This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.28.7.92 (talk) at 19:08, 5 February 2022 (→Dr. Ladapo and America's Frontline Doctors: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:08, 5 February 2022 by 174.28.7.92 (talk) (→Dr. Ladapo and America's Frontline Doctors: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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 |
"Multiple issues" tags
Bodding, why did you add these tags to the top of the article? Llll5032 (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have a dog in the fight, but the negative 'sources' seem to be opinion pieces and not genuine balanced pieces that look at all sides. Note well, I did not delete anything, though I believe the grouping of these "comments" are WP:OR and are selective by the editor and meant to craft a biased narrative. This is not what Misplaced Pages is meant to be in a WP:BLP. Hence, my tagging this. Bodding (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Bodding, thanks for responding. Which of the 18 cited sources are opinion pieces? Llll5032 (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest that the templates should be removed per WP:WTRMT #3, #7 and #8, because a specific problem to solve has not been adequately identified. Any individual unreliable sources should be identified with inline tags instead. Llll5032 (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- The maintenance template is deleted now. Llll5032 (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. The template is there for all editors who happen upon the page. I read the article, I researched the sources and based on WP:BLP, I added the template. I'm happy to post an RFC, but I think the best way forward is to allow the template to remain. There was never a need to remove it. Bodding (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Bodding, which of the sources cited in the article were opinion pieces? Llll5032 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- According to WP:RS WP:RSEDITORIAL, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author...." So editorials are WP:RS, if they include opinions, even subjective, of other medical professionals about Ladapo's qualifications and competence. They're also acceptable if they contain facts that have been confirmed elsewhere. It may be that the problem with Ladapo is that there is a lot of documented negative information about him, but not much documented positive information. If he said that he spent a week taking care of COVID-19 patients, but that wasn't confirmed by the hospital records, it doesn't sound good, but you can't leave it out. --Nbauman (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- WP:BLPBALANCE generally limits the use of opinions in BLP articles to those mentioned by secondary sources. But Bodding hasn't yet identified anything specific in this article that violates that policy. Llll5032 (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- According to WP:RS WP:RSEDITORIAL, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author...." So editorials are WP:RS, if they include opinions, even subjective, of other medical professionals about Ladapo's qualifications and competence. They're also acceptable if they contain facts that have been confirmed elsewhere. It may be that the problem with Ladapo is that there is a lot of documented negative information about him, but not much documented positive information. If he said that he spent a week taking care of COVID-19 patients, but that wasn't confirmed by the hospital records, it doesn't sound good, but you can't leave it out. --Nbauman (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Bodding, which of the sources cited in the article were opinion pieces? Llll5032 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. The template is there for all editors who happen upon the page. I read the article, I researched the sources and based on WP:BLP, I added the template. I'm happy to post an RFC, but I think the best way forward is to allow the template to remain. There was never a need to remove it. Bodding (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- The maintenance template is deleted now. Llll5032 (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Boston Globe article
Here's the Boston Globe article, which among other things gives the opinions of many people who knew or worked with Ladapo. The Miami Herald article is behind a paywall.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/09/23/metro/six-things-you-should-know-about-dr-joseph-ladapo-floridas-new-surgeon-general-his-controversial-views-vaccines-mandates/
Six things you should know about Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Florida’s new surgeon general, and his controversial views on vaccines and mandates
By Travis Andersen
Boston Globe
September 23, 2021
“I’m speechless,” tweeted Dr. Uché Blackstock, founder of Advancing Health Equity, in response to the Herald article. “I attended medical school with Dr. Joseph Ladapo and to say I’m shocked by his opposition to mask and vaccine mandates is an understatement. I could have never imagined this news.”
That sort of messaging has distressed many in public health, including Dr. Nida Qadir, an associate professor of medicine and associate director of the Medical Intensive Care Unit at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center. Ladapo taught previously at UCLA as well.
“He’s expressed a lot of strange views since the beginning of the pandemic,” Qadir tweeted. “I don’t know him personally, but it’s been especially shocking considering the state LA was in this past winter. Can’t say I’m not happy he’s leaving CA but sorry for the people of FL.”
Dr. Michael F. Ozaki, a retired pediatrician living in Southern California, was even more blunt in his assessment of Ladapo.
“He is a public health danger, and must be portrayed as such,” Ozaki tweeted Tuesday.
Dr. Nina L. Shapiro, an author and associate professor at David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, where Ladapo taught as well, tweeted that his views align ”more with #DeSantis than with @UCLAHealth.”
--Nbauman (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Immunity forever!
Science-Based Medicine: "Florida Surgeon General declares single positive COVID test proves immunity forever" --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Ladapo site:*.*
- https://twitter.com/docmosho/status/1440869870397235201
- search: "Ladapo" site:nyu.edu
- search: "Ladapo" site:uclahealth.org ... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Bibliography section
A bibliography implies books. The so-called bibliography section appears to be a vanity project listing op-eds and medical articles Ladapo or co-wrote and one article citing him.
- Two op-eds for the Wall Street Journal, three op-eds (co-written with other writers) for the tabloid New York Daily News
- Two co-written articles in medical journals
- One article on medicine as art in Focus, a publication of Harvard's medical, dental, and public health schools
- One mention in a Health Day article citing Ladapo about the cancer risks from radiation received during CT scans for calcium deposits in the heart: ""Concern about radiation for any individual is minimal, and the cancer issue is 20 years down the line"
| Hatted list Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
|
I'll delete thisnon-bibliography from the article. I copied the items into the hatted section above in case someone finds some use for any of them in as a citation. I currently don't see any need for it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Bias
This reads like something from a propaganda book. I come to Wiki for FACTS not bias! "Snow is cold" is factual, "Snow taken from a pine tree branch tastes like blue cotton-candy" is the product of an overworked imagination. When I want bias there are dozens of "news" places to read and hear skewed, non-factual, and generally made up articles - "The View" comes to mind. This article reads like the product of an overworked imagination. Cut out the silly bias. Whether or not the subject of the bio did or did not wear a mask somewhere is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.17.26 (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Dr. Ladapo and America's Frontline Doctors
I have supported Misplaced Pages with donations for several years. No more. After Misplaced Pages's lies and misrepresentation of the truth about Dr. Ladapo and America's Frontline Doctors, I am deeply saddened that they have stepped over the line of ethical journalism to join the ranks of the extreme left, alphabet soup media. .... NMCajun 174.28.7.92 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Categories: