Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:50, 17 January 2022

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages'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 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Template:WikiProject Computational Biology Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance 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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine 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. COVID-19 Low‑importance 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.

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)

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): 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: 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.

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. Misplaced Pages 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 ."

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 ."

Furthermore, primary sources are permitted by WP:PRIMARY:

"primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, 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==

1. "This study demonstrates the usefulness of a new system for real-time, active surveillance of vaccine safety in defining populations. We have implemented this system in an ongoing analysis of MCV, for which early detection of a rare an serious adverse event, Guillain-Barre syndrome, has national significance"

==References==

1. Lieu, Tracy A.; Kulldorff, Martin; Davis, Robert L.; Lewis, Edwin M.; Weintraub, Eric; Yih, Katherine; Yin, Ruihua; Brown, Jeffrey S.; Platt, Richard; Team, Vaccine Safety Datalink Rapid Cycle Analysis (2007). "Real-Time Vaccine Safety Surveillance for the Early Detection of Adverse Events". Medical Care. 45 (10): S89 – S95. ISSN 0025-7079.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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. (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)

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)

Kulldorff's contributions to VSD

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Kulldorff is highly published

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)

Amicus brief - no secondary sources needed

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:

"rimary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, 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: . 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)

Misplaced Pages 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":

{{Blockquote

|text=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)

Kulldorff vs J&J vaccine pause

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. If I add an tag in this paragraph, and tags in this paragraph and the amicus brief paragraph, to mark points of contention we are discussing on this talk page, will you consider those edit warring or collaboration? Llll5032 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove personal information?

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 ."

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)

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)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Start-Class COVID-19 articles
• Low-importance COVID-19 articles
• WikiProject COVID-19 articles