Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)

Anti-vax
Hello Wikipedia. Can you please source when John Campbell became anti-vax? It is one thing to analyze and critique a vaccine and another to write-off all vaccines. 24.203.188.202 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Follow the sources. You don't need to 'write-off all vaccines' to engage in Anti-vaccine activism; in fact most anti-vaxxers claim to be pro-vaccine (but aren't). Bon courage (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "You don't need to 'write-off all vaccines' to engage in Anti-vaccine activism;"
 * Yes you do. It's in the very essence of the term. For being a Science editor you should know better than this.
 * "most anti-vaxxers claim to be pro-vaccine"
 * Eh... no they don't. You're again missing the lexicological aspect of words. ExitFilm(For a Music) (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Follow the sources. Your opinion counts for nothing. "You should know better" is an empty bluff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are discussions often like that to improve Wikipedia articles? I honestly find this quite depressing. It's really unfortunate to see active contributors defending such fallacious claims on Wikipedia.
 * Claming someone who does not think they need a vaccine or do not recommend a specific vaccine as an antitax is totally illogical and irrational.
 * What is the procedure to escalate this kind of issue to prevent misinformation on Wikipedia? 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * someone who does not think they need a vaccine That is not what Campbell does. He spreads misinformation about vaccines that deludes people away from vaccinations and leads to epidemics. Please inform yourself from reliable sources instead of disinformation sites. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please inform yourself from from entire sentences instead of taking part of someone's post out of context. I also find the implication that Dr. John Campbell's pursuit of the truth leads to epidemics to be quite libellous. TheVBW (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did read your entire sentences. My response still fits, and what's more important, your approach is at odds with Wikipedia's rules. We will not delete a sourced statement just because some random person on the internet believes it is totally illogical and irrational. Otherwise, Wikipedia, just picking one example, would have to be silent on the shape of the Earth. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The person (John) in question does not seem to associate with total "anti-vax" either, and I have not seen him raise concerns on any other vaccines besides COVID jabs, besides drawing comparisons with the threshold of adverse events at which other drugs have been withdrawn - is he not a source on himself? TheVBW (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Where (in our article) do you want to remove the claim he is anti-vax from? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see two occurrences - but either way the erroneous claim that he's an anti-vaxxer is still being argued for in talk and I want to achieve consensus. TheVBW (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, this needs attibuting. Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Somebody who pumps out anti-vaccine information is fairly obviously antivax, More to the point, since we have a cited WP:GREL which asserts he is antivax, without qualification, Wikipedia is obliged to assert that too. Attributing it or otherwise watering it down would be WP:PROFRINGE and POV. Bon courage (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not anti-vaccine - pro awareness of Coronavirus vaccine dangers. John has been vaccinated. Is he a fringe source on himself? TheVBW (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cares more about what independent sources have to say about a subject than what a subject as to say about themself. If we followed self descriptions David Duke's biography would call him a 'human rights advocate'. MrOllie (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "pro awareness of Coronavirus vaccine dangers" &larr; that is a WP:PROFRINGE framing since the "dangers" he trumpets are consistently fake, as sources relay. Unduly self-serving comments WP:ABOUTSELF are not permitted in Wikipedia articles, and nearly all antivaxxers claim they aren't one. The whole point is this guy changed from somebody semi-reasonable to a antivaxxer, as our sources say. Bon courage (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * AstraZeneca have recently withdrawn their vaccine over such dangers and the NHS has published official advice. What are you on about? TheVBW (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't. They're withdrawing because they weren't making money due to competition from other vaccine makers. But see WP:NOTFORUM, Wikipedia talk pages aren't the place for this. MrOllie (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He says it, but it's also clearly demonstrated. You think he faked his vaccination dates? TheVBW (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. We follow the independent sources. MrOllie (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And his whole schtick is how he used to get vaccinated but is now no longer taking up the NHS invitations. Even the morons in the Youtube comment section understand this. Anyway, we need independent reliable sources on this so this line of discussion is futile. Bon courage (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Now we're insulting his viewers? TheVBW (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ABOUTSELF TheVBW (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To quote: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. ABOUTSELF only works when independent reliable sources are not being contradicted. MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I only see one source which calls him "anti-vax" in passing, in which case a 50:50 wouldn't be a terribly exceptional claim. The site is a very online publication, and "boo hiss the anti-vax crank" is gonna get more engagement than "COVID vaccine skeptic makes error" TheVBW (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that you disagree with the conclusion of the cited source, but we have to follow it nonetheless. MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are we following a lone source over the public actions of the living person in question? TheVBW (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and this is in any case completely consonant with Campbell's actions and word (which you apparently don't undserstand). Bon courage (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because that is what Wikipedia's core content policies dictate. We specifically do not substitute the judgment of individual Wikipedia editors for that of the reliable sources. That is the main point of policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If what publishers are interested in is more important than verifiable fact, then I have failed. TheVBW (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have, so time to drop the stick. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a "vaccine skeptic" in any reliable source. It's just a term antivaxxers use for themselves (cf. "climate skeptic"). One again, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * COVID vaccine skeptic TheVBW (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But he had it, ergo if he is not a denier he is not a skeptic, of course a lot of people say one thing and do another (when money is involved). Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We follow the reliable sources. An argument for anything else is is an argument for original research TarnishedPathtalk 11:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a diversion with general information that brings nothing to this talk. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it is a helpful pointer for a rookie to familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone obviously need to be against all vaccines to be an anti-vaxxer. With this fallacious reasoning, anyone who doesn't believe in a single religion, for instance, would be considered as anti-religion, right?
 * It is shameful that we need to discuss about obvious semantic logic like that with contributors who are defending false information that is causing diffamation.
 * People who considered they didn't need a vaccine who should be not be tagged as antivax. If this reasoning can drive the content of Wikipedia pages Wikipedia can not be considered as a reliable source anymore. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't get it. Wikipedia is built on the rule that all articles have to be based on reliable sources. What is "obvious" for you does not matter because of WP:OR. This page is for source-based discussions on how to improve the article based on sources. If you want to change the article about Campbell, you need sources talking about Campbell. If you do not like that, you are welcome to go to other websites where you can publish your opinion. This is not one of those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Dr Cambell is not engages into anti-vaccine activism. This is a fallacious statement. He only questions the relevance and the risk benifit ratio of a specific vaccine. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Dr Campbell actually had all his Covid jabs and is not an anti-Vader. 2.96.250.228 (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you pointout where we say he is? Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * He clearly shared his vaccination status in this video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3ceurG7P89c 38.133.44.131 (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So, do we say he is Anti-Vax? Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is he really anti-Vader, or just pro-Skywalker? Zaathras (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This attitude is childish and counter productive. It is obvious it is just a typo and correcting disinformation is more important than joking. Dr Cambell often mentionned he had 2 doses of the vaccine during the pandemic and he is absolutly not an antivax. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * is absolutly[sic] not an antivax. Well, reliable sources state otherwise. Zaathras (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024
I'm suggesting a change to the description of ivernectin against COVID-19 as new research and papers have been released. One of which is: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ 92.237.245.156 (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: not new, likely a crap analysis/crap data as per the Expression of Concern from that journal's editor Cannolis (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "This Expression of Concern does not imply that the methodology used by Mr. Andrew Bryant and his collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research"
 * An expression of concern is not the "debunking" of a study. Not only that, your conclusion of "crap analysis/crap data" is unsubstantiated, versus the opinion of a systematic review and meta-analysis from multiple PHDs. You would have to provide better sources/substantiation as to why that study is moot. 2001:818:E94C:D00:18FA:F52F:6A38:DF39 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We just say "no" and move on. The Wikipedia is not a platform for your antivaxxer agenda. Zaathras (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I could demonstrate the fallacy of this argument "well I am not saying you do eat dogs for breakfast, but it would be a question worth asking", is not a valid question and is ("pun" fully intended) dog-whistling. Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Woah, is there anyone else who could jump in and analyse this toxic and rude interaction? Or has WP become the StackOverflow of information?
 * Same for the buddy below, that "go take your business elsewhere" attitude kinda brings back memories of times that were not so good for freedom of information. ExitFilm(For a Music) (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree the interaction is toxic and disappointing. It's clear to see why wikipedia is no longer a reliable source of information. The page written about Dr John is biased and misleading and does not give a genuine summary of his efforts. Which seems to be the author(s) intention. 89.14.77.248 (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

re 1222341366
If "false claims" have been made and "misinformation" has been "veered into", would sources please be added to that section? Have you checked the citations? TheVBW (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well "factually incorrect" is already sourced, as is "spurious" "misleading" and "misinterprets", so it seems to be that misinformation sums this up well, but we can go for "factually incorrect". Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then please copy these citations into the relevant area, because the current FactCheck citation is not relevant. TheVBW (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They are, we don't generally cite the lede as it is only a summary of the body. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Will remove. TheVBW (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do not, you have not gotten a consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So I have now altred it to reflect the sources, and provided one. Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Have moved one of the references and removed a duplicate which is only relevant later in the text TheVBW (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this wording is less "coy"[sic] TheVBW (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You'll need a consensus to make a change. I find that switching to passive voice is unhelpful here. The misinformation didn't just fall into his videos on its own. MrOllie (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Passive voice is not intended - this is a more accurate description. WP:RS have mentioned John raising concerns over the presentation of the data he's covering, and I don't see how his recent interviews with medical experts and first-hand officially diagnosed vaccine injury sufferers could possibly be considered misinformation. Labelling all of his work as such is a huge disservice. TheVBW (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't 'label all of his work as such', so we are in good shape, then. MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is not going to help. You must actually get support for your proposed edit from other editors, here on this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems to. TheVBW (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can find nothing in the article that does so, and I've read it several times. MrOllie (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "they later veered into misinformation" - something "veering" is not going down multiple paths at once. TheVBW (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You appear to be reading something into the article that is simply not there - and a misreading is not a reason to change the article. MrOllie (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anyone being earnest would disagree with me on this. TheVBW (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He went from being semi-reasonable to being a total COVID crank according to Gorski. I don't believe there is any RS that says his videos now have any merit; quite the opposite. So the "veering into" phrase is apt and faithful to the sense of the sources cited. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is quite a sweeping statement as well as a personal attack. Also, false. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actauly "begun to include covid misinformation" I like. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Same here. I've edited the article as such with the minor adjustment to "began to include COVID-19 misinformation". Tarnished<b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That suggests they were still praiseworthy with a smattering of misinformation, which does not fit with the "total COVID crank" which is sourced, or the unredeemed string of misinformation sources complain about after he became an antivaxxer. Bon courage (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No less than the current wording does. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So how to convey the flip from "semi-reasonable" to full-on antivaxxer with a grifting business model? Bon courage (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think your overthinking what it says. That's not my interpretation of that wording at all. "Began to include" to me simply indicates that there was divergence at some point in time. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want to be accurate, and not give the impression his are praiseworthy videos which happen to "include" occasional misinfo. If we want to say there's a "divergence" then we should say that; I'd be fine saying his videos diverted into nisinformation, or that his videos came to "consist of" (not just "include") misinformation. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "but they later diverged into COVID-19 misinformation"? <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 12:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That would work. I wonder if the BBC content I just added is relevant to how we think of this? Bon courage (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Amazing that his copout was that he wasn't a statistician and he hadn't done the original analysis. Full crank. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 12:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Ref 19b potentially misleading due to timestamp
This regards ref 19, which at the time of writing is:

- Vadon R (October 4, 2023). "Vaccine claims, Alzheimer's treatment and Tim's Parkrun times". More or Less: Behind the Stats (Radio programme). 2 minutes in. BBC. Radio 4.

There is nothing wrong with the reference itself, but I found the "2 minutes in" to be potentially misleading. Since this reference, a radio programme, is used twice on the page to refer to two different parts of the programme.

Ref 19 is cited for the first time in the third paragraph under under "COVID-19 pandemic", providing a source for the paragraph's claims, which centre on comments from Richard Vadon, a guest in the programme. Vadon's comments arise at around 2 minutes into the programme, so the "2 minutes in" is helpful here.

The second time Ref 19 is used -- in the second paragraph under "Death count" -- it is to provide a source for the sentence, "Campbell took down his video after being contacted by the programme, telling them that he was not a statistician." The part of the programme discussing this happens at about 10:40-11:00. So, it's not accurate to use ref 19 here, since it implies that one should go "2 minutes in" to hear the source for the sentence.

However, I am not familiar enough with best practices here to know what's the right way to correct this. Is it just as simple as creating a new reference where it mentions "10:40 minutes in" and have it replace ref 19b? Also note that this same radio programme is used as reference 34, just without the timestamp. Would appreciate input, thank you. Sic veresco (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)