Talk:Great Barrington Declaration/Archive 4

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2021
Previous editors of this article are attempting to smear the AIER by discussing it's position on global warming. The AIER's position on global warming is not relevant to this topic - which is medical/epidemiological. Only criticisms of AIER's other positions on medical matters would be relevant criticism. Please delete references to AIER's position on non-medical matters. This article will be better suited to educate if it is focussed on the matter at hand (the medical basis and criticism thereof), rather than rambling on about non-medical topics. Thank you. New Wikipedian (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Climate Change Denialism
Media Bias, the media ratings web-site, itself left-leaning, has categorized the term climate change denialism as pseudoscience https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pseudoscience-dictionary-climate-change-denialism/. Moreover, they tried to say that denying climate change is unscientific, but instead said the opposite. If you think that climate change denialism has few adherents, mention of it in the GBD text implies that a segment of the readership is taken aback with the detracting appearance of what in their eyes is a conspiracy theory. That is, it should be removed from the article because it detracts from rather than adds to the content for some readers. Even if climate change denial were scientific, it would still be a non sequitur with respect to the GBD. Look at it this way, If "A" is false, and "B" is false then...nothing. Logic proceeds by showing implication, and only true can imply true. Consider if the statement "I always lie" means anything. Saying that the same people always lie in different ways is a tenuous argument, one worth not making. Stick to the topic.216.197.221.129 (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked it up. Media Bias writes, "climate change denialism is pseudoscientific", not "the term 'climate change denialism' is pseudoscientific". And they are right. Did you expect us to just believe your misrepresentation? I have debated creationists. They are better at misrepresenting sources than you are, but they are still easily caught at it.
 * Your attempts at logic fail the very first hurdle, using the placeholders "A" and "B" without saying what they stand for. You are just blabbering.
 * Even if they did not fail, they are WP:OR.
 * We have reliable sources pointing out the organizational connection between climate change denial and the GBD.
 * Give it up, your reasoning is getting more and more ridiculous. You can deny the dangers of the GCB strategy, deny climate change, deny the ideological and organizational connection between both types of anti-science as much as you want, that will not change the facts, and that will not change the article.
 * You have come to the wrong place. You cannot fool Wikipedia editors as easily as the people you are used to fooling. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not your enemy, listen to good advice, please. A lot of scientists, medical people and ordinary people have signed the GBD, hundreds of thousands. According to Median Bias 0% of scientists deny climate change. The GBD is not supported by 0% of scientists so it is obviously not climate change denial, neither at face value nor in credibility. There are dangers associated with trying to prevent contagion by isolating people from each other, and the GBD is an expression of concern, not a conspiracy to deny anything. If anything, this article is denial of GBD, so in a sense, the denialist article here has more in common with climate change denial than the GBD does. The article here certainly mentions climate change denial a lot more than the zero times that the GBD does. The linkage to climate change denial does not contribute to the presentation here but rather detracts from it. Get rid of it, please, it is a canard. 216.197.221.129 (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow, you don't say! The declaration has actually been signed? I never knew that! Oh, and why didn't you say that it was good advice in the first place? That would have persuaded everybody and rendered this whole discussion superfluous.
 * Yes, yes, I know, even the brilliant Dr. Person Fakename signed it. Regarding the number of signatories, please read argumentum ad populum.
 * Science is not done by signing declarations. Pseudoscience is done by signing declarations: A Hundred Authors Against Einstein, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, Oregon Petition, Great Barrington Declaration.
 * Science, on the other hand, is done by doing research and publishing it in scientific journals. Your logical contortions that arrive at the conclusion that up is down and down is up are irrelevant. Did you know that Wikipedia articles have to based on reliable sources and not on the ruminations of Wikipedia editors?
 * Reliable sources think the connection between those two types of pseudoscience is interesting, and we follow them. That is the end of it. You have said nothing that would convince any rational person, and you can continue this Gish gallop as long as you want - but if you stop now, the result will be the same. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * We have reliable sources pointing out the organizational connection between climate change denial and the GBD. Our main source for this seems to be two articles in the Byline Times. I have never heard of this source and notice that WP does not have a page on it. Is it reliable? Lester Mobley (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , ask WP:RSN if you'd like to contest the reliability of Nafeez Ahmed's articles at the Byline Times. Perhaps you'd rather see the following cited:
 * GPinkerton (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I was not attempting to contest its reliability here, but my question was rather whether there was already some consensus on this, since its reliability was asserted above. That I couldn't find much information about the Byline Times gave me pause. I did find this discussion you started at RSN, which didn't seem to reach consensus but did lean towards reliability. Regarding the other source you suggest: it is listed as "Commentary"; does this not fall under WP:RSEDITORIAL? Lester Mobley (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I was not attempting to contest its reliability here, but my question was rather whether there was already some consensus on this, since its reliability was asserted above. That I couldn't find much information about the Byline Times gave me pause. I did find this discussion you started at RSN, which didn't seem to reach consensus but did lean towards reliability. Regarding the other source you suggest: it is listed as "Commentary"; does this not fall under WP:RSEDITORIAL? Lester Mobley (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Kulldorff on The Richie Allen Show
This part: "Kulldorff has discussed the Declaration on The Richie Allen Show, a radio programme that has previously featured antisemites and Holocaust deniers.[31]"

The second part is irrelevant to the context and only in there to diffame the author in the context of "he was in a show that featured conspiracy theorists and therefore can't be taken seriously". Kulldorff is a professor of medicine and biostatistician and therefore can be taken seriously. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for political writing. It should be objective. The whole article is written in a critical manner while it would be enough to state facts and leave the critical part to "Reception". Don't let this place become a political platform. 2A04:EE41:1:9007:713B:37B6:2D95:AD3D (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How could it be objective to omit the motives and character of the people who give this WP:FRINGE position oxygen? GPinkerton (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article does say that Kulldorff is a professor of medicine and a biostatistician and it does not say that he can't be taken seriously. Readers are free to make their own inferences from the information in the article. Lester Mobley (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You can't just diffame a person by saying "he was in a a radio programme that previously featured antisemites". It's not like he hosts the radio programme and chose the guests. I also can't find anything linking him to following right-wing politics or denying the Holocaust himself. I can understand that you might not like the position of those individuals but this right here isn't an article in a newspaper where you can diffame a person by using such arguments. We're still on Wikipedia and this article isn't currently in a state that is presentable. You can't just link someone that is professor in his scientific area to racists and call it a day. I highly recommend to take the second part ", a radio programme that has previously featured antisemites and Holocaust deniers." away. This isn't ok in any way. Imagine if you're one day a scientist with a different view than most of your peers (which happens because paradigm shifts happen in science) and the argument they bring is that you had a friend once that became Holocaust denier. It has absolutely nothing to do with your position. If you want to counter a position you need to counter the arguments of that position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:EE41:1:9007:713B:37B6:2D95:AD3D (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * People who can be taken seriously are taken seriously. They are interviewed by outlets we can use as reliable sources, not by the Darknet equivalent of radio. If Kulldorff wants to be taken seriously by Wikipedia, why doesn't he give interviews to more respectable people? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ The connection is factual, made by a reliable source, appropriately included, and it does not constitute defamation. There is clearly no consensus to change it. Lester Mobley (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I just last week had the Yarzeit of my grandfather who was one of the luckier Romanian Jews to survive, as he managed to hide in a chicken coop of a righteous gentile for most of the war and I think the inclusion of this comment, no matter how factual or reliably sourced, fails WP:DUE, and I have removed it. Those with a negative point of view on the Great Barrington Declaration or any its authors should not evoke Holocaust deniers to make a "guilt by association" case, even if it isn't strictly defamation. Unless someone here is going to list every media platform Kulldorff granted an interview to, of which there are many, it stays out. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , it stays in. If Kuldorff is promoting these platforms and they him, that's his business to explain, not your business to conceal. GPinkerton (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How is it WP:DUE if you aren't also listing off every other media platform he has granted an interview to? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , How would that be WP:DUE? It's unremarkable for people to do interviews with reputable media; the fact he could/would/did do that one specifically is of note and highly relevant to the content of the article, as can clearly be seen. GPinkerton (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How is it relevant that one of the authors of the subject of this article appeared on a show he had never heard of before and that he obviously wasn't aware had hosted holocaust deniers? Should we also mention all previous guests of the show and whether they were vegan, vapers and cross-fit members? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , do you have some kind of reliable source saying that this entirely non-obvious, extraordinary claim is as true as you appear to suggest? I struggle to see what relevance vaping or cross fit could have to this brazen public statement of eugenics, but I can see where the veganism thing might be relevant alongside the Holocaust denial ... GPinkerton (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , can this be considered reliable? Back to my question, how is this line due if you aren't listing off every other platform Kuldorff has granted interviews to? How exactly is it relevant to the content of the article, as can clearly be seen. I do not see anything in the article relating to the Holocaust or WWII in the general. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , It most definitely is not reliable, how could it possibly be? What an absurdly litigious propaganda website! GPinkerton (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , why should that site not be considered reliable when it clearly states that the Guardian only partially quoted Kuldorff? The Guardian isn't exactly impartial on political issues (as per the last consensus on RS/N), and this issue has very much been politicised, so they ought to be removed from the entire page. Regardless of whether you think your source is more reliable than mine, on what is the most trivial of issues, I still fail to see how it meets WP:DUE for this page, which was my original question above. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've answered that question. The Guardian is a reliable source and has a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy. Exactly the opposite may be said of the far-right screed you'd wish to cite. GPinkerton (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with GPinkerton absolutely on this point, and I do not agree with your reading of this discussion; the consensus rather reiterated The Guardian's reliability. Regarding the other source, it's WP:RSEDITORIAL at best, and why should that site not be considered reliable when it clearly states that the Guardian only partially quoted Kuldorff? is a non-sequitur. Lester Mobley (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This interview was covered in a reliable source as notable. If his other interviews have not been covered in reliable sources as notable, then they should not be included. This does not contradict WP:DUE in any way. Lester Mobley (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the interview was covered in a reliable source, but in any way is it WP:DUE for an encyclopedic entry on an open letter by academics on pandemic management strategy? Given how politicised this issue has become, I am concerned that the only purpose the Guardian piece serves in this article is to discredit Kuldorff through guilt by (very weak) association with racist types. Do you share my concern? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Given how politicised this issue has become is putting the cart before the horse. The document was a political statement from the beginning. If Kuldorff is discrediting himself by the company he keeps that's not our business to conceal. GPinkerton (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's as political as the stuff that comes from various members of SAGE and its sub-committees. Mentioning "the company he keeps" in relation to Kuldorff - just because there's a source doesn't mean that Wikipedia should report it - is dragging Wikipedia down to the level of The Sun. Arcturus (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , as political as the stuff that comes from various members of SAGE and its sub-committees is literally something the Daily Mail would write. SAGE is an independent research committee; the Great Barrington Declaration is a part-political broadcast on behalf of the right wing of the Republican Party and their donors. Comparsion between the two is absurd and apt for tabloid columns only. GPinkerton (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * apt for tabloid columns only, as per much of this article. And if SAGE was acting as an independent research committee should act, their members wouldn't be 'working for themselves' by independently making statements to the MSM. Regardless, the association of Kuldorff with questionable organisations or views may be in breach of WP:BLP. Arcturus (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all; problems you might have with the scientific mainstream need not be reflected in Wikipedia. GPinkerton (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As the Guardian article points out, the declaration has been spread widely by conspiracy theorists, and the interview is relevant in that connection; do reputable people presenting non-fringe views appear regularly on that show? It may just have been a mistake or ignorance on Kulldorff's part, but that is irrelevant speculation, and in any case it still seems notable. Whether this discredits him is up to the reader's discretion, I think. I do find the placement of it in the article a bit odd, but right now I don't see a better place for it. Do you think moving it would lessen the appearance of a deliberate attempt at discrediting Kulldorff? Lester Mobley (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm glad we agree that the placement of that statement in this article is odd, and I think it serves to illustrate how this entire article has become a textbook case of WP:COATRACK, due editors like GPinkerton (an excellent Wikipedian with tremendous contributions in areas related to history) who can't help push their POV on the subject. I hope we can work together to clean up this article and perhaps also work on WP:CFORK to cover the subject of the scientific consensus on lockdowns in the general from a more comprehensive (and also neutral) POV. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , The scientific consensus has nothing do do with this fringe document. You are topic banned from COVID-19 related matters, and for good reason from what I can see. Unherd a reliable source? Pull the other one ... GPinkerton (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was never topic-banned from COVID-19 related matters. I won't disagree on whatever the scientific consensus is, but I find your efforts to link Kulldorff to holocaust denial to fail WP:DUE in a big way, and it goes to show that you are pushing a POV. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have never tried to do any such thing; you are the one seeking to remove this information; I say it is highly relevant (eugenicist speaks to outlet known for Holocaust denial? Hardly surprising is it?) and well-sourced (as well as being true), you (without evidence or coherent reasoning) claim otherwise. GPinkerton (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are pushing a POV. Of that, there is no doubt. You refer to people as "eugenicists", and a document presented by eminent scientists as "fringe". Just about every post you make here betrays your feelings on the matter. Clearly you are not able to edit articles such as this whilst adhering to the principles of NPOV. It's getting to the point where, as far as this article is concerned, a topic ban on your good-self might be beneficial to Wikipedia. On the current matter, I agree with SS. The suggested association between Kulldorf and anti-semites and Holocaust deniers is just the sort of tittle-tattle you'd expect in low-intellect biased instruments like The Guardian. The alleged association spectacularly fails WP:DUE. Arcturus (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you want to WP:RGW and question the reliability of The Guardian, take it to WP:RSN. I am not to one labelling the proponents of this eugenicist policy eugenicists; they are called that by sources aplenty (some cited in the article), as is reasonable, given the content and intention of their Great Barrington Declaration. GPinkerton (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , and, I don't think WP:RSN is the right noticeboard for this, as the subject of this article has been politicised and there is already a consensus on the Guardian's political bias on there (link here). Better we go to WP:NPOVN and iron out the issue of whether slinging mud at one of the authors of the document that is the subject of this article is something that meets WP:DUE, and also clean up this WP:COATRACK of an article in the general. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, that discussion on The Guardian did not indicate in any way that it is not reliable, quite the contrary. And I do not think we are slinging mud or that this is a coatrack article. It's pretty focused on the declaration and the response to it, which has largely been critical. I am not interested in engaging in a wholesale rewrite of it, nor do I think that would be a good idea. Lester Mobley (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I reached out to Kulldorff myself and he said he was only partially quoted by the Guardian. He pointed me to Unherd, with which he shared his full response, and they clearly indicate that he did not know the show had previously hosted holocaust deniers. If you don't agree that this fails WP:DUE, so that we can go ahead and make the necessary content changes, then I'd invite you to explain your position in an RFC. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , textbook WP:OR! GPinkerton (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

, the Unherd article clearly indicates that Kulldorff did not know the show had previously hosted holocaust deniers before. So what we have here is one source (which WP:RS requires extra scrutiny over on political issues), which says he went on the show that previously hosted holocaust deniers without providing any context behind it, and another source which provides details the first source omitted. You seem to admit yourself that this issue has been politicised in the way you discount the Unherd as "far right screed", when really the only information they provided is a detail the first source ommitted, which confirms what I and many other Wikipedians know about the Guardian. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry trying to impugn The Guardian as unreliable is not going to work. We appear to have a choice. Either we highlight Kuldorff's association with Holocaust denial, or we highlight Kuldorff's association with Holocaust denial while also mentioning his own ignorance of this fact. Either way, coverage of the issue is sufficient to prove it noteworthy. GPinkerton (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Both those choices fail WP:DUE. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the former definitely sounds WP:DUE to me; the source puts it up front and gives details to document it. The latter option is also supported by the source (which quotes Kulldorff as saying I had never heard of it before they invited me). I wonder if Mandy Rice-Davies applies, however. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The wording is unfortunate. It suggests that Kulldorff is somehow infected with Holocaust denial by his contact with someone who had contact with a denier - the contagion model of extremism that is often used by thoughtless people. "He was seen with someone who worked in the same company as the nephew of Adolf Hitler's chauffeur."
 * If you look at the Guardian article, it actually has more to say about this. Somehow the contagion model part ended up in the Wikipedia article. But it also says:
 * "There is no indication that Kulldorff shares any of the views expressed by other guests that have previously appeared on the Richie Allen Show, but the programme has a troubling history."
 * "The show was described as an “online platform for antisemitic conspiracy theorists and Holocaust deniers” by Hope not Hate, an organisation that monitors extremist groups."
 * So, the actual criticism is not the acquaintance-of-an-acquaintance-of-a-Nazi thing, but the fact that the channel does not discriminate. They will invite everybody with a crazy notion. I think we should replace the current wording with something closer to the actual content of the Guardian article, instead of just its first-sentence teaser. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rephrasing to describe the full breadth of their conspiratorial bent would make sense; the emphasis in the source is definitely on Holocaust denial, however, with a side dose of 7/7. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it can be rewritten. I also earlier proposed moving this content, as it seems to me most relevant to this article in connection with the popularity of the declaration among conspiracy theorists (as mentioned in The Guardian article), which we can mention too. Maybe it can go down in "Other support", although it's more promotion than support. Lester Mobley (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead is too long
Having just read this article, it was immediately apparent to me that the lead section is way too long, likely as a result of trying to fit in many details as possible from multiple points of view. Even the lead sentence makes mention of the organization that funded it, which is hardly due for a lead, let alone the first sentence. It shouldn't be difficult to start shortening the lead, starting by combining the first two sentences in one, and so on. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the organization that funds and organization's PR exercise is highly relevant and should be noted in the lead accordingly. For comparison, our article on 1984 is about an advert for the Apple Macintosh; as a consequence, Apple Macintosh is mentioned in the lead sentence. It is hard to fathom how mention of the thing advertised could be expunged from the lead. GPinkerton (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wasn't 1984 a television commercial for a for-profit company selling computers? To me it looks like the Great Barrington Declaration is an open letter, similar to Harper's Letter and Open Letter on Artificial Intelligence. Is it normal on Wikipedia to mention who sponsored an open letter by academics, as noted so prominently in this article? What details are known on the funding amount and use of proceeds that would make it especially prominent? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the clue is in the name ... the AEIR is a for-profit (in all senses) political organization and it was their idea, not that of the academics whose names were attached. GPinkerton (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it was their idea what we mean by "sponsored"? I couldn't find this in the article. Just curious. Lester Mobley (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, it is not immediately apparent that the lead is way too long. Lester Mobley (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

More of an article "against" the Great Barrington Declaration
I came to read this article about the GBD and for the first time I felt I had to open a Wikipedia account to point out that encyclopedic neutrality is blatantly disregarded, all the more gravely on a topic of crucial and global momentum.

The article actually looks more like a report on "criticism" or "reactions" to the GBD than one devoted to the Declaration itself.

Just a few examples of the changes which are needed to start moving toward neutrality:

- The three authors of the Declaration are pictured together, and at a distance which makes them barely recognizable, while four critics of the declarations without any direct connection to it are represented in foreground, portrait-like authoritative pictures.

CHANGE NEEDED: Fauci, Ghebreyesus, Nabarro, and Sridhar's pictures should be removed as irrelevant to the topic. The space devoted to their profiles - some of them already very well known to the public - should be reduced, or moved to a more fitting page.

- Critics of the declaration such as Gurdasani are quoted together with their academic affiliation, while these are absent for signatories of the Declaration. This is all the more striking as they are mostly outstanding scientists and leading authorities in their fields. What would justify mentioning Devi Sridhar's affiliation with the University of Edinburgh three times, while the Nobel Prize-winner Stanford professor Michael Levitt is just "Michael Levitt"?! Again, it is the first time I notice such unbalances in a Wikipedia page.

CHANGE NEEDED: Credentials of most relevant and famous signatories should be reported. Credentials of critics may be indirectly relevant - since the objective is neutrality, but the theme of the article is the Declaration - yet they should not be repeated insistently and without reasons. Indeed, the space given to critics and their biographies should be reduced proportionately to this (supposedly) being an article about the GBD, and not about criticism to it, or about the authors of such critiques.

- The mention of random people signing with trivial pseudonyms is completely irrelevant as this is always the case with petitions open to signatures from the public.

CHANGE NEEDED: That section does not stand up to the standard of seriousness of Wikipedia and should be deleted altogether.

More generally, and perhaps more usefully, an encyclopedic, objective presentation of the Declaration and its content should be distinguished from "what it does not contain" and its criticism, or the John Snow's counter-declaration. These should either be moved to other pages (perhaps a John Snow memorandum's page which seems presently lacking), or reduced to a reasonable and appropriate proportion for an article which is about something else. It is striking that in a page entitled "Great Barrington Declaration" of about 6 thousand words, less than a half are devoted to its content and its signatories, while the rest covers criticism, political support, and childish pseudonyms, not to repeat the observation on the immediately-perceivable visual imbalance I made above.

As it is, the page does not look like an encyclopedic article, but rather as an opinionated piece in the form of partisan reporting: and probably one that is unscientific and therefore scarcely worth reading, as it gives more space to "Johnny Fartpants" than to the debate on the mortality of COVID.

Αλογόμυγα (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * First, you need to be aware that this is a WP:FRINGE topic and we don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE.
 * Credentials of most relevant and famous signatories should be reported No. Read MOS:CREDENTIAL. Also Argumentum ad verecundiam. Science is not done by everybody throwing their degrees and honorifics on the table and highest one wins; that is just a silly and amateurish understanding of it. We should not, as you suggest, puff up all the signatories with "professor of this and that" - if people want to know, the can click on the links - but we should remove the honorifics that are there, or at least the duplicates and triplicates. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of the points above, made by . If there's was a competition somewhere for the worst article on Wikipedia this one would be the odds-on winner. It's one of the most biased articles I've come across in a long time and brings Wikipedia into disrepute. It's even been cited off-wiki as a bad article. Let's perhaps address the above points one at a time. What is the justification for those portraits. The subjects have badmouthed the Declaration at one point in time; that's it. We do not need pictures of them. I suggest they are removed. Arcturus (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Like Soylent Green, the GBD is made from people. This glorified press release would have not have become notable at all if not for its initial signatories, and its critics are equally participants in the debate it engendered. I see no policy-compliant reason why these would be UNDUE. Newimpartial (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Notice placed on the NPOV Noticeboard. Arcturus (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Going over these: I don't see any NPOV issues here, and the broader issue has already been discussed to death without reaching a consensus that there are any significant problems overall, so the tagging seems unnecessary and punitive. --Aquillion (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The images seem more or less standard; the three signers are pictured together because they're affiliated with each other and a good picture of them as a group exists. I don't see any bias in the way the images are presented.
 * Listing affiliation for critics is necessary because otherwise the reader won't know why their opinion on the topic matters. For the people who wrote the declaration, this is self-evident.  Additionally, their most relevant affiliation (to the American Institute for Economic Research, which sponsored their work) is given in the first sentence of the lead, while their academic affiliations are given immediately after the first time they are mentioned (Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University), so this objection just seems factually incorrect.
 * Reception to the declaration has been almost uniformly negative, so it is normal that the weight and focus of the article would reflect this.

Tagging reflects reality. It is worrying that concerns about neutrality such as those voiced most recently by me and Arcturus are silenced before even being answered. The Great Barrington Declaration continues to be treated on an unbalanced, sometimes even smearing tone and perspective, which are far removed from the reality of scientific and political debate. For instance, a small and recurrent group of editors continue to treat the topic as if it were "fringe" and as if there were an opposing consensus against the supposed minority of the Great Barrington Declaration signatories. It is open to everyone to verify that, as of today, the number of signatories to the GDB exceeds by far the number of signatories to the opposing "John Snow's Memorandum" (around 13 thousand medical scientists versus 4 thousand). The scientists signing the GDB also come from as prestigious or more prestigious institutions, contrary to what the Wikipedia article would make one think. How can this solid, international community of professionals who teach and research at institutions such as Harvard and Oxford be considered "fringe"? One can also verify that the supposed "problem" of fake signatories - which is clearly irrelevant to anyone who is familiar with how this can happen and does almost invariably happen on the internet - is apparently solved by the vetting which has been introduced for signatures to the GBD more recently. All the more, that section should be taken away as it is outdated. Another urgent CHANGE NEEDED is to introduce better, more visible links to the Great Barrington Declaration's own website, including the FAQs and signatories sections, where many of the issues presented in the Wikipedia article in a partisan, outdated, or otherwise incorrect way are addressed. How can it be "neutral" to write that the Declaration does not mention "masking", just to cite one blatant example, and at the same time not mentioning that in the FAQs to the same Declaration it is explained that: "Free N95 masks should be provided for when they cannot avoid potential exposure"?. Finally, and most importantly, as it is a matter of fact that the neutrality of this page is being contested and has been contested repeatedly in the past, the NPOV tag should be left on the page. Neutrality is the result of the consensus of the community, not of wars of tagging-untagging which obviously favor highly partisan, suspiciously motivated, unusually time-devoting interventions which remind of the operations of the "50 Cent Party". Αλογόμυγα (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no NPOV issues here, the recent tagging is unjustified. I will remove it within 24 hours unless the tagger really demonstrates NPOV issues, rather than the "It's biased" handwaving we have seen so far. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 13:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * the number of signatories to the GDB exceeds by far the number of signatories to the opposing "John Snow's Memorandum" This made me LOL. The truth of scientific positions is decided by online voting!
 * A few news for you:
 * Fringe views can be popular among laymen and still be fringe views.
 * Every scientist is a layman in every field except his own.
 * Even within a field, a small minority holds fringe views on that field. Some of those are Nobelists.
 * Whether something is scientifically sound is not decided by the opinions of scientists, but by reliable secondary sources analyzing actual research results (primary sources).
 * No competent scientist would ever consider a list of signatories as a valid means of determining whether a proposition has value, regardless of the number of academic grades in it.
 * I don't think you should edit articles about science until you have learned the basics of how it works. See WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Echo the above. This articles notability is conferred by the reaction to it, not by any of the declaring scientists or subsequent free-for-all signature-fest. Nothing about the signatures confers any reliability as a scientific document any more than any other opinion poll, public petition etc. Koncorde (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * AFTERTHOUGHT : Project Steve is worth reading to anybody who feels that we are being biased. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 15:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, your concerns either aren't reasonable or simply don't reflect the current state of the article.
 * For instance, a small and recurrent group of editors continue to treat the topic as if it were "fringe" and as if there were an opposing consensus against the supposed minority of the Great Barrington Declaration signatories. Numerous mainstream sources in the article describe it as fringe in as many words, eg..
 * The scientists signing the GDB also come from as prestigious or more prestigious institutions, contrary to what the Wikipedia article would make one think. We list their institutions the first time they appear. Again, this complaint has me scratching my head - as far as I can tell what you want is already in the article.
 * One can also verify that the supposed "problem" of fake signatories - which is clearly irrelevant to anyone who is familiar with how this can happen and does almost invariably happen on the internet - is apparently solved by the vetting which has been introduced for signatures to the GBD more recently. The list of signatures is literally only relevant because of the coverage it has received, and the only aspect of it that that coverage has focused on is the fake signatures.  If you take out those sources we couldn't mention it at all - we can't cite it directly, since an online petition is WP:USERGENERATED and has no significance to us in and of itself. If, as you say, the issue has been addressed, you need to find secondary sources supporting that.
 * Another urgent CHANGE NEEDED is to introduce better, more visible links to the Great Barrington Declaration's own website, including the FAQs and signatories sections, where many of the issues presented in the Wikipedia article in a partisan, outdated, or otherwise incorrect way are addressed. Those would be WP:PRIMARY sources, which we cannot rely heavily on; we especially cannot use it for exceptional or controversial statements, as you are requesting, or for self-serving ones, per WP:ABOUTSELF.
 * You simply haven't raised any actionable NPOV complaints. This article, as far as I can tell, accurately reflects the consensus of high-quality secondary sources on the Great Barrington Declaration; if you disagree, you need to produce secondary sources of comparable weight illustrating that that's wrong. Arguing yourself that the authors are so reputable or that online petitions prove them right won't go anywhere in rebutting the secondary sources dismissing them, already in the article; what you need is secondary coverage of declaration that reflects the way you feel this article should cover it. If you can't produce that then it's hard to argue that there's an actual NPOV issue. --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We list their institutions the first time they appear. No, we don't. You are confusing the authors of the GBD, whose institutions we list the first time they appear, with its signatories, which are only listed by name if there is a Wikipedia article about them. Αλογόμυγα wants to add all sorts of academic tinsel to all those, which would be ridiculous: it would be Institute for Creation Research style, not encyclopedic at all. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh good lord. Yes, that wouldn't be workable.  Truthfully the one sentence we have listing them already is already borderline WP:UNDUE given the lack of secondary sourcing for that aspect.  We shouldn't rely on AIER stating that particular signatories are noteworthy or significant. --Aquillion (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

As a casual reader who has intentionally stayed away from COVID-19 articles, I just want to note that, at various points, this article uses the strategy of juxtaposing various pieces of information, which are individually non-controversial, but imply something controversial when asserted together in the same context. It would be too long to list all the occurrences, so let me just point out two cases: --JBchrch (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The declaration makes no mention of physical distancing and masks, nor of tracing, nor of long COVID, which has left many fit and young people, as well as people in general, suffering from debilitating symptoms months after a mild infection.. While this statement is correct on its own, it obviously implies in context that the declaration is wrong, without asserting it explicitly. As such, it should be moved to a "Reaction" or "Criticism" section.
 * The declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), a libertarian think tank which receives a substantial part of its funding from its own investments, with holdings valued at US$284 million in a wide range of fossil fuel companies including Chevron and ExxonMobil, tobacco giant Philip Morris International, Microsoft, Alphabet Inc. and many other companies. In context, this obviously implies that the AIER is a corrupt organisation. If this what the editor wanted to assert, he/she should have do so explicitly, citing RSes.
 * See WP:CSECTION: "Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged.".
 * The facts about AIER come from RS, in the context of the GBD. Going beyond the sources is something we cannot do. The only imply it, therefore so do we. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:CSECTION "In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material." However, let's not engage in wikilawyering, as the aim of this discussion is to find consensus, and I suspect that moving criticisms under a separate section and keeping the presentation of the declaration clear of this kind of implications will help to find that consensus. Which also allows us to not change the meaning of the RSes.--JBchrch (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since most of the RS coverage of the GBD does, in fact, consist of criticism of the GBD, its underlying assumptions and its policy proposals, it would be UNDUE whitewashing to corral the bulk of the sourced into a "criticism" section. IMO this could never be policy-compliant in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which policy would that be, specifically? I am asking because that's how Chariot of the Gods and The Bell Curve are written.--JBchrch (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , In my view, the Chariots article is far too charitable. The word "pseudo-archaeology" fails to appear. Problems with other articles are not arguments to lower the quality of this one. GPinkerton (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty harsh judgement to make. Which article would you say can serve as examples for this one?--JBchrch (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was talking about WP:NPOV, notably the sections WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, and WP:FRINGE, primarily. And I am having trouble parsing what you say about those other two articles, since Chariot of the Gods introduces criticism in the first section of the body (which is not a criticism section), and The Bell Curve introduces it in the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree that all notable criticism of this declaration should be included in this article, as per the policies you mentioned. The question is how to do it properly, and in a way that can reach consensus. The gist of what I am saying that the bulk of the criticism of the declaration should be presented in a dedicated "Reception" or "Criticism" section, like this one and this one. It should not be completely presented along the summary of the declaration's content and the presentation of its authors and sponsors, with the dubious implications I mentioned earlier. Regarding the points you mention, I don't disagree that the lead could mention that the declaration has been heavily criticized, or that we could introduce some form of criticism in the "Declaration contents" section.--JBchrch (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the problem we are having is that I interpreted your suggestion as moving all, or at least the vast majority, of the critical commentary to a Criticisms section, which is not what I see either of the articles you mentioned as doing. Also, both of those articles concern books, so the potential to provide exposition of the contents is much greater than in the case of this back of a napkin rather vague and brief declaration. The DUE BALANCE is different when there is more to say about the actual content than would ever be possible for the GBD, since it has so little substance. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Various stylistic and structural edits
Hi, I have made several small edits to the article. These edits alter some stylistic and structural issues that were not in accordance with WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:IMPARTIAL and address some very small content problems. To be frank, I think that the dispute surrounding this article is not a question of content but a question of form, and that toning down some of the language and presentation of the article — without altering its content — will go a long way to calm the dispute and help us reach consensus. (Although I do believe that there is some WP:NOTEVERYTHING issue in "Critical commentaries", but let's put this aside for the moment.)--JBchrch (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't object to most of these edits, and some are straightforward improvements. However, logically and by prior consensus (AIR), the "sponsor" section should precede "signatories", so I have reverted that one until a consensus emerges to the contrary. Newimpartial (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is fine.--JBchrch (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

What is this crap? There is no consensus for puffing up this section. Quote from above: "Oh good lord. Yes, that wouldn't be workable." --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am referring to this edit. Before we start, you should WP:CALM down and take a deep breath. As clearly explained in the edit summary, there is a section here entitled "Counter memorandum" that lists dozens of credentials: it's either everywhere or nowhere (WP:DUE). MOS:CREDENTIAL is not applicable here since no one added MSc, Prof., MD or titles or that nature.--JBchrch (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. If the counter declaration has those, they should be removed, not added to the signatories. And don't tell me to calm down, that is patronizing.
 * The point of MOS:CREDENTIAL is that puffery makes articles unreadable. It is bad style; it is as if all those people are gorillas shouting and beating their chests: "Oooogh! I am a professor!!" "Woooo! I have a doctorate!" The actual content suffers from that sort of thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will make an edit in this section and you can check if works for you.--JBchrch (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial"
Hi, the reason I made this edit (that you reverted) was that the original sentence was not really WP:WIKIVOICE language considering that the source is heavily biased. I propose to write with financial ties to the Koch brothers, who are known for funding organizations associated with....--JBchrch (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and remove the reference to the Koch brothers entirely. There seems to be a desire to hammer home to the reader that this declaration is fringe by maximizing the guilt-by-association factor to a degree that is WP:UNDUE, especially in the lead. The tie to the Koch brothers is way too minimal and indirect to warrant inclusion -- they made small-beans donations to an organization with a net worth of around $300,000,000 and no source has claimed that they have any closer connection with this declaration. It wouldn't be appropriate to describe Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc., as 'funded by/financially tied to the Koch brothers' in the lead of those articles, even though they have donated to those universities (and hundreds more). The stretch to tie this declaration to the Koch brothers comes across as blatantly biased and takes away from the article's credibility. I'll change the wording to The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank that is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial.  Pais  a re pa  21:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No dice -- will be reverted, unless there's evident consensus for this proposed change. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally agree that this part is a bit WP:UNDUE, but it's even truer that we need consensus to delete the reference to Koch brothers altogether. I will now revert to my edit, which had consensus (see above).--JBchrch (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That works for me for now, my mistake for not delving as deeply into this talk page as I should have before making changes. I absolutely believe that keeping in this distant, tangential connection to the Koch brothers, especially in the lead, blatantly violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, all while adding nothing valuable to the article, but I'll make that argument under a dedicated thread. Thanks -  Pais  a re pa  03:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Authors section includes improper synthesis
I came here via Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. The Authors section includes commentary and critique of the authors of the declaration using references that don't discuss the Great Barrington Declaration. That is improper synthesis. This section needs sources that discuss the authors in the context of the GBD and/or it needs paring down. Fences &amp;  Windows  17:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the section again, and the discussion of these authors seems to be largely restricted to recommendations made in the declaration, but published by the authors separately. I don't see how discussion of those recommendations is SYNTH when discussed in relation to their original authors, whether or not the GBD is mentioned, since the GBD is supposedly made up of these recommendations. Newimpartial (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s still improper synthesis. The advice there says "that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." It is not up to us to provide our own commentary and interpretations, even when based in reliable sources, if those sources do not directly discuss the specific subject of the article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the provision if those sources do not directly discuss the specific subject of the article to be found? The analysis of each author's proposals, as discussed in the article, is certainly not SYNTH, as it is properly sourced. The actual question doesn't seem to be SYNTH at all, but the appropriate scope of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Koch funding subclause in the lead needs looking at
In describing AIER as "a libertarian think tank funded by billionaire Charles Koch's conservative Koch Foundation", the article lead somewhat overstates the extent to which AIER is Koch-funded. Here's what Ahmed actually says:

... sponsored by an institution embedded in a Koch-funded network that denies climate science while investing in polluting fossil fuel industries. ... Corporate records filed with the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) confirm that the AIER operates as part of a Koch-funded network of climate science deniers who see environmental regulation as a threat to its vision of unfettered, deregulated markets. The latest available IRS documents reveal that in 2018, the AIER received $68,100 for “General Operating Support” from the Charles Koch Foundation, which acts on behalf of right-wing billionaire Charles Koch. ... Through their various foundations and other entities, Charles and his brother, the late David Koch, are well-known for being among the world’s biggest founders of climate science denial. The AIER itself is no stranger to such denialism. All its climate change related reports and commentaries are studiously dedicated to downplaying the severity of climate risks and obfuscating the science around human exploitation of oil, gas and coal in driving current global warming levels. ... AIER owns a major investment firm, American Investment Services Inc., which harnesses the think-tank’s research to help inform investment advice. Security Exchange Commission filings seen by Byline Times confirm that AIER’s American Investment Services Inc. runs a private fund valued at $284,492,000. The most recent SEC document filed in August reveals that the fund’s holdings include a wide range of companies including: Chevron, ExxonMobil, General Electric, One Gas Inc, Duke Energy Corp, Northwestern Corp, WEC Energy, Xcel Energy, tobacco giant Philip Morris International, JP Morgan Chase, Visa Inc., Mastercard, Alphabet Inc (the owner of Google), Microsoft, McDonalds, Verizon Communications, Intel Corp, Nike Inc, consumer goods giant Procter and Gamble, Host Hotels & Resorts, Dow Inc., Pepsico, the major stock market advisors Vanguard Group, and many more. This context, none of which is acknowledged on the Great Barrington Declaration website, suggests that it is less the product of a rigorous, reliable and impartial scientific process, than the outcome of an opaque lobbying effort.

$68,000 two years ago is peanuts relative to their overall budget, so I suggest this "funded by" wording could do with looking at. I'd rather mention that they downplay climate change (a claim that a look at their website readily confirms) and invest (to what extent?) in fossil fuel than make a statement about their funding sources that goes beyond even what Ahmed has alleged. --Andreas JN 466 17:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that they may get their real money elsewhere, that's not what "funded by" means. The fact is that a well-known "philanthropist" has seen fit to supply his wealth and political patronage ("funded") to endorse the organization's aims and methods with Koch's own public gesture. The Guardian source cited uses near identical wording, calling it: . I also like the term opaque lobbying effort, if you'd like to use that as well. GPinkerton (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * GPinkerton, I am aware of the Guardian source, as I first added it to the article. I still think that you're overstating what Ahmed says. You say in your edit summary "funding sustained and ongoing, pluperfect inappropriate". Ahmed mentions a single payment of $68,100 from the Charles Koch Foundation in 2018, which is about 0.2% of AIER's assets. Do you have a source for "sustained and ongoing"? Without a source, it's just not credible. And by the way, "has received" is present perfect, not pluperfect. ;) --Andreas JN 466 20:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting a weekend seminar, a Sunday photo-shoot, a press conference, and web petition costs more than seventy grand? It says on their website they're affiliated with Koch foundation, along with the Atlas Network and the Ayn Rand Institute, Cato Institute, etc. etc. GPinkerton (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahmed is not saying that the Charles Koch Foundation paid for the Great Barrington Declaration stunt. He said that AIER received $68k from the Kochs two years ago – nothing to do with this event, or declaration. Thank you very much though for the link to AIER's acknowledgement of Charles Koch Institute funding for AIER's Bastiat Society, which they describe as their "central outreach program". That along with the Atlas Network connection bears out your assertion of "sustained and ongoing" funding, and I'm feeling more sanguine about the present wording. Cheers, --Andreas  JN 466 20:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the relevance is rather obvious. The Koch think tank network is responsible for using exactly the same playbook on climate change. Do you think that the right would ever allow us to carry an article on a petition organised by a group funded by Soros, without mentioning it in the lead? And in fact the funding by Philip Morris and Exxon should also be in there. This is an absolutely classic corporate shill think-tank. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I couldn't agree more with you about the relevance. That is why I twice added those sources. I am trying to make sure that the wording the article uses is robustly covered by the sources we cite, and in line with verifiable facts. Anything else provokes a plausible-sounding discourse about bias that muddies the issues. So, if in doubt, I'd rather use cautious wording that is less susceptible to having holes poked in it. (FWIW, AIER has responded to this aspect of Ahmed's report here.) Cheers, --Andreas JN 466 23:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , there are a lot of sources that discuss their funding, so their spat with Ahmed is pretty much irrelevant. And "libertarian think tank is funded by dark money" is probably the least surprising thing about any of this. Grifters gonna grift, and indeed grifters gonna come up with all manner of pious excuses when caught grifting. That's how it works. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I searched for Koch + AIER and I found zilch in news searches on DDGo and Google, except for pieces published in the last couple of days. What good sources are you aware of? The American Institute for Economic Research article could do with them. --Andreas JN 466 00:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahmed has published a follow-up article going into some more detail: --Andreas  JN 466 15:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See also notes I added to [|AIER talk page]. AIER has gotten money for Atlas, as well. Year 2018 Form 990s are the last available for many, although 2019's should be appearing soon. JohnMashey (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there is some confusion about finances, in part due to the unusual financial structure, unlike anything I've seen in studying Koch-related think tanks. AIER is a 501(c)(3) "public charity" but owns American Investment Services, Inc. AIER may own some of the assets in AIS, but certainly not all, as it is an asset management service for others. AIER publishes its Form 990s, so here is 2019's, which conveniently shows summary for 2018 as well. Charles Koch gave $61K in 2018, Atlas gave $54,133.  In 2018, they had $184M Total assets, $85M liabilities, $99M Net assets, and on operating basis lost $2.9M, which seems odd.  That year they got $1.3M in investment income and $806K in grants, of which $122K came from Koch+Atlas.  Presumably some of their assets are in AIS, but it is nontrivial to figure out what's going on.  I've never seen one of these (nonprofit) think tanks run a (for-profit(?)) asset management company for others.JohnMashey (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2018 seems to be the year they hired Jeffrey Tucker and started spending a lot on social media promotion. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

, please take a moment to read Ahmed properly. He does not say that the bulk of AIER's funding comes from Koch, he goes out of his way to say that they earn most of their money from their own $285m investment fund, with holdings in fossil fuel, tobacco etc. What he does say in addition is that AIER is "embedded in a Koch-funded network" – the network is thus funded, not AIER itself, Ahmed says – and I have taken trouble to add those points of Ahmed's to the article. The fact is AIER is simply wealthy enough by itself. By over-egging the Koch funding angle you are doing the article – and indeed Ahmed himself, who is cited, but was more perspicacious in what he said – a disservice. It's one thing to preach to the choir; it's another to write in such a way that people on both sides of a fence can agree that it's true and relevant: and isn't that our aim? I'll not revert again, but can you not see the point? --Andreas JN 466 21:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have said already, The Guardian is also cited, and uses the same "funded by" wording that Ahmed does. Your arguments are not convincing. GPinkerton (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The think tank accepted a lot of donations from other organisations as well. Should we list all of those in the lead? What makes Koch so special? --Distelfinck (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources point out that AIER operates as part of a Koch-funded network. See also ongoing talk page discussion below - . --Andreas JN 466 20:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Andreas, you reinserted that AIER "is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial". That is what the source says, but per the source, getting donations from Koch and denying climate change is sufficient to be considered part of that network: "Corporate records filed with the [IRS] confirm that the AIER operates as part of a Koch-funded network of climate science". There is therefore no information lost by simply stating that AIER received funding from Koch and denied climate change. The way it's worded in your revert, people can be mislead into thinking this is a formal network -- it's not. --Distelfinck (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to avoid,, is a presentation that describes AIER as being largely bankrolled by Koch. They're not, their main income is from their investments (see section below), and we can be credibly accused of lying, or making too much out of a comparatively trifling amount, if we say otherwise. Ahmed used that wording advisedly, and I think we should follow it closely. (I'm not sure the wording implies great formality, but as it happens, they are also part of the Atlas Network, as mentioned in the Sponsor section, and a wider sort of network is spelled out on their chapters' partnerships and agreements page: .) Cheers, --Andreas JN 466 21:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Jane Mayer's Dark Money is a key source for understanding the methods of the Koch network, of which AIER clearly became a part after the management change in 2017. See my long comment [|here in this section]. In addition, as Andreas mentioned, AIER's Bastiat Society has partnerships.  They include (Koch-funded and tightly involved) Atlas, CATO, Charles Koch Institute (different from Foundation), Institute for Humane Studies (Chaired by Charles Koch). In 2017, Bastiat was run by Brad DeVos, who was a member of Mont Pelerin, studied with Atlas and Charles Koch Institute.  In 2017, GMU Economics PhD Edward Stringham became AIER President, AIER acquired Bastiat, and there was a big influx of Koch-connected folks into AIER.JohnMashey (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You used the word "Koch network". Could you please give a definition for that? --Distelfinck (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Try Column: David Koch’s real legacy is the dark money network of rich right-wingers or the inside covers of Jane Mayer's definitive Dark Money: front: "THE NETWORK-Political and Issue Spending (501c4s and 501c6s)" and back inside cover: "THE NETWORK-Think Tanks, Academia, Policy (501c3s)". Koch Netowrk is the usual term, although one sometimes sees Kochtopus for combination of Kochs+funding allies + large number of entities in those categories.JohnMashey (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC
 * I find that Wikipedia page Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers (which you cited) has a section called The Koch Network.JohnMashey (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Andreas, the word "network" is vague. It means that there is a connection between those think tanks, but doesn't say in what way they are connected. In this case, the connection seems to be an indirect one: AIER got a donation from Koch, and Koch also donated to the other think tanks. So I would suggest replacing "network" with one or more words, that are clear, so that readers know what is meant by "network". I would suggest replacing with "[AIER] and other think-tanks have received donations from Koch and are associated with climate change denial". --Distelfinck (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you are sort of trying to reverse-engineer Ahmed's conclusions. :) But the point Ahmed makes in the two cited articles is not just that these organizations have received (varying amounts of) Koch funding, but that they actively collaborate as a network, sharing key personnel (I found JohnMashey's comments on this talk page of interest in this regard) and services, and this collaboration is openly acknowledged and advertised on the partnership and agreements page. Bearing all that in mind, I really think "network" is the best expression to use in the lead we've had to date; it's the term repeatedly used in the cited sources, and precisely what is meant by it is explained in more detail in the body of the article (Great_Barrington_Declaration). Best, --Andreas JN 466 00:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This text "The declaration was authored by Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University.[1] It was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank that is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial.[9][10]" Does not follow the rules of logic. Using the same argument one could not explain how Osama bin Laden's niece, Noor Bin Ladin, is an ardent support of President Trump's policies, especially his foreign policy. What is the mistake here? Guilt by association is not adjudicated by dropping bread crumbs, and in this case what Koch does or thinks has no established relationship to the opinion of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) any more than just because both parties communicate in the English language and use the same linguistic conventions proves they are part of a white privilege conspiracy. The nonsense implications in this write-up are not a public service. Consider this, if the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration are correct, policy should be changed to save lives. I do not see any flaws in the logic of their reasoning as presented in this fluff of a write-up, and if there were any, I would be the first person to point it out. I think this article is potentially important enough that it should be edited by epidemiological content expert reviewers.216.197.221.129 (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you want us to believe that the fact that Koch-funded free-market organizations deny every science finding which, if generally accepted, could make the market less free, such as climate change and COVID dangers, is just coincidental? Maybe want to sell us a bridge too? We have enough reliable sources drawing that connection for us.
 * We are aware that guilt by association is a fallacy. No need for examples. But even your supposed counterexample does not work: one of the best ways for an enemy of the US to damage it would be to support an incompetent US president who is running it into the ground, alienating its allies, killing its inhabitants and splitting it into factions who hate each other.
 * "Epidemiological content expert reviewers" are not needed as long as we quote epidemiologists writing for reliable sources, but even if they were here in person, they would contradict the Great Declaration. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump and bin Laden: both right-wing extremists dependent on the wealth religious right. I see no conflict there. GPinkerton (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are the sources we're using directly mentioning climate change? If not, that (small) phrase should probably be removed.  It's true, but it might be SYNTH to mention it in this context if these sources aren't.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The first source cited has the headline "Climate Science Denial Network Behind Great Barrington Declaration". --Andreas JN 466 13:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Some editors have been confused by the AIER financials. See p.17 of AIER 2018 Annual Report, which includes: "AIER currently manages $151 million in split-interest trusts (Charitable Remainder Unitrusts and Pooled Income Funds). AIER’s tax-deductible planned giving program offers a lifetime income plan for up to three generations." Basically, a donor gives money to a charity, which then manages it and splits the income stream with the donor (and maybe descendants). That may be listed as assets on AIER's IRS Form 990s, but AIER can't just spend it. For instance, check 2019 990, where AIER got $575K in donations, $3.7M from investments, i.e., some from their own and some from split interests.  It's unclear to me how much of the assets are theirs and how much is restricted.  See also American Institute for Economic Research post at Desmog, obviously not RS, and not yet complete, but with many links to RS items, of which some may be useful in discussions and save some time. As noted earlier, it's not just Koch funding, but the number of Koch-related people that got involved from 2017-onward.JohnMashey (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The point still stands that what ever the truth of the climate change association by adding it in the page frames a negative viewpoint based soley on the aforementioned fallacy. The neutrality of the page and information on the GBR would be much better served without mention of climate change denial. BobDark (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be a fallacy of guilt by association if it were used to counter the content of the declaration. But we already have other sources taking apart the "science" behind the declaration. This one adds vital context: distorting science for economic reasons is what this organization does. It's their job. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly though. By bringing it in as it has it is used in a way to deligitimise its claims. The climate change issue has no bearing on its claims. Surely you'd agree that the science doesn't agree on this. Many scientists say one thing and many others say another thing. The fact is the climate change aspect can be covered off in the write up on the funding organisation as one of the many issues it funds. BobDark (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The science is pretty clear. Of course there are loud outsiders contradicting it, whose opinions are multiplied by people who cannot tell good science from bad, and by people like the AIER folks whose ideology is in sync with the bad science. This is true for COVID as well as for climate change: it's a consistent pattern of libertarian think tanks supporting bad science for ideological reasons. They are not credible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Except it isn't. It does seem that political ideology trumps a neutral and relevant write up though. BobDark (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources disagree with you. Science, the universe, and its facts are also heavily biased against your opinion. And Wikipedia articles too, because they are based on those reliable sources, which in turn are based on those biased facts. You will not succeed in making Wikipedia articles align with the "alternative facts" crowd. Can we stop this please? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You've devled into a series of assumptions and fallacies there. I'm not here to debate those. I stand by my original statement. BobDark (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So you are not swayed, but you cannot give reasons. Fine. The important thing is that you stopped trying to push fringe opinions such as denial of climate change consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not swayed by your continual use of fallacies and assumptions. Nor should anyone else. It doesn't lead to healthy discussion nor is it clever/smart. BobDark (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is what the article herein says is "Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial." This is left-wing propaganda. Koch is not a one dimensional character. For example, Koch funds NOVA, NOVA produced "How to cool the planet," which entire episode never discusses why one should need to or even want to cool the planet. Instead we are treated to Koch funded climate reactionary drivel with no context other than fanciful presumption, and some very extreme measures that look more like science fiction than science. OK, assume the climate is getting hotter, so what? Earth's climate from a historical perspective has typically been hotter than it is now. Furthermore, the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration are all distant relatives of Mr. Koch himself, which is equally irrelevant, because you are as well. I am not signing in because the left doxes people whose opinion they do not like. Moreover, I will never support Wikipedia financially whilst it harbors drivel like this uninformed hit piece.216.197.221.129 (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not insert text into older contributions that have already been responded to.
 * What you are saying here (left-wing propaganda; so what?) is just a collection of denialist talking points, plus a red herring (distant relatives of Mr. Koch). Wikipedia will not help you spread fringe propaganda, even if you pay for it (I will never support Wikipedia financially whilst), and neither is fringe propaganda valid reasoning on Talk pages. --Hob Gadling (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Illogical; you are denying my "talking points" because they are "denialist." I am not denying anything, you are projecting your own opacity and intransigence and claiming that I have some ownership of them because you don't like what I said. This is a left-wing hit piece. It uses hate words employed by the left including such nonsense projections as "denialist." Be careful what you wish for, hatred affects those who harbor it, not the target of their affections. My greater concern is for those to whom you peddle your hatred.216.197.221.129 (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Learn how to indent. I fixed that for you.
 * That is just confused. Those talking points are the typing bad reasoning denialists use for justifying their denial and have been refuted quite a while ago. Now you are using them to justify edits that depict COVID denialism as legitimate science. That will not fly because of WP:FRINGE. You are misjudging the situation: those words are not used by "the left", they are used by scientists who researched the denialism phenomenon - who in turn are pidgeonholed as "the left" by the right-wing anti-science liars whose methods they have uncovered. Wikipedia will stay on the side of science, and you will not succeed in squeezing your fringe ideas into articles, neither by threats to withdraw attempted bribes, nor by more vague threats, nor by bad reasoning such as poisoning the well. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no linkage between the Great Barrington Declaration and climate change; you argument is conflated. Your claim that your reactionary POV on any subject is settled "science." I am an actual scientist who reviews for 20 journals. Science relies on testing hypotheses, it is not a system of belief, but a system of disbelief for disproving quaint ideas. Now, if you will permit, I have some actual science to review, which proposed article, BTW, is dangerous because of sweeping generalizations with no basis in fact, much like the drivel in this hit piece. Someone needs to do that unfortunate job. It is unfortunate that this article is not subject to peer review. It is garbage.216.197.221.129 (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a close and monetary link between the GBD and climate change denial. You are right of course to say there is no casual link between this instance of rightist politicking and anthropogenic climate change, but that is beside the point. The denialists of both Covid and climate change are one and the same and take money from the same hand. Deny that in your 20 journals, not here. This is an encyclopaedia of reality, not a right-wing puff piece. GPinkerton (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (e/c)The linkage between the Great Barrington Declaration and climate change denial is the AIER, which has sponsored both. If you can't follow simple logic and observe widely-held standards of evidence for historical fact, then perhaps you should refrain from editorializing on articles where these skills are required. Newimpartial (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, the linkage between Mr. Koch and climate panic is just as strong. The government sends me checks, does that make me a spy for the CIA? So the climate is changing, it is difficult to investigate how much non-radioactive carbon (read as fossil fuels) has been put into the atmosphere because of the C-14 contamination from atmospheric atomic bomb testing in the 1960's. We are retreating from an ice age, and the climate has been warming for thousands of years. The current CO2 levels are increasing now for several thousand years and are now about 1/2 way to the top over the last 250,000,000 years. That is perhaps "alarming" but I don't know what it means in terms of any policy decisions. There are a lot of unsettled questions, and this really has nothing to do with the Great Barrington Declaration, at all, not in a pig's eye.216.197.221.129 (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that you deny anthropogenic climate change and presumably also deny the current consensus about population health measures cannot be used as an argument that the work of the AIER is not germane in both domains. In fact, your argument to this effect is incomprehensible. It is the reliable sources on this topic, rather than porcine oculatory faculties, that connect the GBD with the policy preferences of those funding it. Wikipedia follows the reliable sources that are available to date. Newimpartial (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not denied anything, I just don't know how to measure our contribution to climate change. The problem you seem to have is that you are perfectly happy with having politicians make up policy decisions because they can, not because what they are doing makes any sense. I could elaborate on this no end, but if you do not examine what the Great Barrington Declaration says, and why it is worth considering, then you should be contributing to any comments about it. What this article does is support special interests including the CPP, gov't overreach, and anti-democratic authoritarianism. I do so wish you would reconsider what you are doing---it is not the correct thing to do, and is a public disservice.216.197.221.129 (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I have read the GBD more than once, thanks, and understand fully the fatuity of its recommendations according to the available epidemiological evidence. I also know Climate change denial when I see it. This Talk page, however, is not here to discuss personal readings or feelings about the GBD much less about Climate change denial. This page is for the discussion of the content of the article, and such discussion needs to be based on actual reliable sources. Reals over feelz, people. Newimpartial (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have read the GBD more than once, thanks, and understand fully the correctness of its recommendations according to the available epidemiology. Climate change has nothing to do with the GBD. You have just presented your personal feelings about GBD without discussing anything other than the linkage the exists in your mind with climate change. This article seeks to present the politically correct interpretation of GBD, a page right out of Lenin's playbook. I see no discussion of statistical evidence, nor is that the intent of the article. If you want to discuss facts, you could start by presenting some. For example, the image of the GBD is illegible, even when clicked on, leading me to believe that you really don't care to have anyone read it, discuss it, or fact check the drivel you are presenting as if no public discussion were desirable. Prove me wrong.216.197.221.129 (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC) BTW, read this https://gbdeclaration.org/focused-protection/ It puts forth the statistics motivating the GBD. The excess mortality caused by political ineptitude is very concerning, we need better policy, not better propaganda.216.197.221.129 (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the reliable sources, neither the GBD nor any of the authors of the GBD have proposed any plausible strategies of "focused protection" that would actually work in real-world situations. Certainly jurisdictions that have tried philosophically-similar approaches, like Sweden and Belgium, have failed to protect vulnerable populations.
 * As far as "facts" are concerned, my analysis reflects inter alia the reliable, secondary sources cited in this article. When I want to consult primary sources, like a normal person, I use search engines to find original documents, not links to image files. The fact remains that the GBD is not taken seriously in the epidemiological and public health communities, who see it as a dangerous, ideologically-motivated policy intervention. Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, it is interesting to know that the GBD, like climate change denial, is motivated by free-market ideology, which denies that a free market can do anything wrong, and views any attempt to fight things a market obviously cannot handle right, such as climate change or COVID, as gov't overreach, and anti-democratic authoritarianism".
 * You have been preaching this ideology here, and you emphasized it by "I am a scientist!!" chest beating, but that will only impress ignorant non-scientists who are not aware that every scientist is a layman in every science except his own specialty, and think "wow, a scientist! Surely he knows what he's talking about!" Did you ever, in a discussion between scientists, see one of them use his degree or his published papers as corroboration of his own views? So ridiculous.
 * The common organizations and common motive behind GBD and climate change denial is relevant, to reliable sources as well as to this Wikipedia article, and we will not help you trying to hide it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You have wandered far off topic, which is that Mr. Koch is not one-dimensional. My purpose in attacking this nonsense is that it is so far from reasonable that you have alienated a good fraction of Wikipedia’s readership, and if you want to appear to be less biased you really should remove it, precisely because it is irrelevant, and you are only talking to your own "bubble". I have been censored by Wikipedia. I have removed that label in protest. Further conversation is now terminated.216.197.221.129 (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think a major problem with including the Koch relationship is that you must then follow that policy consistently everywhere. Will you do the same with the GOP or DNC pages, mentioning every major sponsor and every project they'd paid for? If a tiny and utterly unrelated sponsorship towards AIER made only once years ago is important enough to start your article with 'the GBD was sponsored by someone with links to climate change denial' then where does this precedent end?

The Koch Brothers have also sponsored liberally-aligned groups, but would I see the same information about them there? And how far can we take the chain of association? AIER didn't sponsor anti-climate change studies to the best of my knowledge. The Kochs did. So the GBD was sponsored by someone who at one point was sponsored by someone who had sponsored something bad... Where does the chain end?

And you can say the writer didn't 'specifically' say the project was heavily sponsored by climate denialists, but if you call it a 'rosey color' and I say it's not red, you can't reply with "I didn't necessarily call it red." We can't just watch out for open bias, we have to watch out for words that could cause bias, even if the person could argue it wasn't his intention. It's not about intention, it's about end result. If the end result is a line that inadvertently creates an unfair association between the GBD and climate-denial and thus creates bias against the GBD, it doesn't matter if the writer didn't mean for it to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonaldK 012 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Tangential connection to Koch brothers
As it currently stands the final paragraph of the lead includes the sentence The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank with financial ties to the Koch brothers, known for funding organizations associated with climate change denial. There are a handful of problems that I see with this that I'll outline below, and I propose changing the sentence to The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank with financial ties to the Koch brothers, known for funding organizations associated with climate change denial.
 * 1. It inaccurately implies a distance between the AEIR and climate change denial. AEIR is not just tied to the Koch brothers who are known for funding climate change denial: the AEIR themselves are producers of climate change denial articles. This is a primary connection, not secondary or tertiary.
 * 2. It violates WP:UNDUE. The Koch brothers have donated tens of thousands of dollars to the org., but it has an investment fund worth hundreds of millions. They are not a major funder of the organization and it is false to imply such.
 * 3. There is a connection drawn between the Barrington Declaration and the AEIR which is direct and appropriate for inclusion, but that connection is then further extrapolated by drawing the connection from the AEIR to the Koch brothers. These are both accurate connections by themselves, but the implication that those connections can be put together in a sentence and a direct Koch brother - Barrington Declaration connection implied is WP:SYNTH.
 * 4. The inclusion of this tangential and indirect tie to the Koch brothers screams blatant bias and appears, in my opinion, to be an attempt to make absolutely sure that the reader is aware that this declaration is WP:FRINGE even if that means grasping at straws to draw this connection and thereby imply guilt-by-association. While I understand the motivation, violating WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:SYNTH to push a POV is not appropriate even if the POV being pushed is correct. It's also not necessary since the AEIR is themselves engaged in the same fringe climate denial as the Koch brothers.  Pais  a re pa  03:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Kochs giving money and AEIR receiving that same money is in no way tangential. It is of direct relevance. GPinkerton (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How is that donation of direct relevance to the Great Barrington Declaration specifically? And please cite your source.  Pais  a re pa  04:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , cited in the article already. Where the AEIR, which wrote the screed, get its financial and ideological backing is most significant. Both The Guardian and the Byline Times article focus on exactly that, and even the AEIR has admitted it in its own defensive counter-articles. How could it not be of direct relevance? How could it not be linked when a billionaire businessman's millionaire think-tank publishes a eugenicist mantra for the abatement of economic losses to AEIR-linked businesses? Where is the missing link? I think I can see all of them … GPinkerton (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles in the Japan Times and the Jerusalem Post also cover this angle. GPinkerton (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the funding (and spurious science) and far-right nature of the declaration were agreed upon by both sides of the aisle in the House of Lords, no less. Both Richard Faulkner, Baron Faulkner of Worcester and James Bethell, 5th Baron Bethell mentioned its shoddy methodology and nefarious backers. GPinkerton (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How could it not be of direct relevance? How could it not be linked when a billionaire businessman's millionaire think-tank publishes a eugenicist mantra for the abatement of economic losses to AEIR-linked businesses? That exactly the WP:SYNTH that I mentioned. You're claiming that a $68,000 donation to an organization with a $300,000,000 investment fund makes it that 'billionaire businessman's millionaire think-tank' and worse, you continue that extrapolation to claim that there is a direct connection between the Koch brothers and this declaration, an allegation which no source makes and for which there is no evidence.  Pais  a re pa  05:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's not synthesis if I'm not the one making the connection, that's nonsense. I refer you to the sources cited, please stop repeating arguments that will go nowhere. The connection between Koch, climate change, and the Declaration are clear and unequivocal and reported by multiple reliable sources. Ultimately, the stunt was a singular failure and gained no traction among capable policymakers anywhere in the civilized world. Would removing Koch's money's involvement from the Wikipedia article really improve its chances of uptake? GPinkerton (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:GOODFAITH...--JBchrch (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed.--JBchrch (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Let me add that you should consider an RfC about this.--JBchrch (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The Koch obsession looks rather silly, and I think it indeed reduces uptake. It should be removed from the lede. In the Sponsor section at least one reference to "Koch-funded" would be better removed. The donation from the Koch Foundation should also be junked, it is de minimus. The description situating AEIR's political and social worldview will be stronger if it simply describes actual positions and activities of AEIR. Which includes partnership with the Koch Institute. All the other Beware the Mark of the Koch stuff mixed in contaminates the message. (And those Byline Times articles--the basis for the Sponsor section--suffer the same problem.) -- M.boli (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since AIER is not a well-known organization (e.g., on par with Apple or Facebook), it's important to provide some description of it. If you think that this description is not the best, then please feel free to propose a better one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is what I suggested above. What remains is an accurate and stronger description of AEIR.
 * Last paragraph of the lede section: ... a libertarian think tank with financial ties to the Koch brothers, known for funding organizations ..
 * Second paragraph of Sponsor section, first sentence: ... Nafeez Ahmed has described the AIER as a "institution embedded in a Koch-funded network that writes AIER "denies climate science while investing in polluting fossil fuel industries"
 * Same paragraph later srike the irrelevant remark about the tiny Koch donation: and included a US$68,100 donation fee from the Charles Koch Foundation.
 * Same paragraph strike the gratuitous: and other Koch funded think thanks
 * What's left is a good description of AEIR, its investments, and it's policies. The mention that AEIR partners with the Koch Foundation remains. The article is more persuasive because it doesn't read like a conspiracy theorist looking for The Evil Mark of Koch everywhere. -- M.boli (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , certianly not, since that would have the effect of suggesting these facts are not true and might be misunderstood as merely someone's opinion rather than objective reality. Why ignore what multiple reliable media are telling us, that the money behind the Great Barrington Declaration and its far-right acolytes comes from Koch and the AIER and the other big businesses of America? This is more important than what they chose to put in the document or whose names were attached to it. The Res Gestae Divi Augusti hardly deals with the text itself until the end of the article, as is proper for a historical piece of propaganda, the thing must be put in its proper context so the reader can understand its contents. Omitting the most famous of the Declaration's backers is like omitting de Gaulle from the history of post-war France. GPinkerton (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Why is is better to write that AIER gets money from the Kochs, who pay for denial, than that AIER are denialists? If we have sources for both? This sounds like of would be even better to write that they get money from somebody who is a member in the same club as the uncle of somebody who has worked for a close friend of the Kochs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * institution embedded in a Koch-funded network that denies climate science embarrasses me as a Wikipedia editor.
 * This article is about a Covid policy document, sponsored by AEIR.
 * AEIR also denies climate change. (I'm OK with this as relevant.)
 * AEIR works with other institutions, some of them are also climate deniers
 * Some of those other institutions ... Koch family money is in there somewhere.
 * DING DING DING! You are a winner! You get to tar the Great Barrington Declaration with the mark of the evil KOCH family!
 * Just because that embarrassing sentence occurs in a source article doesn't mean that Wikipedia is obligated to repeat it. I think that was a lapse of judgment. -- M.boli (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine that someone somewhere has made the obvious connection: the Koch agenda is to resist anything that interferes with the "freedom" of businesses to do whatever they please. Climate change regulations?  Interference!  COVID lockdown?  Interference!!  Now, I'm not proposing to write this in our article if there's no source to support it.  But let's not pretend to be ignorant about the reason (okay, one of the reasons) AEIR (as a Koch-funded entity) takes the positions it takes.  Anyway, as things stand what we say has perfectly adequate support from the sources given.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but why make the long connection "Barrington - AIER - Koch - Climate change denial" rather than the shorter one "Barrington - AIER - Climate change denial"? Why does nobody answer that question? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We could do both, if the sources support it. I think it's still important to "follow the money".  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Following the money" is not appropriate when it means cherry-picking a single highly controversial donor (whose contribution was small relative to the organization) in order to discredit through association. Imagine if we "followed the money" in the same way with, for example, Nobel laureates Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee. Duflo and Banerjee work at MIT -> MIT has received $185 million from the Koch brothers -> therefore Duflo and Banerjee's work is part of the Koch agenda.  Pais  a re pa  18:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite. The reference to Koch in this article is POV pushing of the worst kind. It's wholly unjustified, and the point you make is enough to consider removal of the offending text; and offending it certainly is. Arcturus (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , No, that's a logical fallacy. (See: straw man argument.) No reliable sources are calling MIT "Koch-funded", yet wherever the money behind this astroturfing is mentioned, Koch's name is there. Giving money to universities is quite different to giving political backing to a far-right think-tank. GPinkerton (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * False. Analogy != straw man. As to your claim that No reliable sources are calling MIT "Koch-funded", MIT literally named an institution after them. No one, certainly not MIT, is denying their receipt of Koch funding. However, you're missing the point which is that it is inappropriate to cherry pick small donors in order to discredit through association.  Pais  a re pa  22:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , we're not mentioning any "small donors". Koch has paid huge sums. GPinkerton (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * $68,000 compared to the AEIR's ~$300 million investment fund. I.e., small.  Pais  a re pa  22:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In the usual formulas, $300M endowment might mean $12M annual spending. A $60K donation would be 0.5% of the annual spending.  That's not big, but it's not exactly "small".  In the grant-making world, 5% of a project (not the whole organization – a single project) is usually considered the low end of "significant" funding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I completely agree with you, and this was 's initial proposition intends to do. As of right now the article states, "Barrington - AIER - Koch - Climate change denial", while it should state "Barrington - AIER - Climate change denial".--JBchrch (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , it is WP:UNDUE not to mention the most politically active supporter of the political actors' political supporters, especially when every reliable source never fails to mention his involvement and its significance. GPinkerton (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * JBchrch, it seems that NOTCENSORED may apply here, in addition to DUE. If many or most sources discuss the AIER and climate change denial in relation to Koch funding, what policy-relevant reason is there for this article to do otherwise. Newimpartial (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, The relevant policy here (aaah wikilawyering—my favourite past-time) is MOS:LEADNO. But please note, for the avoidance of doubt, that the only proposal in this whole section I personally support is Paisarepa's initial proposition to remove half a sentence in the lead—which does not remove the message that the AIER is bad, simply gives WP:DUE weight to the Koch's involvement in the Declaration, and does not remove any content from the body.--JBchrch (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article isn't the AEIR though, it's the Great Barrington Declaration.  Pais  a re pa  22:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

True, but I was only taking into consideration sources that discuss the AEIR and climate change denial in the context of the GBD. Newimpartial (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC) The most Koch-hungry source comes up with: institution embedded in a Koch-funded network that denies climate science. It is embarrassing that Wikipedia would repeat that phrase in an article. If the name was Soros instead of Koch I think all the editors here would see it for the dreck that it is. -- M.boli (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , what's the relationship? Soros has no decades long relationship with political extremism, as Koch does. It would be wrong to omit the central ideological influence behind the AEIR and its publication, which is very much the subject of this article. GPinkerton (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Reference to Koch brothers in lead
Should the sentence in the lead: The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank with financial ties to the Koch brothers, known for funding organizations associated with climate change denial include the reference to the Koch brothers?  Pais  a re pa  23:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, as numerous media report this important and influential political connection, which at the same time should surprise no-one, since far-right anti-science causes have long been espoused by those into whose hands Koch's money comes. GPinkerton (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:DUE and MOS:LEADNO, as explained by Paisarepa here, and illustrated by her/his proposal : The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank with financial ties to the Koch brothers, known for funding organizations associated with climate change denial..--JBchrch (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, 👎. AIER's denial stance on climate change is documented and relevant, its financial relationship with Koch family are weak. Throwing it in is gratuitous and looks silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.boli (talk • contribs) 05:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. In the article, yes. In the lead, no. But AIER's own climate change denial activities should be in the lead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No per WP:OFFTOPIC, because while (according to the statement) The Koch Brothers are known for funding climate change denial, climate change and denial of climate change have little to do with The Great Barrington Declaration. 4D4850 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Puts undue weight on a minor connection with Koch brothers.Glendoremus (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I see no reason why the Koch connections should be mentioned in the lead. The association between the declaration and AIER should most definitely remain, however, as this being a strategy associated with a libertarian think-tank is important to understand the context in which it was issued. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No per Hob Gadling - Idealigic (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes -- it is perfectly reasonable to indicate, in the lead, where the financial support for this initiative comes from, as given via reliable sources. It's a mystery to me why some editors would prefer not to include this angle.  If we were to work from PraiseVivec's premise ("important to understand the context in which [the declaration] was issued") then the question of financial basis is a key topic.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we have sources for the financial support intended for this initiative specifically? My understanding was that we have sources saying that AIER does get money from Koch and from others - therefore, the connection between GBD and Koch via AIER is too indirect to include it in the lede, although not too indirect to include it in the article. But it's news to me that Koch specifically gave money for the GBD. That would indeed belong in the lede. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to let respond, but I have not seen a source that makes a direct connection.--JBchrch (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes and no - I propose instead: The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank that also promoted climate change denialism.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes but I think the wording by User:PaleoNeonate would be better. -Snowded TALK 06:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm confused by your reply. You say 'Yes' to including the Koch reference in the lead, but you also say that PaleoNeonate's wording which removes the Koch reference is better. This appears contradictory; could you clarify your opinion? Thanks,  Pais  a re pa  17:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It means what it says, given the RFI choice I vote one way, but I think the alternative proposed is better -Snowded TALK 17:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Koch donated to AIER. So did various other people and organisations. There is no reason to single out Koch. And especially no reason to mention Koch in every instance the word AIER appears in Wikipedia.  pointed out in a previous discussion that in this article from AIER Donald J. Boudreaux says Tyler Cowen and the Mercatus Center this past Spring awarded funds to Imperial College modeler Neil Ferguson. The reason for this grant of funds was Tyler’s admiration of the fact that Dr. Ferguson’s model served as the spark for massive lockdowns in the U.K. and the U.S. But here’s the thing: Until last year, Charles Koch served on the board of Mercatus and has been, and continues to be, a contributor. Clearly, if the Koch Foundation is buying opposition to covid lockdowns, it’s doing a poor job!.--Distelfinck (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

 * There is strong evidence that the relationship between the AIER and the Koch vehicles are important to mention whenever the Great Barrington Declaration is discussed. It would be remiss to omit it. GPinkerton (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that relationship should be mentioned in the article. I think everybody agrees on that. But this is about whether it should be mentioned in the lede. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , in all these instances, the three things are all mentioned together, which suggests reliable sources frequently treat of the connections are of vital and central importance. GPinkerton (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * These sources only mention an indirect connection. Besides, if you look closely, you only provided two sources: The Guardian, a biased (although reliable) source and a Gwynne Dyer column, reprinted as an opinion/commentary, and thus unreliable per WP:RSEDITORIAL. As such, I maintain that the "Koch connection" should not be mentioned in the lead.--JBchrch (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , They all mention a direct connection, as can be seen in boldface. I maintain that the Koch connection is sufficiently evidenced by the sources already cited in the article. These further support that conclusion. The claim thus unreliable per WP:RSEDITORIAL does not appear to be based on reference to that policy, because it doesn't not say they are automatically unreliable, and in any case we already have reliable sources that state these things. These are merely to prove it to other editors that the fact that Koch funded the declaration's parent body is significant and mentioned by multiple news media (i.e. The Guardian, the Jerusalem Post, the Japan Times, and so on. Even the AIER's own "news" blog makes repeated reference to it. It's relevance cannot be questioned. GPinkerton (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, the thing that bothers me most about this difference is not that it adds the Kochs. It is that it removes the fact that AIER is itself associated with climate change denial and replaces it by a weaker connection, via the Kochs. That makes the sentence seem as if someone had tried desperately to find any kind of fault and could only find a bit of dirt in an alley two streets away. Which is not the case: the GBD is crap, and AIER sponsors other crap too. We should not give the reader the impression that the case against the GBD is weaker than it actually is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is strong evidence that the relationship between the AIER and the Koch vehicles are important to mention whenever the Great Barrington Declaration is discussed. It would be remiss to omit it. GPinkerton (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that relationship should be mentioned in the article. I think everybody agrees on that. But this is about whether it should be mentioned in the lede. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , in all these instances, the three things are all mentioned together, which suggests reliable sources frequently treat of the connections are of vital and central importance. GPinkerton (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * These sources only mention an indirect connection. Besides, if you look closely, you only provided two sources: The Guardian, a biased (although reliable) source and a Gwynne Dyer column, reprinted as an opinion/commentary, and thus unreliable per WP:RSEDITORIAL. As such, I maintain that the "Koch connection" should not be mentioned in the lead.--JBchrch (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , They all mention a direct connection, as can be seen in boldface. I maintain that the Koch connection is sufficiently evidenced by the sources already cited in the article. These further support that conclusion. The claim thus unreliable per WP:RSEDITORIAL does not appear to be based on reference to that policy, because it doesn't not say they are automatically unreliable, and in any case we already have reliable sources that state these things. These are merely to prove it to other editors that the fact that Koch funded the declaration's parent body is significant and mentioned by multiple news media (i.e. The Guardian, the Jerusalem Post, the Japan Times, and so on. Even the AIER's own "news" blog makes repeated reference to it. It's relevance cannot be questioned. GPinkerton (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, the thing that bothers me most about this difference is not that it adds the Kochs. It is that it removes the fact that AIER is itself associated with climate change denial and replaces it by a weaker connection, via the Kochs. That makes the sentence seem as if someone had tried desperately to find any kind of fault and could only find a bit of dirt in an alley two streets away. Which is not the case: the GBD is crap, and AIER sponsors other crap too. We should not give the reader the impression that the case against the GBD is weaker than it actually is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Need to be alert here
We already have two SPAs involved in this discussion, I suspect we may get more -Snowded TALK 06:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)