Talk:Paul E. Marik

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.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine: Pulmonology 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 Pulmonology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Some information is undue

The article has two paragraphs out of four, containing isolated events and recent events that are in the news. The information in these paragraphs (they are the last 2 in the article) are sourced well (except for the WAVY-TV piece which leans more into poor source territory, in my opinion) but they violate WP:BALASP. I suggest we either expand the whole article so that these 2 paragraphs do not stands as the 50% of the material, or summarize their information to keep the essential and leave out the details. Forich (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much secondary coverage of the guy, so Wikipedia needs to base itself on what there is. If there's more, great! expand away ... Alexbrn (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo destabilizer undue to be in the lead

The lead currently finishes with this sentence: Marik has called himself a "status quo destabilizer". If one follows the trail of references to this fact it ends up in the way Marik signed a guest post in the website EMCrit. Reading further into it, one finds that EMCrit is a blog in which the owners say they "post a full ~20-minute podcast. In between, the site gets filled with blogposts, links, and EMCrit Wees (minature podcasts)". So, Marik submitted a guest blog post in this informal casual internet thing, he signed it with "status quo destabilizer" and now we use it in the lead on his Wikipedia entry? Imagine if Barack Obama had signed a blog post somewhere like "frustrated basketball player" and someone dared to add that to the lead to his Wikipedia, it is likely not due. Please, either remove it entirely or place it in the body of the article with some more context.Forich (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that adding context (as secondary sources describe it) or moving the quote out of the top would be better for MOS:LEADREL. Llll5032 (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the test is not whether or not Wikipedia editors reckon it's apt, but whether an author in a reputable publication (JAMA!?!) thinks it is. Alexbrn (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is another test whether, once the context is added, it sounds like it belongs at the top? Llll5032 (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's partly a style question. It sets the overall scene nicely I think in a not-too-contentious way - if it's how the guy likes to refer to himself AND has been picked-up by a good source, then what's the issue? Should we be calling him a "fringe doctor" (per Business Insider[1]) instead? (Add - though looking at the lead we should probably be saying that Marik is a prominent exponent of treatment misinformation wrt COVID-19.) Alexbrn (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the top needs more information, probably about both FLCCC and the Marik protocol. I think the quote would fit well in that context. Llll5032 (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn and Forich, I added to the top. Llll5032 (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the inclusion of "Marik has called himself a "status quo destabilizer" is partly a style question. We have MOS:LEADBIO clearly pointing that The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. Then, we are directed to WP:WEIGHT, saying Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]. The sentence in which we added a playful/irreverent self-description used by Marik in the signing section of a blog post, can not be justified by "well, one Reliable Source picked up that he called himself like that and considered that it described him well along with a context of him being criticized for recommending an unproven treatment for sepsis". For me, there are only two ways in which this sentence can be DUE for the lead:

There is a definitive biography of Marik, in which the biographer repeats the self-description of "a status quo destabilizer" as a good overall depiction of the subject
There are many RS that acknowledge and validate the label as a fair representation of Marik's life/work

If neither of these conditions are met, I stand by my point to move the sentence out of the lead. I am not opposed to having it in the body, it expands on understanding better the controversy on his proposed treatment for sepsis.Forich (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat surprised that anti-fringe editors are supporting inclusion of a self-applied label from a physician who spreads misinformation regarding ivermectin. The tone of this article, and talk page comments, is quite different from similar ivermectin proponents Peter A. McCullough and Pierre Kory. Isn't it standard procedure to at least slap on Category:COVID-19 misinformation to all who misinform? Curious. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:POINT ? Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply say that you disagree to its inclusion, instead of posting such strange arguments? Also, no BLP is particularly examplary to be a template for the others... —Paleo Neonate – 06:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent about the quote in the lead. It could both sound promotional or damning. It might also be considered unnecessary trivia... —Paleo Neonate – 06:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the quote out of the top could be the right compromise. Llll5032 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best in the lede as setting the scene. If something could be found to replace it with a similar purpose, then okay. But until then it's good. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further developments

Hospital privilege suspended, apparently.[2] Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And he sued the hospital: www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95725 Interesting to see that whenever Ivermectin pops up in a Wiki article, the same editors have to comment on it with non-neutral words like "erroneous". One of Wiki's founders saw it coming and doesn't trust what he created anymore: youtu.be/l0P4Cf0UCwU Otaku00 (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]