Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 09:33, 11 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Campbell (YouTuber) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 3 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 March 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Society Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

COVID-19 Low‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q: Why does the article describe Campbell in such a negative way?
A: Because the information is what reliable sources say.

Q:Those sources are clearly biased! This violates WP:NPOV!
A: that is not what NPOV means.

Q: You should at least add my primary-sourced or sourceless clarification to XYZ
A: no, see WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'm suggesting a change to the description of ivernectin against COVID-19 as new research and papers have been released. One of which is: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ 92.237.245.156 (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: not new, likely a crap analysis/crap data as per the Expression of Concern from that journal's editor Cannolis (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This Expression of Concern does not imply that the methodology used by Mr. Andrew Bryant and his collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research"

An expression of concern is not the "debunking" of a study. Not only that, your conclusion of "crap analysis/crap data" is unsubstantiated, versus the opinion of a systematic review and meta-analysis from multiple PHDs. You would have to provide better sources/substantiation as to why that study is moot. 2001:818:E94C:D00:18FA:F52F:6A38:DF39 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We just say "no" and move on. The Wikipedia is not a platform for your antivaxxer agenda. Zaathras (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could demonstrate the fallacy of this argument "well I am not saying you do eat dogs for breakfast, but it would be a question worth asking", is not a valid question and is ("pun" fully intended) dog-whistling. Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article WP:MEDRS compliant?

After scanning through the references I'm seeing a lot of Politifact, AFP FactCheck, Atlantic, Guardian, BBC, and so on, but not a lot of WP:MEDRS sources, which is arguably required for over half of this article. Perhaps WP:PARITY is relevant here, but probably a lot of these references should be replaced with references to the medical research cited in each fact-check. The sources in the "Current Consensus" template at the top of this page are good examples. 0xchase (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think then issue is, that as nothing he says is, we do not really need any to refute it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the sourcing is fine for what it is especially given the need for WP:PARITY, but there'd be no harm in 'pulling up' some of the underlying references assuming WP:SYNTH can be avoided. Bon courage (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation

easally claimed! But Come with specific examples! 2A10:3781:47F4:0:F908:ADDE:288E:78F4 (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 {{British English}}
 {{Old AfD multi |date=30 March 2022 |result='''keep''' |page=John Campbell (YouTuber)}}
-{{WikiProject banner shell |blp=yes |class=B |listas=Campbell, John |1=
+{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C |blp=yes |listas=Campbell, John |1=
 {{WikiProject Biography |s&a-work-group=yes |s&a-priority=low}}
 {{WikiProject Skepticism |importance=low}}
 {{WikiProject Medicine |society=yes |importance=low}}
-{{WikiProject COVID-19}}
+{{WikiProject COVID-19 |importance=Low}}
-{{WikiProject Internet culture}}
+{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=Low}}
 }}
 {{reqphoto}}
@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 __TOC__
-== Why does it only mention covid related, John was quite popular before covid. ==
-Dr John was popular before covid and still posts on a lot of other health related topics that he feels important.
-This page reads like its a hate page and if you watch his videos he does not talk about things without links to reputable sources. If he makes a mistake he will also rectify it which i believe we need more of.
-I notice wiki is quickly losing what it was used for, as an information site. Now it seems to have its own belief.
-He used to advise on taking the vaccine, lockdown and mask wearing. It was only through medical research from highly regarded sources he changed. [[Special:Contributions/212.86.59.222|212.86.59.222]] ([[User talk:212.86.59.222|talk]]) 06:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
-:We do, its just that he became more notable afterward. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
-:Its "own belief" is to reflect the scholarly consensus, not to repeat cherry-picked opinions. [[User:Topologyrob|Topologyrob]] ([[User talk:Topologyrob|talk]]) 22:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
-::There is no consensus, scholarly or otherwise. What you support are cherry picked opinions. [[Special:Contributions/178.78.100.94|178.78.100.94]] ([[User talk:178.78.100.94|talk]]) 00:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::Reliable sources state otherwise. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 02:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::Again, please provide sources for his pre-covid notability. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
-== Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024 ==
-{{edit semi-protected|John Campbell (YouTuber)|answered=yes}}
-Where is your proof of mis information.  John always backs up everything with evidence.  Please remove tge word misinformation. [[User:Billylove75|Billylove75]] ([[User talk:Billylove75|talk]]) 14:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
-:We don't have proof, RS do, as they claimed it, ask them. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
-:Shocking description of a man who has dedicated his life to people's health and continues to examine scientific fact. There is no misinformation on his YouTube only critical examination. [[Special:Contributions/92.26.93.203|92.26.93.203]] ([[User talk:92.26.93.203|talk]]) 11:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
-::[[wp:rs]] say otherwise. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
-:I have found Dr John Campbell and his eminent guests give totally reliable information and so do consultants from all over the world who contact him for advice. Wilki is obviously run by the left who want to keep feeding us toxic, unproven, unlicensed vaccines such as the Covid vaccine. Dr Campbell never usually sums up, he just gives us the facts so we can make our own minds up. [[Special:Contributions/2.96.250.228|2.96.250.228]] ([[User talk:2.96.250.228|talk]]) 15:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
-::Could I request an edit to this post. [[Special:Contributions/2.96.250.228|2.96.250.228]] ([[User talk:2.96.250.228|talk]]) 15:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::We follow what the cited sources have to say, not your personal impression of how reliable he is. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::You can edit your own post. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
-== Anti-vax ==
-Hello Wikipedia. Can you please source when John Campbell became anti-vax? It is one thing to analyze and critique a vaccine and another to write-off all vaccines. [[Special:Contributions/24.203.188.202|24.203.188.202]] ([[User talk:24.203.188.202|talk]]) 02:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
-:Follow the sources. You don't need to 'write-off all vaccines' to engage in [[Anti-vaccine activism]]; in fact most anti-vaxxers claim to be pro-vaccine (but aren't). [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 02:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
-::"You don't need to 'write-off all vaccines' to engage in Anti-vaccine activism;"
-::Yes you do. It's in the very essence of the term. For being a Science editor you should know better than this.
-::"most anti-vaxxers claim to be pro-vaccine"
-::Eh... no they don't. You're again missing the lexicological aspect of words. [[User:ExitFilm(For a Music)|ExitFilm(For a Music)]] ([[User talk:ExitFilm(For a Music)|talk]]) 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::'''Follow the sources.''' Your opinion counts for nothing. "You should know better" is an empty bluff. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 06:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::Are discussions often like that to improve Wikipedia articles? I honestly find this quite depressing. It's really unfortunate to see active contributors defending such fallacious claims on Wikipedia.
-::::Claming someone who does not think they need a vaccine or do not recommend a specific vaccine as an antitax is totally illogical and irrational.
-::::What is the procedure to escalate this kind of issue to prevent misinformation on Wikipedia? [[Special:Contributions/38.133.44.131|38.133.44.131]] ([[User talk:38.133.44.131|talk]]) 20:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::::{{tq|someone who does not think they need a vaccine}} That is not what Campbell does. He spreads misinformation about vaccines that deludes people away from vaccinations and leads to epidemics. Please inform yourself from reliable sources instead of disinformation sites. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::::Please inform yourself from from entire sentences instead of taking part of someone's post out of context. I also find the implication that Dr. John Campbell's pursuit of the truth leads to epidemics to be quite libellous. [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::I did read your {{tq|entire sentences}}. My response still fits, and what's more important, your approach is at odds with Wikipedia's rules. We will not delete a sourced statement just because some random person on the internet believes it is {{tq|totally illogical and irrational}}. Otherwise, Wikipedia, just picking one example, would have to be silent on the shape of the Earth. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 06:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::The person (John) in question does not seem to associate with total "anti-vax" either, and I have not seen him raise concerns on any other vaccines besides COVID jabs, besides drawing comparisons with the threshold of adverse events at which other drugs have been withdrawn -  is he not a source on himself? [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 14:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::Where (in our article) do you want to remove the claim he is anti-vax from? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::::I see two occurrences - but either way the erroneous claim that he's an anti-vaxxer is still being argued for in talk and I want to achieve consensus. [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 18:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::I agree, this needs attibuting. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::::::Somebody who pumps out anti-vaccine information is fairly obviously antivax, More to the point, since we have a cited [[WP:GREL]] which asserts he is antivax, without qualification, Wikipedia is obliged to assert that too. Attributing it or otherwise  watering it down would be [[WP:PROFRINGE]] and POV. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 20:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::Not anti-vaccine - pro awareness of Coronavirus vaccine dangers. John has been vaccinated. Is he a fringe source on himself? [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 21:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::::::::Wikipedia cares more about what independent sources have to say about a subject than what a subject as to say about themself. If we followed self descriptions [[David Duke]]'s biography would call him a 'human rights advocate'. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 00:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::{{tq|"pro awareness of Coronavirus vaccine dangers"}} &larr; that is a [[WP:PROFRINGE]] framing since the "dangers" he trumpets are consistently fake, as sources relay. Unduly self-serving comments [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] are not permitted in Wikipedia articles, and nearly all antivaxxers claim they aren't one. The whole point is this guy changed from somebody semi-reasonable to a antivaxxer, as our sources say. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 03:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::::::::::AstraZeneca have recently withdrawn their vaccine over such dangers and the NHS has published official advice. What are you on about? [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 12:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::::No, they didn't. They're withdrawing because they weren't making money due to competition from other vaccine makers. But see [[WP:NOTFORUM]], Wikipedia talk pages aren't the place for this. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 12:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::He says it, but it's also clearly demonstrated. You think he faked his vaccination dates? [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 12:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::::::::::Irrelevant. We follow the independent sources. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 12:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::::And his whole schtick is how he used to get vaccinated but is now no longer taking up the NHS invitations. Even the morons in the Youtube comment section understand this. Anyway, we need independent reliable sources on this so this line of discussion is futile. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 12:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF&redirect=no WP:ABOUTSELF] [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 13:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::We follow the [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. An argument for anything else is is an argument for [[WP:OR|original research]] ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 11:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::This is a diversion with general information that brings nothing to this talk. [[Special:Contributions/38.133.44.131|38.133.44.131]] ([[User talk:38.133.44.131|talk]]) 20:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::::No, it is a helpful pointer for a rookie to familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia rules. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::Someone obviously need to be against all vaccines to be an anti-vaxxer. With this fallacious reasoning, anyone who doesn't believe in a single religion, for instance, would be considered as anti-religion, right?
-:::It is shameful that we need to discuss about obvious semantic logic like that with contributors who are defending false information that is causing diffamation.
-:::People who considered they didn't need a vaccine who should be not be tagged as antivax. If this reasoning can drive the content of Wikipedia pages Wikipedia can not be considered as a reliable source anymore. [[Special:Contributions/38.133.44.131|38.133.44.131]] ([[User talk:38.133.44.131|talk]]) 20:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::You don't get it. Wikipedia is built on the [[WP:RS|rule that all articles have to be based on reliable sources]]. What is "obvious" for you does not matter because of [[WP:OR]]. This page is for '''source-based''' discussions on how to improve the article '''based on sources'''. If you want to change the article about Campbell, you need sources talking about Campbell. If you do not like that, you are welcome to go to other websites where you can publish your opinion. This is not one of those. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
-::Dr Cambell is not engages into anti-vaccine activism. This is a fallacious statement. He only questions the relevance and the risk benifit ratio of a specific vaccine. [[Special:Contributions/38.133.44.131|38.133.44.131]] ([[User talk:38.133.44.131|talk]]) 20:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-:Dr Campbell actually had all his Covid jabs and is not an anti-Vader. [[Special:Contributions/2.96.250.228|2.96.250.228]] ([[User talk:2.96.250.228|talk]]) 15:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
-::Can you pointout where we say he is? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::He clearly shared his vaccination status in this video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3ceurG7P89c [[Special:Contributions/38.133.44.131|38.133.44.131]] ([[User talk:38.133.44.131|talk]]) 21:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::So, do we say he is Anti-Vax? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
-::Is he really anti-Vader, or just pro-Skywalker? [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 21:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::This attitude is childish and counter productive. It is obvious it is just a typo and correcting disinformation is more important than joking. Dr Cambell often mentionned he had 2 doses of the vaccine during the pandemic and he is absolutly not an antivax. [[Special:Contributions/38.133.44.131|38.133.44.131]] ([[User talk:38.133.44.131|talk]]) 20:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::{{tq|is absolutly}}[sic] {{tq|not an antivax}}. Well, [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] state otherwise. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 == Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024 ==
@@ Line 106: / Line 36: @@
 :::We just say "no" and move on. The Wikipedia is not a platform for your antivaxxer agenda. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 00:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 :::I could demonstrate the fallacy of this argument "well I am not saying you do eat dogs for breakfast, but it would be a question worth asking", is not a valid question and is ("pun" fully intended) dog-whistling. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
-::Woah, is there anyone else who could jump in and analyse this toxic and rude interaction? Or has WP become the StackOverflow of information?
-::Same for the buddy below, that "go take your business elsewhere" attitude kinda brings back memories of times that were not so good for freedom of information. [[User:ExitFilm(For a Music)|ExitFilm(For a Music)]] ([[User talk:ExitFilm(For a Music)|talk]]) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
+== Is this article [[WP:MEDRS]] compliant? ==
-== re 1222341366 ==
+After scanning through the references I'm seeing a lot of Politifact, AFP FactCheck, Atlantic, Guardian, BBC, and so on, but not a lot of [[WP:MEDRS]] sources, which is arguably required for over half of this article. Perhaps [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories|WP:PARITY]] is relevant here, but probably a lot of these references should be replaced with references to the medical research cited in each fact-check. The sources in the "Current Consensus" template at the top of this page are good examples. [[User:0xchase|0xchase]] ([[User talk:0xchase|talk]]) 16:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
+:I think then issue is, that as nothing he says is, we do not really need any to refute it. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
+::Yes the sourcing is fine for what it is especially given the need for [[WP:PARITY]], but there'd be no harm in 'pulling up' some of the underlying references assuming [[WP:SYNTH]] can be avoided. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 17:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
+== Misinformation ==
+easally claimed! But Come with specific examples! [[Special:Contributions/2A10:3781:47F4:0:F908:ADDE:288E:78F4|2A10:3781:47F4:0:F908:ADDE:288E:78F4]] ([[User talk:2A10:3781:47F4:0:F908:ADDE:288E:78F4|talk]]) 12:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
-If "false claims" have been made and "misinformation" has been "veered into", would sources please be added to that section? Have you checked the citations? [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 15:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
-:Well "factually incorrect" is already sourced, as is "spurious" "misleading" and "misinterprets", so it seems to be that misinformation sums this up well, but we can go for "factually incorrect". [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
+:There are in the article. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
-::Then please copy these citations into the relevant area, because the current FactCheck citation is not relevant. [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 15:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::They are, we don't generally cite the lede as it is only a summary of the body. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::Will remove. [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 00:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::Do not, you have not gotten a consensus. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 08:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::So I have now altred it to reflect the sources, and provided one. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 08:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::Have moved one of the references and removed a duplicate which is only relevant later in the text [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 17:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::Hopefully this wording is less "coy"[sic] [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 21:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::You'll need a consensus to make a change. I find that switching to [[passive voice]] is unhelpful here. The misinformation didn't just fall into his videos on its own. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 23:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::Passive voice is not intended - this is a more accurate description. WP:RS have mentioned John raising concerns over the presentation of the data he's covering, and I don't see how his recent interviews with medical experts and first-hand officially diagnosed vaccine injury sufferers could possibly be considered misinformation. Labelling all of his work as such is a huge disservice. [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 00:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::The article doesn't 'label all of his work as such', so we are in good shape, then. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 00:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::::Edit warring is not going to help. You must actually get support for your proposed edit from other editors, here on this talk page. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 00:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::::Seems to. [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 00:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::I can find nothing in the article that does so, and I've read it several times. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 01:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::::::"they later veered into misinformation" - something "veering" is not going down multiple paths at once. [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 01:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::You appear to be reading something into the article that is simply not there - and a misreading is not a reason to change the article. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 01:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::::::::I don't believe anyone being earnest would disagree with me on this. [[User:TheVBW|TheVBW]] ([[User talk:TheVBW|talk]]) 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::He went from being semi-reasonable to being a total COVID crank according to Gorski. I don't believe there is any RS that says his videos now have any merit; quite the opposite. So the "veering into" phrase is apt and faithful to the sense of the sources cited. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 05:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::This is quite a sweeping statement as well as a personal attack. Also, false. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 06:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::::::::::Actauly "begun to include covid misinformation" I like. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::::Same here. I've edited the article as such with the minor adjustment to "began to include COVID-19 misinformation". ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 11:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::::::::::::That suggests they were still praiseworthy with a smattering of misinformation, which does not fit with the "total COVID crank" which is sourced, or the unredeemed string of misinformation sources complain about after he became an antivaxxer. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 11:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::::::No less than the current wording does. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::::::::::::::So how to convey the flip from "semi-reasonable" to full-on antivaxxer with a grifting business model? [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::::::I think your overthinking what it says. That's not my interpretation of that wording at all. "Began to include" to me simply indicates that there was divergence at some point in time. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 11:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::::::::::::::I just want to be accurate, and not give the impression his are praiseworthy videos which happen to "include" occasional misinfo. If we want to say there's a "divergence" then we should say that; I'd be fine saying his videos diverted into nisinformation, or that his videos came to "consist of" (not just "include") misinformation. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 11:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::::::::"but they later diverged into COVID-19 misinformation"? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 12:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::::::::::::::::That would work. I wonder if the BBC content I just added[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=John_Campbell_(YouTuber)&curid=69313503&diff=1223635408&oldid=1223631746] is relevant to how we think of this? [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 12:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::::::::::Amazing that his copout was that he wasn't a statistician and he hadn't done the original analysis. Full crank. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 12:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)