Talk:Angus Dalgleish

Misleading phrasing

 * During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dalgleish was criticised for asserting that the virus was manufactured, and not of a natural origin.

That's curious: this line is phrased to make Dalgleish sound like a paranoid wacko, even though the referenced article shows that he was likely right about it.--2804:D4B:79C1:9800:1566:839:4486:1475 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well it more makes Wikipedia look like a place for paranoid conspiracy theorists, especially with whatever these new edits are... 70.29.232.178 (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the referenced article shows The referenced article may claim that, but it is still just his opinion, and yours, and maybe that of the author. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes him seem like a "paranoid wacko". It is factually correct that he was criticised for endorsing the manufactured origin story. Perhaps it was manufactured. If so, then that will reflect favorably upon him. If not, less so.--FeralOink (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Controversies
This current Controversies section will be removed per WP:BLP due to gossip, libel and harm. It is based on dubious and controversial emails hacked by Russian groups. The analysis published in an article by two small news outlets is full of rumors without proper fact checking and confirmation. The publishing sources don't represent general mainstream news outlets for WP:NOTABILITY (even then should be discussed on the talk page the inclusion of such information). In additiona are cited other unrelated sources authored by the subject making the section a WP:SYNTH. Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Computer Weekly is a business publication in the IT sector that has existed since early days of computing (1966). To suggest, whether small or not, that is not capable of being a reliable source seems a mischaracterisation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Computer Weekly is not suitable outlet for the critical scrutiny & review of such medical & political information neither provided sources showed such information was confirmed neither are mainstream news sources to show such information (read "rumors") is notable enough for inclusion in this biography article. For inclusion are needed mainstream news sources, evidence such information - and specifically the subject in question - was discussed, reviewed and confirmed connection in general and especially of the subject. Even then it needs proper and careful discussion about the information, facts and opinion before inclusion. Otherwise it is seriously spreading WP:RUMOR and Association fallacy. Until then such information cannot be included.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources seem fine. Bon courage (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They are not neither with them are solved other issues.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The section is based on the same sources which done a joint investigation, but we need mainstream secondary or teritary sources which covered on the investigation and gave further insights. We are seriously and possibly dealing with Russian misinformation. In the section the information is about the group, why such amount of text about the group activity is included in the article of one subject? Also, none of the accused subjects viewpoint is provided in the section (or simply refused to comment) as according to the Computer Weekly's article, "''Asked by Computer Weekly to comment on the contents and significance of his emails and documents, Gwythian Prins said: “Nothing which is the result of a proven FSB hack can be relied on.” He repeated a previous comment refusing to “offer any opinion” on the authenticity or accuracy of the leaked information because in his view they were “Russian material”.


 * Richard Dearlove did not respond to requests for comment. Dearlove previously told Computer Weekly that as “this is Russian origin material and not in fact the original uncontaminated material from a Proton account which carried some of my private and personal emails, it is unfortunately not possible for me to respond to your questions”.


 * Angus Dalgleish, John Constable and Birger Sørensen did not respond to requests for comment about the activities described in the hacked emails. Dalgleish suggested that one of the authors of this article was employed by the Russian government.


 * After the failure of their Covid campaign, the group moved instead to coordinate attacks on climate change prevention activities, which they also blamed on a Chinese-run “Green Blob”.


 * Springer Nature told Byline Times and Computer Weekly that the publishing group did not wish to comment in this report.


 * At the request of Springer Nature, Computer Weekly agreed to exclude from this article the names of the staff members and editors who were targeted by the “hunters”''".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They are reliable sources, but I do feel that the extent of coverage in the article is WP:UNDUE and it should focus more on the specific role of Dalgeish in these matters, rather than the group. SmartSE (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC
Is the information in the current "Controversies" section suitable for inclusion in the article and not gossip-libel-harm rumor etc. about the subject? Is the information widely covered in mainstream news outlets? Were the rumors confirmed and confirmation published by a secondary or teritary reliable source?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment This is way too premature for an RFC - it hasn't been discussed here at all. SmartSE (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Can't see an issue with the source(s) but there may be scope for wordsmithing/discussion of content; in any case there needs to be some WP:RFCBEFORE. Suggest close and discuss. Bon courage (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with the above that the RfC may be premature, though I do lean towards this Controversies section being WP:UNDUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NihonGoBashi (talk • contribs) 02:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Career
An article published 13 February 2024 on substack from journalist Sally Beck draws attention to the retirement (which she calls on twitter 'fired') of Angus Dalgleish. Beck's twitter post claims he was fired, but in her substack, the University explains: "A spokesperson for St George’s University London said: “Professor Dalgleish retired from clinical practice this year so no longer had any clinical role at St George’s Hospital. St George’s has always promoted the importance of Covid vaccination to maintain the health of our patients, staff and public and continues to do so. “We do not give information about complaints or investigations to relating to individuals due to confidentiality.” St George’s University London said: “At St George’s we take the responsibility to protect and promote both free speech and academic freedom seriously. Our academics are free to share their views and we work hard to create a culture of intellectual enquiry.

“Professor Dalgleish is an Emeritus Professor of St George’s, University of London. This title is provided to a retired Professor or Reader of St George’s, University of London in recognition of their service to and connection with the university. It does not indicate employment by St George’s.”

The news of the retirement hasn't been notable enough to be reported and the St George's website doesn't appear to have been updated to reflect the status change to retired, but according to Beck's substack article: [https://archive.is/DEQm3#selection-741.0-741.378 “I have been constructively dismissed due to my vaccine stance,’ said Professor Dalgleish, below. “I am now Emeritus Professor at St George’s University London, [an honorary title bestowed on retired, distinguished medics], an unpaid position even though I have a grant with overheads.” ]

Luther Blissetts (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Would need decent RS. Bon courage (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely needs decent RS! Luther Blissetts (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)