in VSD and it is therefore obvious the study supports the claim. The claim can be further verified on Kulldorff's CV published by the FDA but not used as a source to avoid doxing accusations.

A final note:

I was not the first to cite the Federalist on this page and the original citation has remained unchecked this entire time. While not direct evidence of bad-faith editing, it is certainly noteworthy when viewed with other behaviors such as initiating multiple edit-wars, making false accusations and insinuations, spreading the conversation over different talk pages, etc.

This dispute could have been handled much better (by all involved) and saved everyone a lot of time and hassle.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:CONSENSUS I ask that you add a quote in the footnote. The onus is on you to prove it supports the stated claim per WP:V and WP:ONUS. Llll5032 (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I ask that you stop gaming.

It is not contentious nor ambiguous that:

1. Kulldroff is responsible for developing and implementing statistical methods used by the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)

2. The scientific paper is a direct representation of such methods and their use in VSD.

The information the citation supports directly improves the article by providing important context and examples of expertise and knowledge of topics discussed in the article, namely vaccines and their safety (i.e. him advising not to pause the J&J vaccine rollout).

Adding a footquote also would not affect verifiability. JSTOR's reputation satisfies verifiability and you have already stated JSTOR is "not unreliable."

You have not disputed the statement itself, despite me asking several times if you do. Therefore the statement itself is not disputed, only the use of the Federalist as a source was disputed. You also have not previously contended the claim does not improve the article.

Because the verifiability is not disputed, the claim itself is not disputed, and that the claim adds context and value to the article is not disputed, WP:ONUS has been satisfied.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Llll5032: I believe the core dispute in this discussion was resolved in the discussion Kulldorff's contributions to VSD, which has been resolved.

Are there any objections to marking this discussion 'resolved?' Michael.C.Wright (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Deprecated and unreliable sources

I am deleting several references to deprecated and unreliable sources (per WP:RSP) that were recently added. Medical biographies must use high-quality sources per WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS. WP:BLP says: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Llll5032 (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I tagged another source that I think shouldn't be used for a medical claim per WP:MEDRS. Llll5032 (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I am looking into this one. Sorry for the delay. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to remove the link to Fee.org as well as the admin template next to it "unreliable source?" from the paragraph discussing vaccine passports.

If there are no objections, I will then also mark this section as "resolved".

Are there any objections to the removal of that link and the admin template and marking this section as resolved?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. But the souces you replaced FEE with are WP:SYNTH unless they are discussing Kulldorff specifically. Llll5032 (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly which sources are SYNTH and what exactly is the SYNTH you are seeing? Please quote and be precise. Simply saying 'they are SYNTH' does not help us to understand each other and without any explanation, it just appears to be WP:GAMING Michael.C.Wright (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I am tagging several recent synthetic claims. If sources do not appear to mention Kulldorff or his work, they should not be used in his Wikipedia biography. WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." WP:BLPREMOVE says, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: ... 2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources" Llll5032 (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, unless you clearly illustrate what the SYNTH is, there is no SYNTH. Only WP:GAMING.

What rule states that all links on a BLP must mention the subject?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." It is one of the most important rules of Wikipedia. Llll5032 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

And which link have I provided is not a 'reliable, published source' that is not 'directly related to the topic of the article'?

And which statement is SYNTH and what is the SYNTH you are asserting I have made?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

All claims that rely on the five sources preceding the synth tags I added in this edit, plus some of the statements in the J&J paragraph. If this is confusing, Michael.C.Wright, then I propose that with your permission I edit them myself to remove the sources and synthesis. I would agree to you reverting those specific edits if we cannot reach agreement, after which we could resume discussion on the talk page. Do you agree? Llll5032 (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You are free to propose your changes here, as I have previously done in other sections but per the warning we both received for edit warring, there should be no reverts without prior consensus. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I was proposing a partial return to normal editing, a step to edit warring being over. Llll5032 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

All right, Michael.C.Wright. I propose this single paragraph to replace the current two. This proposal lacks secondary sourcing about only one claim (his view about child vaccinations, shortened for this reason to comply with WP:ABOUTSELF rules 1/2/3 and WP:RSOPINION), and has no OR or SYNTH:

Proposal: Kulldorff has opposed COVID-19 lockdowns, contact tracing and mask mandates during the pandemic, and has appeared at media events to support the Great Barrington Declaration. He has spoken out against vaccine passports but supports most COVID-19 vaccinations. In June 2021 he questioned the strategy of vaccinating children. He has argued that school closures are needless because COVID-19 has much lower risks for children than adults.

I think your proposal has a lot of merit and I have made some changes to it:

Counterproposal: Kulldorff has opposed COVID-19 lockdowns, contact tracing and mask mandates during the pandemic and has appeared at media events to support the Great Barrington Declaration. He has spoken out against vaccine mandates, citing evidence that natural immunity is stronger than vaccine-acquired immunity. He has opposed vaccine passports, claiming that they disproportionally impact the working class but he supports COVID-19 vaccinations. In June 2021 he questioned the strategy of mandating vaccinations for children. He has also argued that school closures are needless because COVID-19 has much lower risks for children than adults.

How do you feel about that statement in lieu of the existing two paragraphs?

Thanks, Michael. I think your counter-proposal is better than the paragraphs currently in the article. But we should avoid WP:TWITTER for controversial medical opinions, and rely more on secondary sources or at least published RSOPINION by Kulldorff. Also the phrase "citing evidence that ..." may add undue medical POV if there is uncited counter-evidence. (WP:MEDPRI: "Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints.") Do you have a third proposal, or should other editors weigh the two proposals above? Llll5032 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, you support your own use of Twitter as a source for statements made by Kulldorff but not my use of Twitter as a source for statements made by Kulldorff. Is that correct?Michael.C.Wright (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested it as a compromise for an WP:ABOUTSELF claim, after your previous source was marked unreliable at RSP, and you replaced it with a current one that is probably also unreliable for its claim. A secondary reliable source would be much preferred for all these claims, including the J&J claim you link to. These reliable sources are marked in green at WP:RSP, or fit the guidelines at WP:MEDRS. Llll5032 (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The Twitter citation and the Fee.org citation are both used to support the statement "He has spoken out against vaccine mandates, citing evidence that natural immunity is stronger than vaccine-acquired immunity." The Tweet is being used just as you describe your use of his tweets; in support of something he has actually said.

An additional source—and possibly usable on its own, removing the need for Twitter or Fee.org—is a Munk debate Kulldorff participated in. In that debate with Paul Offit, a Professor of Vaccinology, Kulldorff states his opposition to vaccine mandates on the basis of natural immunity being stronger than vaccine-acquired immunity (at 7:55 in the audio):

A huge problem with mandate is that we have many people who have already had COVID. They have immunity. We have known for over a year that if you’ve had COVID, you have strong lasting immunity to this disease and we now know more recently that the immunity from having had COVID is stronger and more durable than the immunity get from vaccines.
— Martin Kulldorff , MunkDebates.com

The Munk debate in this case is a good source because another expert is there to debate Kulldorff's ideas. Interested wiki readers who follow the link to the Munk debate will be exposed to not only Kulldorff making the claim, but also an expert rebuttal of Kulldorff's claim.

As an aside, the Munk debates introduces Kulldorff as an epidemiologist.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Amicus brief - no secondary sources needed (resolved)

Resolved

 – Removed statement entirely. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to remove the template "non-primary source needed" from the statement "He was quoted in an amicus brief..."

The source provided is the original, submitted brief as cataloged by https://www.supremecourt.gov/.

As discussed at length in Talk:Martin_Kulldorff#Claims_of_what_Kulldorff_opposes, WP:PRIMARY states:

"[P]rimary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

This is not a misuse of a primary source, it is a reputable publication (the Supreme Court), and the content is easily verifiable and adds context and value to the page in general.

Are there any objections to the removal of the template?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

We should remove this paragraph from the article unless an independent secondary reliable source links Kulldorff to the court decision or the arguments. We don't know if Kulldorff agreed to be quoted in the amicus brief by America's Frontline Doctors, a controversial group. The RSN discussion is clear that amicus briefs are not themselves reliable sources: [3]. Llll5032 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that we should remove this paragraph. It is directly related and relevant to the COVID-19 controversy that he is involved with and adds value to the overall article. The paragraph is factual, verifiable, and neutral. No interpretation or POV is present. There was a Supreme Court case, there was an amicus brief filed with that case, Kulldorff was quoted in the amicus brief.

The quote is a public statement made by Kulldorff and it is irrelevant if he objects to its inclusion in the brief.

There was no statement or claim made that "links Kulldorff to the court decision or the arguments" therefore no source supporting such a claim is necessary.

The fact that he was quoted in the brief is notable and directly relevant to this section of the page and the page itself. If you would like to add a claim that Frontline is a controversial group, that may add further value to the paragraph and the overall article.

Are there any objections to the removal of the template or should we move to mediated dispute resolution?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree still, and request the paragraph be deleted immediately until a reliable independent secondary source is found that makes the claim in full. Llll5032 (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

To which claim are you referring? Please quote it so we can both be on the same sheet of music. I think we are approaching statements and sources to support them in different ways that is causing confusion between us (see my latest comment here for some context on how I think we're passing at different altitudes).

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I used the wrong word: I meant to say "connection" not claim. My argument is that the amicus is not notable without an independent secondary source saying that it is, per WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Llll5032 (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

According to rule 37 of the Supreme Court, amicus briefs must contain "relevant matter." Therefore the acceptance of the amicus brief makes the brief, ipso facto, relevant.

What I am trying to document in the article is that Kulldorff's opinion that 'the vaccines do not prevent transmission' was deemed important enough to be included in an amicus brief that was used in an attempt to inform the Supreme Court. Regardless of whether I like the outcome of the case or not, it is still relevant and notable maybe even especially so given the outcome of the case.

The fact that the brief was filed on behalf of a controversial group is irrelevant to the decision to document in wiki its inclusion in the case. In fact, I would argue it is important to document how controversial groups and ideas have been involved in or contributed to decisions of the highest court in the country. The controversial opinion that vaccine mandates are inappropriate because, in part, vaccines don't prevent transmission has had enough influence on the global discussion, that it was accepted as relevant by the top U.S. court. The acceptance of the amicus brief by SCOTUS, ipso facto, makes the brief relevant to the case (Supreme Court rule 37).

In the wiki article, there is no assertion that the decision was based at all or in part on information in the brief. The assertion is that controversial opinions of Kulldorff's have made their way all the way to a Supreme Court case.

The sole reason Kulldorff even qualifies for BLP is his controversial opinions on COVID-19, namely his co-authoring of the Great Barrington Declaration (that's based on the "known for" in the infobox). Therefore this information adds context and value to the wiki article.

WP:BLPPRIMARY states "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."

1. The inclusion of the amicus brief is not being used to assert anything about Kulldorff.

2. The link is directly to the brief as accepted by the Supreme Court (caution taken; document hasn't been edited)

Because the amicus brief was used with caution and not to assert anything about a living person, it should be non-controversial in this case, given that the rest of the statements within that paragraph are acceptably sourced.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors have concluded clearly that amicus briefs are not reliable sources. Here is the description from WP:RSLAW: "When written by a party to litigation or by a so-called friend of the court (usually an amicus curiae or amicus) or as advice from a lawyer to a client or to another lawyer, a brief or a memorandum is probably a primary source and should be considered as advocacy for one adversary for which balance from an opposing party is needed and even the balance is often insufficient. While they may quote reliable sources, they are not reliable regarding those other sources, because the quoting is itself a form of one-sided advocacy." (Bold emphasis mine.) The brief's use in this article should be deleted immediately per WP:BLP unless a secondary source makes the connection between the brief and Kulldorff. Llll5032 (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a clear example of what indicates to me you are WP:GAMING. When I challenge one of your assertions, you move the goal post and introduce a new one. This deteriorates my trust that you are editing in good faith. Rather than continue to discuss issues you have already raised that I engage with, you bring in a new issue.

Now, having said that, you'll love this: the brief misattributed the quote. According to the article the brief sources (The Epoch Times), it was Dr. Sunetra Gupta who said "The bottom line is that these vaccines do not prevent transmission":

"Dr. Sunetra Gupta, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor of theoretical epidemiology at the University of Oxford, who stated that “it is really not logical to use vaccines to protect other people. … The bottom line is that these vaccines do not prevent transmission”"

Because of the misattribution, I have removed that paragraph.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the paragraph. If the primary source made a mistake like this, it illustrates why we trust WP:REPUTABLE secondary sources instead. We don't generally do original research to "prove" or "disprove" a source: We just go by Wikipedia policies on which sources can be used. Also, Michael, I assure you I am trying to demonstrate good faith with these explanations. Many policies can apply to a medical BLP. I don't know all of them. If I do not have your trust, we can consult editors via the BLP noticeboard and third opinions page about remaining questions. Llll5032 (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Kulldorff vs J&J vaccine pause (resolved)

Resolved

I would like to remove the "better source needed" template from the statement "Kurldoff asserted that the benefits of the vaccine outweighed the risks..."

I have provided three additional sources.

Are there any objections to the removal of the template?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree for now. The National Review (at the MSN link) at least makes this claim, but WP:RSP says it is partisan and of unclear reliability, and should be used with attribution, not in Wikivoice. So it must be attributed if editors here decide to use it. The article Kulldorff wrote is WP:ABOUTSELF and can't be used for third-party claims. I don't think the mix of other sources is adequate. Be careful of WP:SYNTH: "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article." Llll5032 (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to find a different independent source recommended by WP:MEDRS or WP:RSP that describes what happened in full. Llll5032 (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I now think I understand that your objection is with the paragraph in general and I am focusing on individual statements within the paragraph.

I believe the WP:SYNTH you are seeing is (in a nutshell) that A: Kulldorff was on the subcommittee, B: He asserted something, C: He got removed from the subcommittee for B. Is that correct?

All of the sources cited directly after the statement "Kurldoff asserted that the benefits of the vaccine outweighed the risks and the roll-out should not be paused." are meant to support that he actually said it. They are not meant to support that he was on the subcommittee or that he was removed from the subcommittee, or why he was removed from the subcommittee. So in that case, WP:ABOUTSELF is entirely appropriate: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." (WP:ABOUTSELF). I'm using his words to support the fact that he said them. And in that case, I believe the template "better source needed" can be removed from that statement.

I have just removed one of the references (to AIER), as it is no longer needed and wasn't a good source as used (or as written).

I have also moved the MSN.com source to the first statement in the paragraph. Does that get us closer to an understanding on that paragraph?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You have made some improvements, but we are still missing an independent secondary reliable source (per WP:REPUTABLE, "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") that is required to make claims about the CDC/Johnson without SYNTH. Especially, we can't use Wikivoice for the claim that he "was removed from the group for disagreeing with the opinion" without an independent reliable source saying so in its own words.

The MSN reference needs to be changed to National Review, adding the author; it is an essay for the NR that is on the MSN website. I think the NR essay can't be used as an independent RS because there is a warning about the use of NR in BLP articles in the WP:RSP list, and also because the author only mentions Kulldorff in one paragraph near the end of his essay which is mostly devoted to the author's own thoughts. WP:RSOPINION says such articles " may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact". Also, the refs for Kulldorff's own opinion essays must say they are by Kulldorff. WP:ABOUTSELF says that such work cannot be used for "claims about third parties", which is the CDC in this article. To sum this up, WP:RSOPINION and WP:ABOUTSELF put limits on how Wikipedia articles can use opinionated sources (the NR essay) and self-sources (Kulldorff), and the paragraph as written goes far beyond those limits.

I agree with your A-B-C list summarizing the SYNTH problem, and I would add a fourth question, D:, how the later reapproval of the Johnson vaccine may reflect on Kulldorff. The sources you cited about the reapproval aren't unreliable, but they do not mention Kulldorff at all. You may consider these connections to be logically justified or even obvious, but the purpose of the SYNTH rule is that we as editors must not make or imply these connections ourselves. Instead, we must summarize what independent secondary reliable sources have said about the connections. If no independent reliable source mentions the connections, we don't say them in Wikivoice. This policy may sound obscure, but it is important because it helps protect all people in Wikipedia articles from unjustified insinuations. Llll5032 (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Michael.C.Wright, if I fix the fields within citations to add the accurate names and publications, will you interpret that as edit warring or collaboration? Llll5032 (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I would interpret that as collaboration, especially if it clarifies the situation and gets us closer to an agreement. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed those refs. Michael.C.Wright, If I add an tag and two tags in this paragraph, to mark points of contention for ourselves and third editors, will you consider those edit warring or collaboration? Llll5032 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We also should remove the BMJ reference in this paragraph, because it does not appear to discuss Kulldorff, the CDC group or the Johnson vaccine. Llll5032 (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I added two tags. I think this can be resolved if the paragraph is shortened, the Johnson information is abbreviated, and the claim about the terms of his departure is removed until a RS describes it. We could ask for a third opinion about whether a "he said" attribution about the departure can be included if no RS described it. Llll5032 (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your understanding of what the SYNTH is in this section...

It was not my SYNTH and therefore WP:SYNTH does not apply. I don't need to assert that A + B = C in this case because the cited article does so for me. I merely state and cite different articles for each statement.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The only cited article that supports the whole claim is not a reliable source. Llll5032 (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a separate argument from SYNTH. It is not SYNTH if I have not made the connection, but a secondary source has. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If the secondary source is unusable (WP:RSP and WP:RSOPINION indicate that it is), then some of the claims are SYNTH unless a higher-quality secondary source is found. Llll5032 (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Michael.C.Wright, here is a proposed paragraph to replace the current one. It cites only sources that are related to Kulldorff directly (per WP:NOR), and cites no secondary sources marked unreliable in RSN/RSP. Because we can't find a secondary RS of acceptable quality describing the firing, we must keep any mention in this article very short. I propose two uses of WP:ABOUTSELF in NPOV language per WP:IMPARTIAL ("Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes."):

Proposal: Kulldorff was a member of the CDC's Vaccine Safety Technical subgroup. In April 2021, he disagreed with the CDC's pause of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine rollout and argued publicly that the vaccine's benefits outweighed clotting risks, particularly for older people. Kulldorff said the CDC fired him after the disagreement.

For new editors who joined the page: The J&J paragraph has no reliable secondary source, only some WP:ABOUTSELF and one paragraph of a WP:RSOPINION essay (all on the same side of the conflict), plus some SYN context. Secondary RS do not seem to have described the dispute. So my proposal above is an attempt to make the wording more neutral. Llll5032 (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Are there any objections (Michael.C.Wright, Nil Einne) to changing this paragraph to the proposal two comments above? Llll5032 (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no objections to the proposed change: "Kulldorff was a member of the CDC's Vaccine Safety Technical subgroup. In April 2021, he disagreed with the CDC's pause of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine rollout and argued publicly that the vaccine's benefits outweighed clotting risks, particularly for older people. Kulldorff said the CDC fired him after the disagreement." Michael.C.Wright (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe this issue is resolved. Are there any objections to me marking it as "resolved" (basically closing it)? Michael.C.Wright (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

No objections, thanks. Llll5032 (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Herd Immunity

I would like to change this statement: "In 2020, Kulldorff was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups to encourage herd immunity while attempting to protect more vulnerable groups."...

...to this: "In 2020, Kulldorff was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups while attempting to protect more vulnerable groups in a technique the authors called focused protection."

Similarly, I would like to change this statement: "Kulldorff was one of the three authors, along with Sunetra Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya, of the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020, which advocated letting lower-risk groups develop COVID-19 herd immunity through infection while attempting to protect more vulnerable groups."...

...to this: "Kulldorff was one of the three authors, along with Sunetra Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya, of the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups while attempting to protect more vulnerable groups in a technique the authors called focused protection."

The authors have clarified their position regarding herd immunity here:

"This may surprise some readers given the unfortunate caricature of the Declaration, where some media outlets and scientists have falsely characterized it as a “herd immunity strategy” that aims to maximize infections among the young or as a laissez-faire approach to let the virus rip through society. On the contrary, we believe that everyone should take basic precautions to avoid spreading the disease and that no one should intentionally expose themselves to COVID-19 infection. Since zero COVID is impossible, herd immunity is the endpoint of this epidemic regardless of whether we choose lockdowns or focused protection to address it."

The GBD's stance on herd immunity is also clarified on this JAMA Network debate between Dr. Bhattacharya and Dr. Lipsitch. That link jumps to 37:54 in the video, the section titled "Building up immunity through natural infection."

It was reported on here in BMJ:

"Kulldorff said that, with focused protection, low risk people could remain active and that this would help communities reach herd immunity sooner, which could shorten the duration and harms of lockdowns.4 Herd immunity, he said at a meeting in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, “is not a strategy—but a biological reality that will arrive sooner or later, either naturally or through a vaccine, or both.”"

I know I originally contributed to that statement on this article and I originally wrote the authors advocated "encouraging herd immunity," but that was based not on what the authors actually said and was instead likely based on its mischaracterization in the media. The authors have clarified that they weren't suggesting an active attempt to achieve herd immunity. Therefore the "encourage herd immunity" is incorrect.

Are there any objections to this change?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC); edited 08:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Partly agree, partly disagree. In my opinion, we can weigh how the highest-quality sources described focused protection, and use that language. Do they describe it as a "technique" or something else? I disagree about changing any language on herd immunity unless you find high-quality secondary sources (per WP:MEDRS) that describe it differently from this article. Llll5032 (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The GBD document itself does not "encourage herd immunity." The authors make that very clear in both the site that has published the GBD (quoted above) as well as in their own words, on a debate published by JAMA (linked above for independent verification).

Any claims that the document "encourages herd immunity" through actions taken by the public are therefore a mischaracterization of what the document actually says and what the authors have clarified with additional statements and publications.

You can add a statement that others characterize what it says in a different way but to state outright that the GBD or its authors "encourage herd immunity" is at this point making a willing mischaracterization and is further evidence of an attempt to advance a POV rather than reflect reality.

There is simply no way to define either statement in the wiki article as anything other than an editor's summarization of the GBD. Neither statement is a summary of how any secondary source interprets the document.

Given the author's clear and unequivocal clarification, leaving the statement as-is lacks integrity.

If you disagree with the changing of the statement or its removal entirely, we can move immediately to dispute mediation.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Llll5032, I have opened a request for mediation on this. I'm not sure if I filed this second mediation request wrong, because the two seem to blend with one-another on the noticeboard.Michael.C.Wright (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think asking the BLP board or using the third opinions feature will resolve these questions more quickly. Mediation is for more complicated questions. Llll5032 (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

...we can weigh how the highest-quality sources described focused protection, and use that language.
— User:Llll5032 04:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The way the statement is currently written in the article, it reads as an editor's summary of the GBD, not the consensus of description by the highest-quality sources. An editor's summary of what the GBD is should closely resemble what the GBD says, not how others have interpreted it.

The statement would be more clear if it were along the lines of:

In 2020, Kulldorff was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups while attempting to protect more vulnerable groups in a technique the authors called focused protection. Focused protection has been understood by many experts to mean X, Y, and Z.

In this way, both sides of the argument receive attention. Throughout the Kulldorff article, it becomes clear that the approach of the GBD is not mainstream. An editor's summary of the GBD should be more accurate to the actual wording of the GBD and its authors' intent. Then later in the article bring in what the mainstream opinion of it is, which is different from what it actually says and what the authors have clarified it to mean. That difference or disagreement in what the GBD authors intend and what the mainstream has interpreted is exactly what is notable about the GBD.

I would argue that the summary statement as written is original research on behalf of the editor, rather than a neutral summary of the GBD.

Disagreements over terms such as "natural infection" vs "let the virus spread" or "focused protection" vs "let it rip" are the core issue we—as editors—are trying to document in the article. We shouldn't be seen as participating in them. It should be as simple as "the GBD says X and that has been interpreted to mean Y."

The word 'encourage' in this case, is too close to 'go get infected' which is the danger that many see in the GBD and the authors have clarified that is not what they intended. Because this is akin to medical advice, wiki editors must get it right. The statement should either be a neutral reflection of the GBD or it should clearly state it is a mainstream interpretation of the intent of the GBD.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Michael, have you read WP:INDY? It may help explain other editors' points of view about primary and secondary sources. Llll5032 (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we are talking past each other and this statement is one of the ones you and I went back and forth about in our spate of edit warring.

So I'm trying to walk carefully here and both understand and respect your opinion.

I don't believe the article is in danger of being a vanity piece about Kulldorff, a concern INDY is meant to counter. INDY also states:

"It has been noticed, however, that some articles are sourcing their content solely [emphasis added] from the topic itself, which creates a level of bias within an article."

I also don't believe the article is in danger of using the GBD as the sole source for the topic. It's not even cited as a source for the article (which could indicate a separate problem of bias).

I do agree that the article needs to document the mainstream interpretation of the GBD. I hope that much is clear. I also acknowledge that the MedPageToday article does use the exact wording "encouraging widespread immunity."

Your edit summary for the edit that introduced the word 'encourage', to me, describes what I see as the problem: "Attempting to summarize reliable independent secondary sources' language. We must use neutral language from secondary sources, not the language from a contentious primary document"

First, there is nothing that I am aware of in Wikipedia policies that discourages editors from summarizing a contentious primary document in order to document it. To only document interpretations, and not a neutral, paraphrased summary is to force a POV.

Take for example the article on the Second Amendment (used as an example of an article that has plenty of editors' involvement). The U.S. Constitution (a primary source) is the very first citation and the summary of it is concise and merely paraphrases, not interprets the Second Amendment (a contentious topic). It does also include secondary sources in support of the primary and I am not asserting that shouldn't be done here, with Kulldorff's BLP.

Second, the language of the statement as it is currently written does not indicate that it is a summary of secondary sources. Instead, it reads as if it is a summary of the declaration itself:

In 2020, Kulldorff was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups to encourage herd immunity while attempting to protect more vulnerable groups.

In that sentence, the clause "which advocated..." should either be changed to "has been interpreted to advocate..." or should more closely summarize the actual declaration. Otherwise, you as the editor, have chosen "the side" of those who have interpreted the declaration as 'encouraging herd immunity' and that is borderline original research, as in your own interpretation of the declaration. It is forcing a POV rather than neutrally documenting both points of view.

By summarizing the GBD by what others have interpreted it as saying, and then documenting that other disagree with it because of how they interpret it, we have just presented one POV twice. What I am proposing is we summarize what the GBD says and then summarize how it's been interpreted. That ensures neutrality.

If I haven't convinced you after this, it might be time to seek a third opinion on this one so we aren't continuing to slug it out.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction. Does the GBD not say, "The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk", and also, "People who are more at risk may participate if they wish [in activities], while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity"? (Emphasis added.) Llll5032 (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

If we change "encourage" to "develop" or "reach", would that be adequate? Llll5032 (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"Reach" would certainly be better. The goal of the GBD was herd immunity. To reach herd immunity, the authors recommended focused protection of the vulnerable and a return to normal life for those who are not vulnerable.

I would keep it simple and concise for the lead.

Regarding the section /Covid-19 Pandemic/, I think that first paragraph is fine as-is. I originally recommended changing that paragraph too, but after re-reading all of the material, I think it's fine.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

If GBD is mentioned, per WP:PSCI we need to point out it's WP:FRINGE bollocks, akin to having a "no pee lane" in a swimming pool, and likely motivated by eugenicist ambitions. Science-Based Mecicine is good on this. We certainly should not be giving this nonsense a "free hit" in what is meant to be a person's bio. Alexbrn (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn, first, do you think changing "encourage" to "reach" would bias the article? Llll5032 (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I think both the existing and mooted description of the GBD are WP:PROFRINGE. The GBD was a proposal around COVID to "let 'er rip!", killing off vast swathes of (mostly ill/poor) people in the US population in the hope that the survivors might be protected. As I understand in it was the brainchild of the American Institute for Economic Research and the four scientists involved were the useful idiots to lend it an air of legitimacy. This is covered in the GBD article. Seriously, WP:PSCI is core policy: if we mention GBD we are obliged to describe its dodgy nature. Alexbrn (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Readability VS Notability

The readability of the page is now significantly reduced by all the administrative tags attached to so many links.

I believe the administrative tags are being placed to devalue and/or dismiss sources with the intention to force a POV.

We need to work on the readability while making sure the article, as a BLP, is factual and presented in a neutral POV. I don't think it is currently neutral, as was asserted by others in the first section of this talk page. The persistent dismissal of primary sources in the absence of secondary sources has become obvious WP:GAMING. Kulldorff is only notable due to his controversial views of COVID-19 policies but he is obviously well trained and has extensive experience in vaccine safety. He should be treated as such by all editors of this article.

WP:BLP does not forbid any and all use of primary sources. It merely requires extreme caution in their use. Kulldorff's notability in this case is incredibly focused and the secondary sources on that are plenty. However, secondary sources for his contribution to, say SaTScan for just one example, are going to be scarce for obvious reasons. In the absence of secondary sources, primary source can be used with extreme caution. Primary sources for much of Kulldorff's work are however abundant and can easily be sourced from reliable, reputable publishers. There should be no contention in responsibly using primary sources to illustrate expertise and experience when secondary sources do not exist.

If the article can not be written without ref bombing and misuse of administrative tags then maybe Kulldorff isn't notable enough to have a BLP in the first place. Maybe the article on the Great_Barrington_Declaration is enough in the case of Kulldorff, given his lack of notability otherwise. The inability of this group of editors to reach a consensus—especially with only two active editors—is another indication that Kulldorff is not likely notable enough to warrant a BLP.

It's past time to dial down the edit war and part of that process is the removal of excessive administrative tags to restore readability. Alternatively, we could remove the article entirely in concession of a lack of significant coverage for nearly any other aspect of his life outside of his controversial opinions about COVID policies.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEDPRI bans synthesis of primary sources in articles about medical topics, so it should be read closely. I agree that we don't need to delete most primary sources about the subject's career, but secondary sources are preferred. I agree that tags should not hinder readability. If we are in disagreement, then third opinions will help decide whether to delete the tags or delete unsupported content. Llll5032 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

What are you implying is a SYNTH? Please quote and be precise.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Parts of the paragraph about the J&J vaccine pause, above. Llll5032 (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not a case of WP:SYNTH, as I didn't make any assertion that A + B = C that wasn't made by a secondary source.

We still have a problem of readability and notability. I understand you have objections to many of the sources—that much is abundantly clear. The problem is it also makes it clear that there may not be enough notable content for Mr. Kulldorff while keeping the page readable while two editors hash through issue after issue.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the subject is notable enough for an article. There is a process for deleting it if you think he is not notable. We can ask for third opinions about SYNTH within the section above (where we should keep discussion about it) if there is no compromise. Llll5032 (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Academy for Science and Freedom (resolved)

Resolved

I would like to remove the statement "In December 2021, Kulldorff helped found the Academy for Science and Freedom with Bhattacharya and Scott Atlas, a program of the private conservative liberal arts college Hillsdale College."

There are different accounts of the level of Kulldorff's involvement in the Academy.

Also, Jacobin should not be used as the sole source for a statement, per archived discussion which states the following:

"If Jacobin is your sole source for anything but the most ideology-free facts, no. Even for things like, I don't know, the year that a town was established or what have you... if Jacobin is your only source for a fact, it'd be a pretty obscure fact and maybe just skip it."

Given the above judgement of Jacobin's partisan nature and reliability as a sole source, the fact that other sources differ in their evaluation of Kulldorff's involvement, and the fact that none of the sources are strong enough for WP:BLP, I would like to remove the statement entirely.

Are there any objections to the removal of that statement?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I added this "better source needed" tag because Jacobin is a marginal source. It could be balanced with a WP:ABOUTSELF source if the two sources agree on the basic facts, presented with brevity in Wikivoice, keeping the tag until a better secondary source is found. Is that an acceptable compromise? Llll5032 (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The Jacobin article was summarizing The Daily Poster, so I switched the link to that source, added the source you cited for balance, and changed the wording. Llll5032 (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed my "better source needed" tag, Michael.C.Wright. I'll restore it if you don't think that's okay. Llll5032 (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Bloomberg J&J citation (resolved)

Resolved

 – Moved footquotes to notes, merged all citations

In normalizing the references (changing all refnames to semantically useful names per Help:List-defined_references), I found that the Bloomberg article titled "J&J Shot’s Future Depends on 15 Cautious Vaccine Experts" is duplicated in the reference list.

One of the versions has two footquotes attached. It's in the paragraph about J&J, placed by User:Llll5032. At least one of those footquotes was probably added by me at some point. I admittedly got a bit footquote-crazy that day. Bloomberg is subscription-based, so quotes can help readers who aren't subscribers at least get an idea what the article says and why it is being cited.

Having said all of that, does anyone have any experience with this sort of thing?

If I use named refs for all but one of the 4 citations, the quotes will lose context (and the two quotes are already poorly divided and are possibly confusing). Any suggestions on how to fix the problem?

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 07:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

One of the citations also seems to have the wrong author of the article. Angelica LaVito is the wrong author, Angelica Peebles is the correct author. I would like to fix that by changing the name, but that could be considered a revert. So are there any objections to me correcting the author's name on the citation while we figure out how to get rid of the duplicate citations?

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 07:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Fixing a wrong author name isn't a revert, go ahead. Llll5032 (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I think I found the solution to the problem of multiple footquotes and multiple citations all for a single source. Please check this edit. None of the content was reverted and I didn't change the placement of the two notes (formerly footquotes).

I also think using list-defined references (WP:LDRHOW) is a good idea here, to make reading in editor mode easier. I am slowly working towards that with cleaning up the named refs first.

Let me know if my edit looks good. If it does, I'll mark this discussion resolved so we can move on. If it isn't a good solution, feel free to revert. I won't interpret that as warring.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 00:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)