Talk:Bret Weinstein

conspiracy theory on the hamas attack 2023
in is new podcast he is spreading conspiracy theorys about the hamas attack on isreal: https://rumble.com/v3oewxb-the-israel-attacks-beyond-the-obvious-with-efrat-fenigson.html Fraxs (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If/when secondary sources appear, might be worth considering for addition. Bon courage (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * this comment is so incredibly unhelpful. Are you truly unable to even identify a "conspiracy theory" you accuse his of "spreading" or are you just a typical radical liberal using the shotgun approach? So juvenile. 2601:601:A580:2980:BDA7:4A8E:D4DE:483A (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

COVID Stance
The statement mentioning he has been criticized for "spreading misinformation about Covid vaccine and treatment" is extremely biased. In fairness it should be mentioned then that he has been praised for having the courage to publicly acknowledge that most governments around the world, including his own (US), have been spereading misinformation and/or disinformation regarding the same. Whether media sources will allow acknowledgment of these facts is another think altogether. Combined with the fact that governments are attempting to dilute and or outright hide the number of people adversely affected or even killed by the various Covid "vaccines" will in fact be one of the greatest (largest) moral failures in human history.

Medical journals and pharmacological research suggest he was actually more right than wrong on ivermectin. Whether social conditions will allow this to be heard is another question. 24.231.100.40 (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * See Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bon courage (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no information in "Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic" that would lead one to think Ivermectin is a correct therapeutic for Covid-19. There is no reference to "medical journals and pharmacological research" to that effect.--Petzl (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe there is bias in these statements.
 * "Weinstein has made erroneous claims that ivermectin…"
 * "Weinstein has falsely claimed that the…"
 * "erroneous" and "falsely" are unnecessary. State the fact that he made his claims. A follow up statement with provided evidence could counter his claim. Mr.smithreadsstuff (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not what editors (erroneously) "believe". Bon courage (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Gay lifestyle

 * What I think should be changed (format using textdiff):
 * Why it should be changed: The term "gay lifestyle" is unclear and not how the cited sources describe his remarks.
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Squidroot2 (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems fair. 17:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bon courage (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A should be added for "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about ..."
A 'Citation needed' should be added to "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines, and for spreading about HIV/AIDS". As 'Extended confirmed protection' has been applied to this page, I don't meet the extended protection criteria to make the edit.

Further, as I understand Wikipedia's BLP policy [1], this unsourced defamatory claim must be removed immediately removed without discussion. Do I have that right?

Ref. [1] "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—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons RealLRLee (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The statement in the lede is covered in more detail in the article body, where multiple citations are provided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEADREF. If you think adding refs to the WP:LEAD is an improvement in this particular case, that's not unreasonable, but assuming they're in the article already, not necessary either. Controversial articles tend to have refs in the lead more often. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As "Controversial articles tend to have refs in the lead more often" and the article in question is clearly controversial and, per MOS:CITELEAD, "there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads" then the citations in the lead are clearly needed.
 * The target article is locked. How should I go about persuading someone with the appropriate authorization to add the needed citations? ￼ RealLRLee (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The commenters at BLP/N believe that this discussion should be occuring there. See Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
 * Would the commenters, above, please join the discussion there? RealLRLee (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)