Talk:Sucharit Bhakdi/Archive 1

"Research", Bhakdi
Hello Hob- Regarding your recent edit summary at Sucharit Bhakdi: While I understand the point you are making there, the word research is a general term. When you look up your family history or the efficacy of vitamin C in cold prevention, that is research, whether you publish a scholarly paper on it or not. You may view this as simply a matter of semantics in the context of your edit summary, but your wording implied an absolute definition that does not strictly apply. And a side note re your assessment of Bhakdi's views: As a carpenter with a French degree who happens to agree with Bhakdi, my view could be seen as merely an opinion. But, given his career, his view carries a little more weight than that of "just some retired guy with an opinion". Eric talk 02:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Science is not done like that. The word "research" in the context of an acedmic suggests that he actually published it in a peer-reviewed journal.
 * Also, this belongs on the article's Talk page, not on mine, so I moved it here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I almost posted here at first, but then thought it might be better on your talkpage. Eric talk 11:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

FT/N
Note, this article is under discussion at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020
Change Known for	COVID-19 misinformation

to

Change Known for working on the complement system in immunology reference: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23010447/ Galilei 2000 (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Providing a link to one of his publications doesn't make him known for that. FDW777 (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020 (2)
Known for	COVID-19 misinformation

change to

Known for	His views against the lockdown approach to Covid-19

Saying someone is known for misinformation is an simply an opinion and not in keeping with the aims for Wikipedia. Other scientists opposing lockdown on Wikipedia are not given this label - simply the facts. Galilei 2000 (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . See WP:NPOV, particularly WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI. Only use this template once consensus had been established. Alexbrn (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020 (3)
2A02:C7F:9A59:5A00:252C:3E12:4317:9A65 (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Known by whom?
 * ❌ Please only use this template to ask for edits for which consensus exists. Alexbrn (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

dispute resolution
Rather the inform all users on their talk pages I thought I would leave this here.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
 * Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to decline to participate since there's no WP:CLUE behind this. When and if a dispute rises to the level of basic acknowledgement of policy, DR may be necessary. Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Good sources?
I thought I would make this section to discuss reliable sources before adding them. Bhakdi on Covid is a subject of some contention so I think it would be good to discuss it with people on here for consensus and to get some good advice.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13294

Is that any good? Reliable? It says it is from the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. Gd123lbp (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No.
 * 1) too old
 * 2) he has a whatever kind of relationship to Bhakdi ("We would like to thank [...] Sucharit Bhakdi (Emeritus Professor, Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz) for his initial idea about exaggerating the role of SARS‐CoV‐2 in the current European epidemiological picture"). Btw: Bhakdi has never been an Emeritus Professor.
 * 3) What has this kind of opinion paper to do with this article? --Julius Senegal (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * That paper is not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Workshopping RfC
As suggested, a good way to settle the ongoing dispute on this article is via WP:RFC. Prior to launching that RfC, it would be good to get agreement on what question it asks.

I propose we present people with options for the first two sentences of the article, since these seem to be the locus of the dispute. Ideally, to keep things simple, there should be just two options, if that can be agreed. Then we can just ask "What should be the first two sentences of the article, is it option 1 or option 2".

As an option 1, I propose this. It would be good to evolve this and also to have editors in favour of a softer version to agree an alternative to be proposed as an "option 2".


 * Option 1

Thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * From a quick look, I'd say remove the "but" and start a new sentence. The second statement does not oppose the first. Also, as soon as anyone can edit the article, we should dispense with the meaningless, overused expression "the science". Eric talk 02:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that anyone editing the lede without clear-cut consensus is going to get blocked. I was hoping those who believe that Bhakdi is a kind of Copernicus figure were going to propose here an alternative opening in line with their view of what Wikipedia should be saying. Alexbrn (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I definitely think "but" should be removed/changed before the RFC. FDW777 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

1) "was a respected immunologist" Wrong. He was neither an immunologist, nor is "respected" useful (POV) or correct according to the source. 2) "but" is also unnessary. Best, --Julius Senegal (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . Right, so per the BR24 source we should say "microbiologist" rather than "immunologist". My German is very creaky, so how would you translate this from that same source: "Tatsächlich sagen Fachkollegen, dass Bhakdi in den neunziger Jahren ein renommierter Mikrobiologe war."? I don't think we have any other source commenting on his past career? Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Actually, his peers say that Bhakdi was a renowned microbiologist in the 1990s." (I added "his" because the sentence looks weird without it, but that changes the meaning slightly.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1, revised

Thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * To me, "microbiologist" is significantly better than "immunologist", so that's a step forward... I still question the choice of references proposed for the lead. Might Bhakdi's efforts over the preceding 5 decades be worthy of some more relevant and specific ref before we get on to his somewhat controversial 'alternative viewpoint' expressed during the past 7 months (I'm sure we're not short of refs for that)? - for the former, the www.ukgm.de ref might suit.


 * Or have I missed something here? -And does the same apply to option 2?- Let's have both options as sensible as possible before they're put to the vote... Yadsalohcin (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1, further revised

Option 1, further revised- better with this ref in the lead? Yadsalohcin (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good stuff . I'll wait a day or so for any further comment, and then the RfC can start running with these two options. Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Nobody from the "Bhakdi's views are not misinformation" camp has proposed a version, so as a basis for an "Option 2" here is the version as last edited by.
 * Option 2

Is this what the editor's who don't want to mention misinformation, want to say for the first two sentences of the article? Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 2, revised

Option 2, revised- better with this ref in the lead? Yadsalohcin (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Option 1, as he is spreading what has been described as misinformation, hell some of it is outright wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hold your horses :-) this is just workshopping to agree which two alternatives we put to the RFC participants ... Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I can agree to the second option, but one small point on the first, hadn't we established in the Talk:Sucharit Bhakdi that, according WP:RSEDITORIAL, the Tyson Barker article couldn't be used as a reference? I would suggest removing it and moving on to the discussion of the two. How is this to be done, a paragraph explaining each of our cases or more of a discussion in the style of the talk page? Tigre200 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that had not been established. It was what you said. Anyway, now is not the time to discuss that, but to get two options to present. Thank you for your approval of Option 2 (others may of course have more to say ...) Alexbrn (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I like option 2. Gd123lbp (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, well when they've been finalised the two options will be put in the WP:RFC, and the wider community (and everyone already familiar with the matter) will be able to register their preference. Now is the time to ensure that the two options both have good buy-in from editors here, in the hope this will make the RFC run smooth. Alexbrn (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of either one of these, but option 2 is the better of the two. The phrasing paints a picture of a scientist who did some work in the 1990s and then turned up again 20 years later to spout quackery about the coronavirus; option 1 sort of infers that his recent activity has caused him to no longer be respected ("was respected ..., but ...") for his past work. He was also somewhat prominent as a critic of mass immunization during the 2009 swine flu pandemic, for one thing, and of preventive medical investigations against bovine spongiform encephalopathy a few years later . I haven't found much else that's written in English. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh good research! Ivanvector Thats really interesting. I hope we can add that kind of stuff to the page at some point. Gd123lbp (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing stopping information like that being added now, create a new section with a proposal of what wording is to be added with references, if there's agreement an admin will be happy to make the change. FDW777 (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll leave you to add it if you are confident to, i'm not given the state of things now. Also, Alexbrn why are you dismissing users Tigre200 point about WP:RSEDITORIAL on the tyson barker reference? You have been a very good example to others for following wiki guidance until that. I dont think option 1 is good either. What source says that the last good work he did was in the 1990's? Option 2 is an inoffensive statement that can all settle on since it doesnt make any strong opinion based claims and is much more factual. Gd123lbp (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Although I am not from the "Bhakdi's views are not misinformation" camp, I would question the choices of references proposed so far for the lead. Might Bhakdi's efforts over the preceding 5 decades be worthy of some note before we get on to his somewhat controversial 'alternative viewpoint' expressed during the past 7 months? - the www.ukgm.de ref might suit. And certainly it should read "microbiologist" or "medical microbiologist" rather than "immunologist".

It is interesting to see the refs found by Ivanvector- if I read these right, they report Bhakdi's earlier questioning of certain mass medical interventions (criticism of vaccination against Swine flu, and complaint at the money spent on BSE screening in cattle in Germany when its incidence seemed to be historic...) but for contentiousness these do not seem to approach his near denialism on Covid. Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course, there's WP:NODEADLINE. While the later text in the article can of course carry much detail I suppose the idea of the opening is to carry the "headlines" on Bhakdi so to speak. For WP:NPOV this should be a reflection of good published sources. So the question would be: how is this person mostly described in RS? While 's excellent work has uncovered some former controversies, how much are these the subject of reliable sources? and so how WP:DUE in the opening sentences? (N.B. this is a genuine, not a rhetorical, question). Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I much prefer option 2. I think we stray into murky territory when we present "the scientific consensus" as an absolute, especially at this time. At the risk of sounding like someone with an opinion, I would say one could make an argument that governments and mainstream media are the drivers on how that is currently defined regarding the danger posed by SARS-CoV-2 and society's response to it, and that it would be difficult at the moment to know what the global consensus might be among all scientists having both expertise with viral pathogens and no dog in the race. I suspect it will be months or years before we can hope to assess the scientific consensus on this virus' place in the long history of known pathogens and epidemics. Eric talk 18:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Such arguments need to be kept for the WP:RFC itself. The current exercise is just to decide what is put in the request. New voices will then be heard, before being weighed by an adjudicator. Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * And yes, the refs found by Ivanvector are 'interesting to see' in the sense that they may inform a more nuanced element of Bhakdi's biography later in the article, rather than necessarily being suitable for the lead para. Yadsalohcin (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Option 2 is wrong in that respect that "critic" hides his unscientific views. "Critic" seems like a ledigt alternative opinion, maybe debatable, but at least not wrong. This was not the case. This "critic" was rejected by most of real experts as unscientifc. In that respect option 1 is better. However, the problem with option 1 is that one part of it is not referenced in an adequate way ("acknowledged during his career for his work as a microbiologist"). This sounds like he was a world-wide acknowledged microbiologist, but even his former employee (Universtiy of Gießen, the source referenced) doesn't state that directly. In addition, it was his former employee if you understand what I mean.

Hence I would combine the most correct facts of both worlds:


 * Option 3

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius Senegal (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was really hoping per WP:RFCBRIEF to have an ideal two-option question. Having three makes assessment trickier especially if it "splits the vote" (e.g. if options 1 and 3 each get 30%, and option 2 gets 40%, does option 2 "win"?). Unless I hear more voices in support of a third option I think we should go ahead with just 1 and 2 - and of course,, you (or anyone) can propose other options during the RfC. Alexbrn (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Alexbrn, maybe I have missed the point but the statements should be reflected in the reference(s).
 * This is not the case for option 2 revised:
 * "In 2020 Bhakdi became a prominent critic of the handling of the coronavirus pandemic".
 * In fact the refernce states for expample: "entgegen dem allgemeinen wissenschaftlichen Konsens behauptet, die Gefährlichkeit des Coronavirus sei nicht hinlänglich bewiesen."
 * Tranlsated it means that Bhakdi claims that hazardousness of the the corona virus has not been proven in a sufficient way - which contradicts the common scientifc consensus.
 * Therefore, option 2 revised is blatant whitewashing, Bhakdi does not criticize, he simply claims.
 * I think the problem is that many sources are in German, which handicaps the proper use of them for people not speaking German.--Julius Senegal (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2 is what a number of editors want (they have said so) -- which is why it is being put as an option in the RFC. The discussion about its merits can then happen during that RFC. I suppose you will argue against Option 2 during the RFC. Alexbrn (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I am really against this "professor acknowledged during his career for his work as a microbiologist" stuff. It strengthens the naive layman idea that scientists are generalist "professors of everything" who can do any science they want to, like scientists in fiction, and that "microbiology" is just one area where that "professor" has been especially successful. The word after "is a" should be "microbiologist", not "professor". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Bhakdi's Youtube account suspended
Because of violation of community guidelines. The only source I can find currently is this poor one. A solid source would be good. Alexbrn (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Covered here, and listed at Reliable sources/Perennial sources as considered generally reliable for technology-related articles, and obviously a suspension by Youtube comes under "technology-related". FDW777 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Since no objections were raised, I have added it. FDW777 (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Also on a similar note, apparently his book on covid was removed from amazon recently too. Gd123lbp (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note to editors on NPOV
Edits like this: "However, his claims have been rejected as unscientific and wrong." will be removed. however edits like this: "However, many of claims have been rejected as unscientific and wrong by _____ ( specific scientists/organisations) because..." Explain why they are viewed as unscientific and wrong, don't just state it as fact, else it is unsubstantiated opinion. Also stating it as fact without saying who's opinion it is is also a violation of NPOV. Gd123lbp (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I could add this, but it summarizes my edit before ("Most of his claims have been rejected by various experts, institutions (among them the universities of Mainz and Kiel) and fact-checking websites.").
 * But this is the summary of the article, hence sources should be avoided there. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am going to undo your edit again, since you have not accepted WP:NPOV] especially on a WP:BLP page. Your recent edit adding back in "his claims have been rejected as unscientific and wrong." ignores previous criticisms of it. You must have answers to the questions: Which claims, by whom, for what reasons. I will add a section on 'disputes with other scientists' or something like that.


 * Science is built on 'scientific dispute' between scientists, one of the most notable things about Bhakdi is that he questions mainstream narratives on the covid virus, so saying "a majority" are against him is a given, and not evidence of the falsehood of his views. You have no justification for the differentiation between what you write in the summary and what you write elsewhere; writing "specific claims are disputed by so and so because..." versus writing in the summary; "everyone thinks he is completely wrong". Also, saying in summary "his 'views' or 'claims'" is just too vague. You should also be careful about turning this article into a debate page over whether we or others agree with Bhakdi; this is an encyclopedia.


 * Even if you had something like "Bhakdi's views (again, which ones?) on the virus and lockdown have been disputed with other scientists" this is already made clear by the fact his views are said to be "alternative" in the summary page.
 * The citations you have added on criticism of his views are included in other parts of the article and are perfectly acceptable.
 * You must also come to a majority consensus on this to even consider adding it again since it is not agreed upon in the talk page, else it will be considered an act of vandalism. Please stop edit warring on this, else you could be blocked from editing this page and I want you to continue to contribute valuable citations to the page. Gd123lbp (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gd. Julius, I hope you will take these comments seriously. Eric talk 02:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are u f**ing kidding me? Science is built on 'scientific dispute' between scientists, one of the most notable things about Bhakdi is that he questions mainstream narratives on the covid virus lol
 * What Bhakdi did was not "research" in the COVID field. He simply raised unscientific claims which have been rejected. Even two Universities claimed that everyhting Bhakdi said about COVID is unscientific. --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article was a joke, full of dodgy sourcing, self-sourced puffery, fringe advocacy and original research. I've attempted to clean it up but reverted saying changes should be discussed - which is a sign of WP:OWNERSHIP. If anybody seriously thinks this crap belongs here they need to make a case in line with the WP:PAGs. Be aware the COVID-19 area is under sanctions and editing out-of-kilter with Wikipedia's purpose is likely to lead to sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If anyone were to compare my edit history with that of, it would be clear whose edits imply a sense of ownership. Across multiple articles, it appears that any editor who contributes any material in which an expert opinion departs from that of the Covid Orthodoxy Narrative gets reverted by others who could almost be seen to be editing as self-appointed Defenders of the Faith, with peremptory edit summaries such as "if you have some actual reason why you want this crap, say so!".  Eric talk 12:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If by "the Covid Orthodoxy Narrative", you mean accepted mainstream scientific views, then yes. Wikipedia will amplify those and downplay and contextualize fringe views. This is a feature, not a bug. If you're opposed to "the Covid Orthodoxy Narrative" as such, and you intend to use Wikipedia to express that, you can expect your time here to be short. Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My time here is comparable to yours. Your threat of censorship is empty and inappropriate. Also inappropriate is your change to the lede of this article; Bhakdi cannot in any way be characterized as being known principally for "spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation" about Covid-19. I'm appalled that Wikipedia editors are engaging in such blatant character defamation under the guise of contextualizing "fringe views". Eric talk 13:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with what sources say, take it up with the sources. Our job is to reflect RS and - yes - per WP:PSCI fringe views need to be clearly identified and contextualized. Core policy, that is. Alexbrn (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This is really shocking. Bhakdi does not have any theories about conspiracies in any of his work period. Furthermore the recent edit that deleted almost the entirety of this page was so heavy handed it deleted not only Bhakdi's "fringe views" but also all evidence of his published works, previous scientific work and the explanations of his views. The citations including scientific journals citing his work and also critiquing his work. They should be added back in. The 1 reference that is used over and over that is supposedly evidence of him being a conspiracy theorist does not call him that directly. Gd123lbp (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Alexbrn, Bhakdi is not a WP:PSCI pseudo scientist, he is a top scientist in Germany. His criticism of the virus was based on World health organisation statistics and other highly credible work. This is simply wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gd123lbp (talk • contribs) 13:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We go by what sources say, not by what editors think. And articles must be based on secondary sources. Even what's left is still pretty marginal (his own CV is not a good source e.g.). We are not going to promote crank views here just because editors like them. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Using defamatory comments when referring to Bhakdi such as "crap", "crank", "pseudo-scientist" are not appropriate for a BLP article and call into question objectivity. Gd123lbp (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct, which is probably why nobody has done so. Those labels apply more to the content that was here, mostly added by you. For Bhakdi himself, simply follow good sources and all will be well. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn Why should we not know about his publications? Why should we not know about his views on covid? Why should we not know about his letter to the chancellor and previous scientific work? Many of these citations came from his German wikipedia page and were well cited. The letter to the chancellor was cited many times by numerous sites and scientific journals! They need to be added back in along with much information from the German page which is much better than this one is now. Also the one reference you added which discredits him is disputed in its reliability and also does not directly say that he is a conspiracy theorist. Several people have said this on here and in the separate discussion. Gd123lbp (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We should know what is accepted knowledge about this person. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an assemblage of factoids that have not received attention in reliable sources. Good content is to be found mostly in relevant, independent, secondary sources. As you have been told, any attempt to reinstate your terrible previous version is not in accord with the aims of the Project. Try it, and I'm afraid you'll likely get banned. Alexbrn (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * People won't get banned for a single revert, unless they do it repeatedly. If there is contention the correct approach is seeking consensus they won't get banned for this. Talpedia (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

On what authority can you say "as I have been told", you admitted that you were angry and thats why you deleted so much. You need a concensus majority to make changes. You are just asserting your opinion that it was "terrible". A lot of it was not even my work it was from the German article and it contained 2nd and 3rd party sources. Where it contained 1st party sources was to clarify which sources Bhakdi was referring to in his work. You should work edit by edit making changes and explain your changes in the edit box to justify it. The huge edit you made deleting over 40 citations totally flies in the face of this. Gd123lbp (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, my deletions were great, and made with cool reason. I just apologised for being a bit harsh in my language to you, is all. At ANI, you've been told, by an admin, a restoration to the crappy version of the article isn't going to happen. That's right. If you have any further doubt I suggest you expand on your concerns at ANI. Here, we now have a widened consensus, a much improved article, and can move ahead when/if even more good sources are found, to add to the ones I and others have found already. We're making progress! Alexbrn (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Astonishing point of view. It doesnt look good complementing yourself. I cannot see how you think this page is improved! There is no explanation of Bhakdi's views in it at all, let alone any of his scientific work or publications! You really should stop with the insults, this is not appropriate for wiki. Gd123lbp (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC. If you have further personal observations to make, add to your ANI thread before it gets closed. For the article, I think we've now reached the point where if you want some kind of change, it needs to be clear what exactly it is you are proposing. Remember to bring good sources. Alexbrn (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The references to Covid are clearly controversial and editors are making changes to put forward their opinions while removing relevant and factual information. If agreement cannot be reached, and it seems unlikely due to ongoing vandalism, all references to Covid should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 08:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus has been reached, and we have good sources. We're not going back to the "absolute mess of undue weight" of the previous version - Wikipedia has a duty to contextualize fringe views as fringe views, and such views are (according to our good sources) what this guy has been touting. Also, you need to read WP:NOTVAND - continually referring to other editor's good contributions as "vandalism" incorrectly is problematic and likely to end up with you being sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A concise and factual article about Sucharit Bhakdi wikitia.com. The Wikipedia article should be improved to match the impartiality standards of wikitia.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 10:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not a wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming wikitia.com as a reliable source, but using the article there as an example of one that is concise, relevant and uncontroversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 11:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it falls short of Wikipedia's standards, particularly for WP:NPOV, by which we are required to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The material published about this guy is predominantly related to his COVID 19 stuff; before that he was just another obscure retired scientist, who would not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article (which is likely why he didn't have one before the COVID stuff got coverage). Alexbrn (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Bhakdi was mentioned on the Wikipedia article on [| Aronson Prize] on 15 March 2015. I don't see how the Wikitia fails NPV.  I think it manages to state facts without getting drawn into publishing controversial opinions, which is what's happened to the Bhakdi article.  Why would an article about Bhakdi not mention he signed the Great Barrington Declaration?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 12:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat it since you seem not to be getting it: "we are required to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Other considerations, like whether editors find something "controversial" or not, are irrelevant. If think Wikipedia should be saying anything you need to bring a source that backs that up. Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 'as far as possible, without editorial bias' I'm trying to remove the editorial bias (it's hard work)  You are entitled to your opinions, and bias, but I don't think it's right that Wikipedia articles should be altered to suit yours (or anyone's) personal opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * One form of editorial bias is found when editors insert text into Wikipedia that takes it away from being WP:Verified by the source(s) cited, as you did here. Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do agree that sources should be balanced? If there is a difference of opinion, that should be mentioned.  If it's true that some people consider Bhakdi guilty of "spreading misinformation"  then it's also true some people will consider his opinions reliable information.  Others may think his opinions are a mixture.  NPV should put both sides, or none at all.  When a statement is not wholly correct it should not be made.  Instead, separate (and balanced) statements can elaborate on the veracity of different opinions.  It's sad that Wikipedia is used in this way to advance a particular view point.  It makes the world worse, for everyone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 17:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, see WP:GEVAL. Otherwise Wikipedia would say things like "Did the Holocaust happen? Some people say it did, some say it didn't". You obviously fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * False balance is real. But as with most things, the opposite false consensus can also be a flaw. If the consensus is completely clear on something, then yes that should be the main viewpoint, until this consensus is reached, prominent alternative views should be included. Talpedia (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As always, we follow the sources. For scientific consensus, we need WP:RS/AC and we have that. Besides, in the case of this guy's ideas (virus isn't harmful, no second wave, vaccine is pointless, etc.) it's simple. Reputable scientists ridicule them; cranks embrace them. Basically, we're into tinfoil hat territory here, not academic dispute. This is why we have WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI. Alexbrn (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If those are actually his views, then I guess I do agree that the viewpoints are fringe. Virus isn't harmful is definitely fringe, no second wave is demonstrably false so fringe - though I would note that there is suggestive evidence for long term immunity, and cross-virus preexisting immmunity - so I would not necessarily see the arguments about "there will be no second wave" as fringe when they were made; arguments about the value of a vaccine might be a little more subtle, because you start getting into economic comparisons. Talpedia (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

As this is currently at DR maybe we should wait until that is finished?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. Trying to engage in discussion and find a consensus is proving difficult :(  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We are quoting RS, if there is bias it is theirs.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This has well run its course. I suggest closing it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Insubstantial reference for spreading conspiracy theories
I investigated the first reference given to support the statement that the subject of this article and found it pretty lacking. The whole content of the article that supports this claim is a single phrase that states he is one. For this reason, I would suggest removing this reference. This phrase has a link to another article (sadly in german, which I do not understand), which seems to be the actual grounding of this assertion. I would suggest someone who understands german look at it and include it instead as a reference if it indeed it provides a basis to the claim. Tigre200 (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't say he spreads "conspiracy theories", but "misinformation". This, in Wikipedia terms, is a fact since it is reported but not disputed in WP:RS. Any simple Googling in the "real world" will reveal also it is trivially true. Thus, we can (and must) just WP:ASSERT it. If you want to dispute a source you need to bring a counter-source, not just editorial opinion. Alexbrn (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attention in this matter Alexbrn. You are right to point out that the title of this section should have been misinformation instead of conspiracy theories, since that is the actual designation used in the Wikipedia article. Returning to the main point in question, your reference to WP:RS does not support your claim that this reference establish the proposition in question as a fact. If you look at the section relating to news organizations (WP:RSEDITORIAL), in the second paragraph it states that: «Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.»
 * The reference in question, is clearly in this category, since it is labelled under "argument". Therefore, it doesn't support the claim that he is "known for spreading misinformation".


 * In light of this, I maintain that the reference in question should be removed as a source for this claim, but rightly maintained as the source in the third paragraph of the article where the statements are correctly attributed to the author and news source. Tigre200 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * And Der Spiegel? FDW777 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * FDW777, as I said, I don't understand german, so I cannot comment on that one, but if it's the same problem, the solution should be the same. Alas, a german speaker must make that determination. Tigre200 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I presume the Spiegel ref in question is the one cited in this article with title "Hinter der Verschwörung" ("Behind the Conspiracy"). The article linked there displays a hierarchy of categories at the top that literally translated would read Networld > Web > Coronavirus > Corona conspiracy theories and the players* behind them > Bill Gates, Compulsory vaccination, "and Co"**
 * */** –  * players: actors/protagonists/stakeholders; ** and co (und Co): I haven't encountered this in German before, but I'm reading it as etc.
 * The title bar of the browser page reads "Bill Gates, Compulsory vaccination, "and Co", and does not include the article title. Not sure how to process that. Just above the article title is a rubric that reads "Corona videos on YouTube".
 * The lead-in statement above the article reads essentially:
 * The article starts off talking about the various wacky-sounding conspiracy theories à la Bill Gates wanting to vaccinate everyone and prominent world figures would hold children prisoner underground. Bhakdi's name first appears at the end of the first section, which bears the heading "What are the most prevalent theories?"; I include the three sentences prior for context:
 * The article starts off talking about the various wacky-sounding conspiracy theories à la Bill Gates wanting to vaccinate everyone and prominent world figures would hold children prisoner underground. Bhakdi's name first appears at the end of the first section, which bears the heading "What are the most prevalent theories?"; I include the three sentences prior for context:


 * Bhakdi's name appears in the next sentence, which is the first in the second section, which is entitled "Where do the conspiracy theories begin?":


 * So my take on this is that the Spiegel piece cited does not state that Bhakdi has spread misinformation, but rather that he has made assertions that go counter to the consensus. Note: I searched the article for the equivalents of "misinformation" (Fehlinformation) and "disinformation" (Desinformation), and found one instance of the latter, but only in the context of [social media] platform providers' efforts to deal with disinformation, not in any relation to Bhakdi or any other individual. This was more work than I thought it was going to be, but feel free to ping me with any questions on it. Eric talk 02:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That sure seems like it took a lot of work! Thank you for your contribution. I will remove the english reference and change the statement to "critic of the handling of the corona pandemic". Tigre200 (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The key thing is that his is counter to the scientific consensus: this is unscientific, fringe, misinformation, or whatever - but just blandly calling it "criticism" is a whitewash and a policy violation, since we need to be explicit that fringe ideas are fringe per WP:PSCI. Perhaps try and propose a policy-compliant version? Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not simple "critic" of the handling of the pandemic, pure TF and whitewash. There is ofc true critic from certain people, orgas and whatsoever, but what Bhakdi did was sth complettly different. The sources also state that he spread misinformation. Even in October he claimed that there won't be a 2nd wave.
 * There was also no consensus for your version, now the article is locked because of your edit war. --Julius Senegal (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think did what an admin had to do, since (even leaving aside questions of content) there was just simply too much back and forth, and this is a high-traffic article containing content of some importance. Shame the last edit edit had a missing article ("the") - perhaps that could at least be remedied so the article is grammatical?
 * Policy is fairly clear that fringe views need to be prominently identified as such. I think if editors want some kind of different text to what's there currently, an RfC might be an option to settle the matter. Agreed, everyone? Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article was already protected earlier this week because of edit-warring. I've only raised the level because semiprotection did not stop some editors from continuing to revert war over a controversial BLP statement. I also considered removing the statement pending discussion, but I don't see a good stable prior version to revert to, so the wrong version it is. One thing is certain: I will not protect the page again; if this protection expires and editors start fighting over this statement again, I'll just start blocking. An RFC would be a good idea, in my opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know what an RFC is, but it seems to me that the point of contention here is that Alexbrn and Julius Senegal seem to know by divine providence that the subject of this article is spreading misinformation. The crux of the matter is that neither of the reliable sources referenced support the claim that the subject of the article is spreading misinformation, so, according to the notice that appeared when one was trying to edit the article about un-sourced material that might libel the subject should be removed, should be removed. Instead of this back and forth edit warring, might I suggest to these two editors to spend their time more wisely searching for reliable sources supporting their claim. For I do not disagree one bit with the structure of their arguments about pseudoscience, but it is built no foundation of reliable sources.


 * A final word to Julius Senegal, you claim that "The sources also state that he spread misinformation.", but the only source is the one that Eric so kindly translated for us does not state it about the subject of this article. Either you disagree with his translation or you cannot in good conscience maintain this claim of yours. Tigre200 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ideas in opposition to the scientific consensus are, almost by definition, "misinformation" (e.g. the earth is flat, vaccines cause autism, coffee enemas cure cancer). Wikipedia summarizes good sources and misinformation is one (of many) potential summaries of that source. Anyway, you can read what a WP:RFC is and you can propose your version of the text in the "workshopping" section I have started below. The wider community will then inform the final decision. Alexbrn (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "the scientific consensus" - science is built on dispute. I really take issue with this view that Bhakdi is spreading misinformation - if his claims were as wrong as saying "the earth is flat" then I don't think anyone would have paid any attention to him. Also, dont you think it would seem a bit odd for him to have gone from being a top scientist in Germany to a "spreader of misinformation" like a flat earther the moment he starts talking about covid? That would be such a sudden dramatic change that you would think he must have suffered a severe brain trauma or something to account it?
 * Don't get me wrong, I think criticism of people who spread mistruth is really important and I cant stand conspiracy theorists and liars. But Bhakdi isnt one of them. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ideas in opposition to the scientific consensus are, almost by definition, "misinformation",
 * ...counter to the scientific consensus: this is unscientific, fringe, misinformation.
 * No. By that subjective, narrow opinion, Copernicus would be seen as having spread misinformation in his assertion that the sun was the center of the solar system. And the loaded term "fringe" cannot be gratuitously pasted onto any idea that departs from the mainstream. This is an encyclopedia we are working on, not a Defense of the Faith. There is rarely universal consensus in scientific domains. I think we all know that. We would do better to stick to presenting material such as x made statement y on topic z, then let readers draw their own conclusions, rather than making assertions along the lines of x said y, which means x must necessarily be categorized as . Eric talk 02:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Inevitably, the Galileo Gambit, a fallacy beloved by WP:PROFRINGE arguers. If Wikipedia had been around at the time, Copernicus would, yes, have been described as holding fringe views. It is not Wikipedia's job to spread the Truth&trade;, but to reflect the mainstream. Editors here may have their personal view that Corona, False Alarm does not misinform, but instead we must be guided by non-negotiable core policy telling us how to deal with views opposing the scientific consensus (WP:NPOV). Anyway, save your arguments for the RFC - and, you'll need to suggest some text below for your "Bhakdi as a modern-day Copernicus" version of the start of Wikipedia's article. Alexbrn (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of this hinges on the word "mainstream" and scientific consensus. It seems clear to me that there are mainstream views of covid that are strongly held and spread by government and scientists that are speculative, and for which their is not consensus. So yes, wikipedia is there to record consensus, but the consensus is not the same as "what scientists say to the media" or "what feels mainstream and sciencey". Specific examples of things that were "mainstream" but ceased to be were i) claims that masks did not prevent covid and ii) claims that covid did not infer immunity. Both these views were spread by government sources while not being the consensus. Talpedia (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * With "government", you probably mean a government led by a guy who, when he sees that something is scientific mainstream, ridicules it on Twitter. So, no, those things were never mainstream. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of his defenders claim that he was a "top scientist in Germany", but I don't think there is a source calling him that. Actually he was just one of about 50,000 professors there. he is talking about stuff outside his area of expertise, and he has been retired for 10 years. That's an almost infallible recipe for spreading misinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ... and having a book to sell, completes the picture. Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * what do you mean by "and having a book to sell, completes the picture" ? Alexbrn Gd123lbp (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean it gives the full context. Alexbrn (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify for anyone having trouble with reading comprehension: I made no assertion comparing Bhakdi to Copernicus or Galileo. And I have no compulsion to fit people or their reasoning into categories that fit my preconceived notions, at least not in a productive discussion over encyclopedia content. Eric talk 17:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are arguing directly against the WP:PAGs. You say "the loaded term 'fringe' cannot be gratuitously pasted onto any idea that departs from the mainstream", but WP:FRINGE says "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". You say "let readers draw their own conclusions", but WP:NPOV mandates
 * And that "an explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects ...". How do you think we should satisfy the requirement for "prominent inclusion" of how mainstream science has reacted to Bhakdi's fringe views? Alexbrn (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And that "an explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects ...". How do you think we should satisfy the requirement for "prominent inclusion" of how mainstream science has reacted to Bhakdi's fringe views? Alexbrn (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you won't protect the page again to stop edit-warring and will issue blocks instead, but would it at least be possible to semi-protect the page to prevent the ongoing IP disruption? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. The article was already semiprotected but that disappeared when the subsequent full protection expired. I've restored it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement of what Sucharit Bhakdi is known for
The article states what Sucharit Bhakdi is known for but there is no reference to back this up so should be removed. It's impossible to state with any certainty what he is known for as various people will know him for different reasons. He's probably best known for his books. To state he is known for 'misinformation' regarding a particular topic is subjective. The article should state verifiable and incontrovertible facts such as what his qualifications are and that he is author of a best-selling book. As there is no WP:RS to back the assertion of what Bhakdi is known for, this statement will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 14:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a verifiable and incontrovertible fact he spreads misinformation about COVID-19. FDW777 (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is the WP:RS for stating he is known for his misinformation about COVID-19 and not known for anything else?
 * "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good job it's sourced then. FDW777 (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no source stating what Bhakdi is known for. Wikipedia's instructions are clear this statement must be deleted immediately without discussion.  If there is a reliable and quality source to backup the assertion for what Bhakdi is known for, perhaps it can come back in some form.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 14:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Shall I ask for sanctions now or do you instead to stop flogging the dead horse? FDW777 (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:RS for stating what Bhakdi is known for. The statement also contentious and must be removed immediately according to Wikipedia's guidelines.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the references cited describes him as a "prominent example" of "credentialed so-called experts minting conspiracy theories and undermining fact-based information". The current text in the article is an excellent summary of that. FDW777 (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no mention in any reference provided for what he is (predominantly or otherwise) known for. The statement that he is known for misinformation is also contentious and against Wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines.
 * Please could you stop reverting the changes which are necessary for the article to adhere to Wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines. The statement is contentious and does not have a reliable source and therefor must be removed. If you disagree with Wikipedia's policies, perhaps the discussion should move to the WP:RS guidelines page.  Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 15:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

, Rather than making repeated demands, no matter how warranted they might be, you would probably do better to find good sources indicating what he is known for -- or was known for before he started commenting on the virus response -- and place it before the material that implies he is principally known for "spreading misinformation" (which I agree is given inappropriate weight in the lede as it now stands). You might begin with a look at Sucharit Bhakdi, which looks to be well sourced and is much more comprehensive and even-handed than en.wp currently is. Some editors are on high alert against any material that departs from the orthodoxy, which means you will have be especially diligent in sourcing. Eric talk 15:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is, it's difficult to say what someone is known for so in the absence of a WP:RS the controversial statement should be removed until a WP:RS is found. The statement should also be removed immediately according to WP:RS guidelines.  Otherwise, do the instructions on  WP:RS not apply here for some reason

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You can assert as much as you like, other editors disagree. FDW777 (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether editors agree or not, a WP:RS must be provided for the assertion of what Bhakdi is known for. The statement, which is controversial, must go according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Please stop reverting the change until there is a reliable source to confirm the statement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As repeatedly stated, there is one. Continuing to deny this fact is not acceptable. FDW777 (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see anywhere in any references that mention what Bhakdi is known for. Shall we ask for a third opinion, or shall I try opening a dispute resolution again?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 15:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's called paraphrasing. FDW777 (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is being paraphrased?
 * From the reference:
 * As in other democracies, Germany’s early coronavirus disinformation mixed rumors, truth-adjacent content, home remedies, out-of-context imagery, and a minimization of the crisis.
 * Germany saw a crop of debunked but credentialed so-called experts minting conspiracy theories and undermining fact-based information.
 * There's no mention here of what Bhakdi is known for.
 * One prominent example is Sucharit Bhakdi, German Thai epidemiologist, who has started a YouTube channel claiming that COVID-19 deaths are exaggerated, linking deaths in China and Italy to air pollution, and calling lockdowns unconstitutional.
 * Here Bhakdi is given as an example of the 'crop of debunked but credentialed so-called experts' but does not say anywhere he's 'known for spreading misinformation'.

At a push, it could be stated Bhakdi has been accused of spreading misinformation. In which case, it should also be stated what 'misinformation' he's actually accused of spreading with appropriate references.Gcmackay (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well at least the opening statement has been improved, and I'm thankful for that. I still think it violates NPV as it makes a statement of fact which is an opinion.  I think it would be more neutral if the article stated that Bhakdi has been accused of misinformation, which is undeniably true. Gcmackay (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Next you will be saying David Irving was only accused of misrepresenting history. FDW777 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If he is a "prominent example" for something, he is known for that. As mentioned above, it's called paraphrasing.
 * And no, we do not give fringe viewpoints equal balance by using unwarranted qualifiers such as "has been accused of". --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Who is Tyson Barker, and why is his statement relevant? Wikipedia showers me with requests to donate money to it. I will never donate to this poisonous trove of woke ideology.2A02:8070:D1AE:3300:346C:A738:B36F:56F4 (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree completely. Tyson Barker is expressing an opinion outside of the medical community (He is a director of Technology at the German Council of Foreign Relations). That should set off some red flags. What's worse is that his subjective opinion of Bhakdi being "debunked but credentialed" are both unsubstantiated and inflammatory. Wikipedia has consequently allowed propaganda to be published and now denies the public the ability to correct these abuses! Mattvincent805 (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reflects what is published in reliable sources, to achieve WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the article opening
What should the opening sentences of this article be (see options below)? Alexbrn (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1


 * Option 2


 * Option 3


 * Option 4

Discussion
Oppose As mentioned above neither option 1 nor option 2 is covered by the references.
 * option 2 is blatant whitewashing, Bhakdi does not "criticize", he simply claims against scientific consenus. The reference also stresses that.
 * option 1 is also incorrect ("acknowledged during his career for his work as a microbiologist"). This is a claim not referenced (the reference given does not cover this). Only that he worked as microbiologist is coverd.

Hence I suggest:
 * Sucharit Bhakdi (born Sucharit Punyaratabandhu, 1 November 1946, in Washington, D.C.) is a retired Thai-German microbiologist.[1] During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Bhakdi become well known for his views on the outbreak, which ran counter to the scientific consensus [2]. --Julius Senegal (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3. Agree with Julius completely. His wording avoids the misleading "is a professor", stating first what his job was and not which rank he achieved in his job, and it puts his COVID activism in the right context. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling, I'm under the impression that, in the German system, when you become a professor, that title is yours for life, not just for as long as you're employed. He could have been appointed a professor, quit five minutes later, and still be properly called Herr Professor Doktor for the rest of his life.  Has this changed, and professorship is now treated more like any other job? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, and I am not interested in having one. My point was that "professor" is a nondescript word - someone with that description could be a professor of theology or art - as opposed to "microbiologist". I have seen a pseudoscientific book about fossils recommended on the back cover by "Professor Phillip E. Johnson" - who was, of course, a professor of law. Since then I am sort of allergic against academic titles in connection with pseudoscientific crap. In this case, it is still misleading since Bhakdi has never researched a virus in his life (bacteriologists are pampered, compared with virologists, because of antibiotics, so they will underestimate risks from viral diseases), but what can you do? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether Piotrus would know more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I like option 3.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 2 and 3 are good in the "retired microbiologist" part. option 2 is too vague in the sentence: "handling of the coronavirus pandemic" because he is critical of both the science behind covid and the lockdowns themselves. I lean towards option 3, however "scientific consensus" is not entirely accurate because Bhadki started to express his views on covid in feb/march and research on covid has continued since then and "consensus" is impossible while research is still taking place because not all the facts are known. Also, there are scientists who agree with Bhadki (to varying extents such as those from the great barrington declaration) Nevertheless, I do think it strikes the right sentiment, since his work is contentious and I think a sense of that should be given in the opening sentence. what do we think of the word "mainstream"? aka "Bhakdi has been criticised by many mainstream outlets and scientists"? Gd123lbp (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think your analysis is thoughtful and helpful, and I think your comment about views expressed in February apply to everyone: there was no clear scientific consensus.  On your last point, to say that he's "been criticized" would likely require multiple sources.  (I wouldn't be surprised if we could find such sources, but we'd have to find them.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure exactly why I was summon outside of being a professor myself :) Quickly skimming this I think it is better to describe someone's area first (microbiologist, sociologist, etc.). A professor is just a rank (and usually, in reality, it has grades - assistant, associate, full, or others, depending on the individual country system; this can be misleading when we describe a young professor (assistant) just as a professor, a title which in some countries is meant to refer to a full professor.). We do commonly say that someone is a professor at such and such university/institution, but I see this more as a job history and recommend this information to be in second or further sentences in lead, not the first. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I pinged you because I figured that you knew more about what European academics mean by "professor" than either me or Hob. Do you (or, more precisely, would a German academic) stop being a professor upon retirement? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I live and work in Korea so despite being Polish, I don't know for certain, but generally, the concept of professor emeritus applies, and it is honorary to call people that. Similar to politics, once a president or a congressman, you expect people to call you that often due to respect. I mean, a retired professor is, well, retired, they no longer work like they did before. So what? They were a professor. I think its ok to call people that unless they were 'dishonorably discharged' and their position was revoked. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a blatant disregard for the time and patience of the people in the debate, especially the ones defending option 2. It has been a week before this has started and at the end of it, we have gotten a muddled set of options to confuse the real issue at stake to the newcomers. The issue that was being discussed was the propriety or impropriety of the statement that he was spreading misinformation, that is given without sources. The debate was supposed to determine if sources were available or other basis already incorporated on Wikipedia and the misinformation claim was to be maintained or it should be removed.

The introduction of the question whether he is a microbiologist or a professor that worked in microbiology has never been the issue that prompted this overly lengthy process that is becoming more and more confused in what I see is an attempt to sideline the issue. The question should be between option 2 and option 3 as they are stated here, and the difference between 1 and 3 should become a separate issue.

Sorry for the vitriol, but when one invests a week in this and sees it turn out a sham in a few days, one gets rather crossed. Also, I corrected the conjugation of the verb become. Tigre200 (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your text was the basis for Option 2. Some editors said they liked it, and then nobody proposed additional changes. If you don't like another option, don't support it. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * On the question of "professor". i. I think it's relevant knowing if someone works in *academia* or for a company. The term "academic microbiologist" might work. I don't exactly think of "professor" as a rank: I think of it as an administrative role, but equally for this reason don't think it is relevant in the lead .  Talpedia (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Talpedia. As some context, various parts of the California government are looking for microbiologists right now.  The minimum requirements are six months' relevant lab experience, a four-year university degree in a related field, and passing a test.  That could make you "a microbiologist" but it would not make you "a professor". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See MOS:CREDENTIAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think MOS:CREDENTIAL is relevant here as it is about the use of honorofics, e.g. "Professor Smith was a such and such..." rather than including information about someone's job. Talpedia (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying "is a professor" instead of using his actual field is still disingenious. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Problem with stressing that he "is" a professor: He retired over 10 years ago. So there is simply no information at this point (ofc later on you can describe his academic career and there it is necessary). He hasn't conducted any research since then.
 * So you would add sth like "he was a former professor at..." but this sounds a little bit odd.
 * Other problem is that he is not an Emeritus Professor according to his former university.--Julius Senegal (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Or retired, but again why do we need it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because he was a professor? (/ is a former professor etc., is not 'emeritus', we gather) Yadsalohcin (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So? Lots of people were something, that does not mean their expertise is still relevant or current.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this article about Sucharit Bhakdi? Has he been a prof of microbiology? Is he now known for other things? Yes, yes, yes, let's hear about it. See below. Yadsalohcin (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * > Lots of people were something, that does not mean their expertise is still relevant or current
 * Especially once they're dead, but we still say what they were when they were still alive, right? Because the point of a biography is to describe the person in full, and not to say whether the person is relevant or current at this exact point in time.  There are 23,000 articles that contain either "was a professor" or "is a professor" in them.  Why should this one be different? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying "is a professor" instead of using his actual field is still disingenious My point was that MOS:CREDENTIAL refers to *names* not information about people's roles. But addressing this point, I wouldn't say it's disingenuous, rather strangely non-informative ("what does professor mean?"), I would suggest either "is a retired Professor of microbiology" (it this is true) or "is a retired academic microbiologist". Talpedia (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason for putting "professor" was just stylistic, to avoid "is a retired microbiologist, known for his work as a microbiologist". Not sure why it's such as issue as taken together it all makes sense. I think our readers are capable of getting more than halfway through a sentence. Or, maybe not. Alexbrn (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with the use of Professor in Option4. I imagine the issue is that if someone expresses controversial views people become interested in giving these views precisely the correct amount of credibility. Talpedia (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked a few articles on scientists from different fields, from the top of my head.
 * Albert Einstein [..] was a [..] theoretical physicist
 * Louis Pasteur [..] was a [..] biologist, microbiologist, and chemist
 * Alfred Wegener [..] was a [..] polar researcher, geophysicist and meteorologist
 * Fred Hoyle [..] was an [..] astronomer
 * Dmitri Mendeleev [..] was a [..] chemist and inventor
 * Those were all professors, and their professorship is mentioned further down in the articles. None of the articles start with "X was a professor" - because in their cases, there are no editors who want to push the ideas of those people and bolster them with irrelevant puffery. We just say what they were and what they did. Only when it comes to people with ideas that lack evidence and are rejected by the scientific community, suddenly there is a need of emphasizing their academic career in the first sentence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for five famous names- I suspect none of us is surprised to find that these are/were professors. May I offer the first five cases of people when I search Wikipedia for 'contains professor and science'? You may notice that these are from slightly less elevated levels of celebrity status...


 * Howard Zinn,
 * Ishfaq Ahmad (computer scientist),
 * Michael Polanyi (professorship mentioned as occupation in personbox, not lede),
 * Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor),
 * Bjarne Stroustrup.
 * So editors have found it appropriate to mention 'rank' in such cases. I have no desire to unduly inflate Bhakdi's status, but neither do I feel we should be seen by any means to be giving him less than his due, which prior to retirement included a certain status. What we write about his subsequent 'publications' (by letter, YouTube, and 'popular' book, and not by peer review or any of the other usually recognised approaches to scientific discourse) is a separate matter. Doubtless there's plenty to discuss regarding contents of the second sentence arguments... Yadsalohcin (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Only two of these say "professor" in the first sentence, but only Ahmad did not have his field as the first defining characteristic (I just changed that). The others are the same as the examples I used.
 * This is not about mentioning he was a professor! Of course we have to mention that! Is what I write so difficult to understand?
 * This is about using it as the first defining characteristic, which is just meaningless and stupid. For describing a scientist, his field is the most important thing to say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 4 of these 5 less well-known examples use 'professor' in the first paragraph, which is my point, as the whole thing here appears to be an argument about what goes into the lead. Perhaps what I write is also too hard to understand... So you'd prefer 'microbiologist, of which he was a professor'? This is the sort of stylistic mouthful 'up with which I will not put'! Out of politeness, not puffery, I see no problem in indicating his rank and field, and out of a sense of not mangling the english language, in this case I'd put the two in that order. But that's just me, 'others' mileage may differ.' As an aside, is it possible we're attempting too much here by trying to condense both the man's career credentials and his quackery into the space of only two sentences? Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So you'd prefer 'microbiologist, of which he was a professor'? I will now stop talking to you since you are putting such yucky word conglomerates into my mouth. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Option Z for me. Naively, I'd say that Tony Blair isn't just a sometime politician, he's a former prime minister, a retired admiral isn't just a former sailor, and similarly someone who's had a rank of teaching assistant isn't necessarily the same as someone who's been accorded the title 'professor' (of microbiology). Someone for whom we've got 11 referenced awards (and the University of Gießen was happy to bask in the reflected glory), was surely held in some kind of esteem... And for all that I hate advertising it, I think the lead could mention the book for which he is probably now principally known... Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What's option "Z"? The lede could go on to mention his book (which was a bestseller I believe - though it does not get much coverage in good sources that I can see). Alexbrn (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 4, which I have added; per Alexbrn's comment, I don't see any reason to diminish his rank. This seems like a totally different debate than what the article should say about his Covid Commentin'TM. jp×g 12:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks jp×g. Agreed. I don't know what to say about his 'comments/ views/ criticisms' but this seems much better about his background. Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Where in there reference we can find "acknowledged during his career for his work"?
 * I will strike that option 4 if this is not referenced. --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The reference indeed doesn't say "acknowledged during his career for his work". But it's a history of the establishment covering 112 years, in which they highlight the work of 10 names during the prewar 'half' and in the second half they highlight a further two in bold text. In the un-bold text a further ~8 names get mentions including our man who's mentioned 4 times, and they are happy to say he 'received numerous awards for his research on the mechanisms of action of bacterial toxins and complementing factors' and name 5 of these awards from his time with them. What are the wikipedia rules for establishing whether this counts as an acknowledgment? Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So his former employer (University of Gießen/Marburg, where Bhakdi was employeed from 1977 bis 1990) highlighted him in a side notice. And noone else did this, strange...What are the wikipedia rules for establishing a theory? --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This 'theory' rests on a not unreasonable interpretation of the words in the ref, which is in turn the history of a major institute. Plus we had BR24 saying "Tatsächlich sagen Fachkollegen, dass Bhakdi in den neunziger Jahren ein renommierter Mikrobiologe war."? - rendered as: "Actually, his peers say that Bhakdi was a renowned microbiologist in the 1990s." Can we just get on to editing the article, which has been frozen in a hopelessly poor state (worse even than when someone started it...) and currently doesn't even mention the main bone of contention we presumably all have with him, 'The „Corona-Fehlalarm“ Book'. How's that for an own-goal? Tin-foil-hatters can say 'it's all been censored'... Then once it's unlocked we can add further stuff like this: Unimedizin Mainz distanziert sich klar von Bhakdi - Seit Monaten spricht der Professor im Ruhestand von einem „Corona-Fehlalarm“ – sein früheres Institut findet dafür deutliche Worte (tr. "Unimedizin Mainz clearly distances itself from Bhakdi - For months, the retired professor has been talking about a "corona false alarm" - his former institute has found clear words for it.") 31-10-2020 www.giessener-anzeiger.de Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If I can throw in my two Pfennigs' worth on that German text: I would translate klar here as more explicitly, and findet dafür deutliche Worte as something more like is unequivocal on this. Eric talk 02:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

None of the above - Can we start again? It seems to me we have at least 3 aspects (maybe 4?) that we haven't successfully crammed into any of the two-sentence options offered so far. These aspects are: If each of these has some binary choice between extremes (is this a rational approach? We could easily end up with a near-infinite set of options, so this is a massive simplification of the issue), then we need to vote between potentially 2^3 or 2^4 complete solutions, which I see as not being conducive to producing an outcome... Might we get further by addressing each of these 3 parts on its own?
 * Option 2 and 3 per my comment above (stressing his specialty, not rank). Also, I mean and not or, as in, I think the content of proposals 2 and 3 should be merged, saying both he was critical and against the consensus, not just one or the other. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the above - none of these options state strongly enough that Bhakdi's missives on coronavirus are misinformation, not simply "against scientific consensus" or however some want to whitewash it. There are individuals who rationally challenge the science and methods surrounding coronavirus, and there are individuals who spread information that's already disproven; reliable sources have Bhakdi largely in the second group, and we should say so. Also, aren't options 1 and 4 exactly the same? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * none of the above per Ivanvector--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A) the man's career history and how we phrase our adulation for or denunciation of his earlier efforts
 * B) what he's said about C-19 and governmental responses to it
 * C) how his views are viewed and (possibly D) how we describe the holders of said views about his views

FWIW, my take is like this: A) seems to have boiled down to "do we use 'acknowledged' or not?" I see none of the scientific community saying in any external ref that he wasn't, and two verbal references and 11 referenced awards suggesting that he was. Note that the word that's been offered has been 'acknowledged', not worshipped, celebrated, nor (from the thesaurus) accepted, approved, confirmed, recognized, or unquestioned etc. -and to me, 'acknowledged' seems about right... If my learned friends weren't too far from agreement on this, it would reduce the work left to be done- So next there would be B) & C) (D), anyone?). Someone else's turn... Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I see it the "acknowledged" question and the "professor" question are incidental. The real issue is whether we say that this guy is spreading misinformation (or spreading ideas "against the scientific consensus", which I see as synonymous, if more gently expressed). He obviously is (and has apparently just appeared on American TV to call a vaccine "downright dangerous" predicting it will lead the US "to its doom"). Policy is clear what we do in such cases, but for whatever reason we've got some editors who seem to want to deny that this guy (whatever his former status) is, now, spreading ideas that are full-on David-Icke-style cranky. Given the propensity of editors here to split hairs, how do you propose to advance things? Alexbrn (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think looking at articles like Andrew Wakefield (disgraced anti mmr doctor) might be useful here. I think the principle is to quote what other people in reputable sources (e.g. journals and newspapers) say about him. E.g. you might say something like "He said such and such and vaccines. Reputable source said X about the comments. MEDRS expressed this opinion". I watched some of the interview - it was irritatingly vague and had a bit of a feeling of "buy my book" to it, it's difficult to know whether he was saying anything that was outright false. E.g. saying "a policy of universal vaccination when young people have small risks of covid" might not be an anti-science position necessarily, but saying "there is evidence that this vaccine kills people would be". I doubt there will be any issue detailing every claim that scientists or journalists have addressed and even including the appropriate science related to the claim. Though I don't know what I think about wikipedia acting as a fact checker. I sort of feel as if you want to say "X is a conspiracy theorist nutjob" on the first sentence in the lead... and I'm not sure that's something that's going to happen. I'm not quite sure about your diagnosis of "denying" is what editors want. I do think there's a little "balancing" going on, but I think it's more along the lines of "we're going to call this guy a conspiracy theorist - they least we can do is to accurately represent his work". But yeah, we can certainly accurately describe every one of his questionable claims and what people siad about them, as well, maybe, as the science. Talpedia (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Talpedia, thanks for drawing attention to the Wakefield analogy- I feel less demoralised here now, as there was still dissension about the Wiki article for Wakefield 17 years on... Alexbrn so we seem to be approaching a stage where we might write:


 * Yadsalohcin|talk I'm suspicious that you would get a lot more agreement on A if some of B and C were resolved first. I suspect once a plan or addressing his recent more controversial opinion is made, people will be less "cut-throat" on other issues. I would suggest starting with the question of his controversial views. Talpedia (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC) (tidied for clarity Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC))


 * Hi Talpedia|talk I thought we'd pretty much established A, though I don't mind if the suggested wording gets 'adjusted'- I am struggling to find much about Bhakdi's historic work outside the German wiki article and its refs to his papers. As you can see, I'm offering options for B & C below- if none of these options suits, it would be good to hear of other possible wordings. Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Cool cool. If we get agreement on A all the better. But if there are problems I mmight suggest suring up the more negative elements first to try to get people to push less hard on other things. Talpedia (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Cool by me too. If we get a suggestion for a different A we can open up that to further discussion- As B and C are more apparently contentious I'm suggesting alternatives for each so we can gauge the group's general preferences on these. And I'm offering it up for now a sentence at a time to save us being stuck with an 8-way vote to cover all possible combinations... Yadsalohcin (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

/Followed by two of various possible options:


 * Feel free to chip in with any modifications to help improve these and allow us to reach some level of consensus as to what's best in the lead para... Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, having slept on it, I'd tweak these options slightly:


 * 2.2 they were 'responding to' rather than 'handling' a pandemic with wider implications than just Germany


 * 3.2 tense- 'ran', rather than 'run'?; 'consensus' may be tricky- 'developing consensus'(?) so how about these:




 * /Followed by two of various possible options:


 * Once again, feel free to chip in with any modifications to help improve these and allow us to reach some level of consensus as to what's best in the lead para... Yadsalohcin (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment Who made the opening "agreed upon science"? Agreement wouldn't be the correct word for science as it's not strictly opinion based but based on analysis of a set of facts, consensus is a better word than "agreed upon science". The source appears to use "consensus". Also "agreed" by whom? Policy/response can be something that can be agreed upon, so changing it to "agreed upon COVID-19 [policy/response]" might work if you really want to use agreed. Swil999 (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with "scientific consensus". We use that wording all the time for the thing climate change deniers disagree with. It is as appropriate here as there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, I'd have no problems using the term "scientific consensus", however, there does not have to be a distinct agreement for consensus. The issue I'd have a problem with is "agreed upon science", which really doesn't make much sense. Swil999 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A Response to Comment Hello Swil999, as Wikignome Wintergreen pointed out in their edit comment, "there's a long discussion on the talk page about the lead, which hasn't reached a clear consensus yet. I'm restoring this sentence until a conclusion is reached". The current lead is relatively unchanged since 26 November, when the article was locked due to an editing dispute. Attempts on this talk page since then to resolve the question of 'what should go in the lead para' have proved fruitless, with the most recent set of suggestions for possibilities for the para, despite a request for comment or vote, having received no response in over a week. Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the RfC should either run to an end (likely "no consensus") or - as some people want - there should be a new RfC. But someone else will have to do it, because after the last time I'm not bothering again ... maybe we need an RfC for an RfC? What would really make things easier is a better source. Or maybe with the passing of the pandemic this topic will just drift back into well-deserved obscurity and everyone will stop caring? Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm totally confused by the current Rfc(s?). We seem to have had additional options added after people have commented, which confuses things completely. I think the process needs to be restarted from scratch if possible. FDW777 (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's become a somewhat confused jumble. I couldn't discern a consensus in the initial responses. The original RfC offered 4 options of which 1 & 4 appear to be identical, so that's 3 options, which didn't seem to cover the whole potential solution space. Hence I attempted to cobble together some thoughts on options which might do that. But by then interest in the RfC seemed to have waned and this generated little interest. I don't believe the topic deserves obscurity as Bhakdi's loudly voiced opinions gave too much ammunition to the Covid-denying camp. New RfC, anyone? Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 3 or stronger (Ivanvector's suggestion) in a new option or new RFC. It is awkward and almost meaningless to say "acknowledged during his career for his work as a microbiologist". The views being misinformation or against scientific consensus is referenced and is a big part of his prominence. If a new proposal or new RFC eventually gives stronger wording like Ivanvector says, then that is fine too. For now, Option 3. &lt; Atom ( Anomalies ) 22:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to changing agreed science to consensus on an interim basis?
See my comments above. Science isn't really something that is resolved by an agreement so agreed science doesn't make any sense. Changing agreed science to scientific consensus shouldn't change the meaning too much, with the standard terminology being to use consensus as is used for purported climate "skeptics" /"deniers". That being said, consensus can change although so can agreements, so I don't see any advantages to using "agreed science" at least until the above RFC is resolved. I can't read German, but machine translation shows the source as saying consensus whereas I doubt there'd be any sources mentioning "agreed science" (maybe either scientific consensus or agreed response).

The decision to use "agreed science" was not discussed so if there's a reason for it being used please let me know.

Swil999 (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I would say scientific consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. I only put "agreed science" out of (over?) caution about WP:CLOP, but then the article got protected so it hung around. Saying "contrary to reality" would also be fine. Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Now that the article is, tho' far from perfect, back to covering something of a balance between his career and his post-retirement controversies (tho' I'd like to see more under 'Responses to Bhakdi's criticisms'), I'm not so very excited about the details in the leading paras. Yadsalohcin (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I question the wisdom of even having an entry about him. It's giving oxygen to conspiracy theories that are patently false. WK should be about facts. (from user:Gentleman wiki, 11 January 2021)
 * There are facts in this case. In particular that Bhadi has published 2 controversial books. These cannot be unpublished, so exploring their context and seeing how much misinformation is there seems appropriate. Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Goldenes Brett
Bhakdi got the Goldenes Brett yesterday:      --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021
Remove or rewrite the slanderous "Responses to Bhakdi's criticisms" section. Bhakdi is one of the foremost experts in the world in the field, and the opinions of "investigative journalists" or a "foreign and economic policy professional" are worthless if they are not demonstrated.

The line "He has been criticized for his theses on the COVID-19 pandemic; according to Medical Tribune [de], they are considered unscientific by a majority of experts.[17]" is false. The Great Barrington Declaration demonstrates that the majority of experts agree with Bhakdi. This declaration is even more impressive in light of the fact that there is very strong intimidation of any professional who speaks out against the party line. 74.14.1.216 (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. There's an ongoing discussion above about this. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 03:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The "fact-check" so-called performed by "Correctiv" is as fake as it gets and just another paid hatchet-job by msm journos. This was pointed out before Hob Gadling incited an edit-war here and vandalized this WP talk page. See page history for reference. 93.197.139.12 (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * e/c - Worth pointing out as a drive-by comment, that The Great Barrington declaration does not demonstrate that the majority of experts agree with Bhakdi. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 13:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You misused this page as a chatroom or WP:FORUM. In the contributions I deleted, you chatted about vaccinations being pointless, about people getting their social media censored, about what decent people call professors, about "Adolf-Hitler-plazas", and after that I stopped reading. Read WP:TALK to find out what you should write on Wikipedia Talk pages and what you should not write on Wikipedia Talk pages.
 * Deleting forum posts from Wikipedia Talk pages is not vandalism. Grow up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Before Hob Gadling vandalized this page, it was very carefully laid out how to a patient vaccination is indeed "pointless" or useless but useful for pharma shareholders only for enriching themselves to the detriment of patients - among other valid points being made. The ongoing world-wide edit war on the general topic is a means to stifle debate. Upon repeat of the vandalism one more time I will report the perpetrator. 93.197.139.12 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is very simple: you do not understand how Wikipedia works, therefore your perception that it was "vandalism" is wrong. What you are writing here does not belong in Wikipedia, it belongs in a forum. Wikipedia Talk pages are not forums. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. Go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: the Thai spelling of Bhakdi's name, which is สุจริต ภักดี; name at birth: สุจริต บุณยรัตพันธุ์. Why the heck is this page protected from editing? Please correct this situation. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Added the spelling and pronunciation. The page is locked for IPs and new accounts because some of them tried to make the article reflect their own ideas instead of what reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please correct this situation. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021
Claiming Bhakdi is making false claims is unscientific. First the source given doesnt provide proof he said corona is a hoax or similar, nor has the pouplation decimation hypothesis been proven false, as is remains to be seen. As outrageous and unlikely as it may seem, it is not 'false'. Batdegroot67 (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For NPOV Wikipedia needs to make plain when false views are false. Alexbrn (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Persistent editorializing and non-neutrality in article
As other editors have pointed out, and as I tried to point out last month, before editor Ivanvector placed a ban on my IP, the Wikipedia-POV claims in this article that Sucharit Bhakdi's ideas are "false" are in violation of a number of Wikipedia policies, including WP:BLP, WP:POVRAILROAD, and WP:NPOV.

The COVID-19 pandemic is constantly and sharply evolving, and we've seen several cases of theories/ideas that are at one point cast aside as "fringe" then return to center stage as recurrent global media headlines weeks later. Take, as an example, the "Wuhan lab leak" theory. And this is not an isolated case. There are still many unknowns here, as well as many unknown unknowns. The debate rages on on a multitude of fronts and stages. We are far from "unquestionable truths" on a number of Covid-19 related issues, and it is an inaccuracy to claim otherwise.

According to WP:IMPARTIAL, Wikipedia should neither endorse a particular point of view, particularly in a live topic as hotly debated as this one. This is also a core tenet of WP:BLP.

Unfortunately, a couple of tenured and established editors--Alexbrn, Ivanvector, Slatersteven--have taken ownership of the article, as one can see in its history, and engage in WP:POVRAILROAD. Several newer editors (like myself) with significantly less Wikipedia political capital under our belt have attempted to correct it, but our arguments, which are valid and rest upon Wikipedia policies, have been swatted aside and ignored, often offensively and disparagingly.

I invite anybody reading this to read not just the article's Talk page but the history of my attempted edits in June 2021.

I request, one more time, that the language is edited; that it is not Wikipedia directly asserting that Sucharit Bhakdi's claims are false, but Wikipedia stating that X, Y, and Z sources have stated as much. I request, one more time, that we try to reach a consensus as an editing community. Because consensus, which is what Wikipedia states is supposed to be sought, is most definitely not what we're having here.

Gr33nshorts (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bhakdi's claims and publications about COVID-19 are false. If there was debate among reliable scientific literature about whether or not Bhakdi's claims are false, then we would balance all prominent viewpoints and attribute them to the sources. But there is not. There are only reliable scientific sources reviewing Bhakdi's claims and calling them false (or pseudoscientific, to reference a guideline); they are no less false than an astrophysicist publishing studies on the dairy content of the moon. Wikipedia describes things as they are, and Bhakdi's claims are false. Engaging in fringe arguments about Bhakdi's false claims is what violates WP:NPOV, and what is not Wikipedia's place. I don't know why you think I blocked your IP but if that's true then you're evading that block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * For the record, from what I could determine Gr33nshorts has never been blocked for their edits, but were previously caught up in an IP range block targeted at an unrelated sockpuppeter. It would be best if the editor stop making these unfounded victimisation claims. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Extensively fact-checked and found to be variously unsubstantiated, misleading, or false
"Bhakdi's claims, in particular in his YouTube videos and in the book Corona Fehlalarm?, have been extensively fact-checked and found to be variously unsubstantiated, misleading, or false.[31][32]" what makes Poynter and Leadstories.org to be reliable sources?†  Encyclopædius  16:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:PARITY applies. Bhakdi's statements are so obviously roaring nonsense, pretty much any source will do to reflect reality as counterpoint. Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh you again, funny that. Wrong. Strong claims here need strong reliable sources. I would never pass an article for Good Article status with such sources. Show me say 4 sources from our typical mainstream "reliable" sources group debunking his claims and I'll say fair enough. And how is it obviously roaring nonsense? Somebody of his level of expertise should know what he is talking about.† Encyclopædius  16:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Would this count as 1 []?Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, but USA Today and Hollywood Reporter I vaguely recall weren't, you might want to chekc at the RS Board. We need several solid reliable sources if we are to claim what he says is misleading or false. I've just not seen any compelling counterargument which proves the microbiologists talking about this are completely wrong. If it was just a bunch of your typical antivaxx charlatan types I would ignore it, but it's the fact that a number of scientists like him are saying it and they really ought to know better if it is in fact completely false...† Encyclopædius  17:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSPSS USA Today is a green source, its RS.Slatersteven (talk)
 * Thanks for bothering to check. :-) Hollywood Reporter is the dud I think though. Can we find any other sources? If we can find some better sources, ideally with doctors/scientists who are experts we can throw out these two.† Encyclopædius  17:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a strong claim. It's more of a WP:SKYISBLUE thing, but a tiny bit of WP:CIR for knowing that. Since about a billion people worldwide have been vaccinated now, somebody would have noticed if the vaccines were "deadly". His "level of expertise" is in bacteriology, and all he has is an opinion without any actual facts behind it, so your argumentum ad verecundiam simply does not work. Bacterial diseases can be countered with antibiotics, and the last really bad bacterial epidemic ended in 1922. There are local epidemics, such as the 2016–2021 Yemen cholera outbreak with about 3,000 dead in the last five years, increased by civil war, but nowadays viruses are the big killers. Bacteriologists and pandemics just have no connection with each other. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Unclear how the sources cited show Bhakdi to be wrong
There appear to be two sources cited as proof Bhakdi's statements are wrong: one from Spiegel, one from a Turkish fact checking site called Teyit, ultimately. The Teyit site is what is linked from the USA Today article as proof of Bhakdi being wrong, while the USA Today article is the immediate reference in the Wikipedia article.

In the Spiegel article it says that people like Bhakdi lend credibility to conspiracy theorists, while he himself is not one, so even the source cited seems to largely contradict the conclusion of the Wikipedia article.

In the Teyit article it states that the efficacy of a vaccine is measured by the "disease rate". It is unclear how it shows Bhakdi to be wrong. Bhakdi appears to claim that the vaccine is likely to be comparably dangerous. He bases this on his understanding of its function and the shortened testing process to have the vaccine approved, which seems factual. A vaccine can have a high efficacy while also being dangerous. For example, jumping from a tall building is probably very effective at preventing covid. But to argue that the "disease rate" is a refutation of someone saying that it's a dangerous activity seems very silly.

Also, why does the article choose this focus? It seems to be very selective. Bhakdi, as the article itself states, is a microbiologist with several decades of experience. It seems almost like the only reason this article was created was political, to discredit someone with an opposing view point, for political reasons, not to present information on a person as one would expect from an encyclopedia. Wikipedia appears to contain a growing number of articles that are created purely to argue a certain current political topics, not for being an encyclopedia, which people might expect presents information from a neutral point of view.

2001:638:708:30DA:313C:9411:275F:8D09 (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As the source says, Bhakdi's claims are "not accurate". It's not necessary to produce sources showing that the vaccine are not, as Bhakdi claims, "deadly", but hardly necessary as we assume at least some basic intelligence in Wikipedia's readership. Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The article very clearly calls Bhakdi an "exponent of false ideas" and then references those sources. The article does not simply call him inaccurate.


 * When Bhakdi says that the vaccine is "deadly" it is clear that he is talking about the relative risk of the vaccine, not that anyone who takes the vaccine drops dead. That there are always some adverse events with any vaccine is clear. That is not what he means when he says the vaccine "is deadly" and he explains it in his video and in his open letter. With some basic intelligence, that should be clear from the context that this microbiologist with several decades of experience provides.
 * 2001:638:708:30DA:313C:9411:275F:8D09 (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * He says that "I believe they are killing people with this vaccination", that the vaccines will "decimate world population" and that the medics responsible should be criminally prosecuted. This is loony antivax bullshit. Wikipedia has a duty to call out pseudoscience and fringe ideas such as this per core WP:NPOV policy. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not care what you consider fringe and probably neither does Wikipedia. If the vaccine is dangerous, they are and will be killing people with this vaccine. That is objectively true for any vaccine with a high rate of severe adverse events. His statement to that fact can be plainly stated in the article. Your or Wikpedia's judgment of it being true is not necessary. All that this article does is call him wrong and then cite sources that also call him wrong. You can state that other people, including some Turkish fact checking site, call him wrong -- that is fine. And for him to use the phrase "decimate the world population" seems to be a phrase he used offhand in one interview in which he seems to struggle with English, as German seems to be the language he is most comfortable with. That is one phrase taken out of a body of work that this article seems in no way representative of. What this article seems to be doing is taking snipes at singular phrases, not refuting anyone, if that should even be the goal of an article. This article seems to present Bhakdi's arguments in a completely false light. It seems to do more to misinform for selective kill shots than inform. 2001:638:708:30DA:313C:9411:275F:8D09 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * He spreads antivax bullshit as identified by reliable sources which called him out for it. Wikipedia merely reflects that, to be neutral. Your problem seems to be with that reality, and is not something Wikipedia can fix. Alexbrn (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with what you or Wikipedia define as "antivax bullshit". I am getting the sense that this is most of anything that is critical of the vaccines. There is plenty to be critical of and the blood clotting issue, for example, is one issue that Bhakdi has correctly predicted. But those were not the main arguments of my point. My primary points with this issue is that one of the sources cited uses guilt by association and doesn't even say that his claims are wrong. The other source is a USA Today article that seems to rely primarily on a Turkish fact checking site and uses a few particularly colorful quotes from one of his few English interviews. His German interviews seem very different in tone. This article seems very selective in what it presents about Bhakdi and what it lead with. He is a microbiologist with several decades of experience and awards, which the article lists, but it chooses to lead with just those points that touch on current political events. That does not feel like an encyclopedia but someone who abuses what purports itself to be an encyclopedia for political attacks. Emotionally charged phrases like "antivax bullshit" and condescending phrases like "we assume at least some basic intelligence" strengthen that impression - that you're not objectively writing encyclopedia articles, you're on a mission. 2001:638:708:30DA:313C:9411:275F:8D09 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't for the antivax bullshit he'd likely by just another long-forgotten academic without a Wikipedia article - nearly all coverage about him is wrt COVID disinformation. Anyway, is there a specific proposal for a change to the article? Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. Remove statements that you cannot support properly with sources and re-write the introduction with a neutral point of view. If the article can be edited, I will try to improve it. Also, it's "nearly all CURRENT coverage about him", which is no surprise for anyone who receives media attention for a current political debate. But that is due to when people chose to write this article. That is on the authors of this article. If the only times articles are written for people when positive or negative media attention is on them, then it is very easy to manipulate the impression and tone of an article. Also, your comments about his academic legacy seem again tinged by personal judgments. I do not understand why people who seems so obviously biased are tasked with writing encyclopedia articles that are meant to be neutral. I do not want to become to personal, but I do not see what motivates you to even make such a personally tinged judgment because none of the output on your blog seems to be of lasting value, especially not compared to a respectable microbiologist. That seems very arrogant to me. If Wikipedia has input on whom it deems fit to edit articles, I do not think such people should write articles that they seem so obviously biased about.2001:638:708:30DA:313C:9411:275F:8D09 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles can only be written when they get some coverage, its called notability (see wp:n).Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @IP: I don't know what you're imagining about his "legacy", or a "blog", but fact is all (not just current) coverage about him, if assessed, shows that the COVID misinformation is by far the most discussed topic. Hence, precisely to be neutral, the article mirrors that - and then core policy requires that WP:FRINGE views be properly contextualized as such. The only bias here is in favour of Wikipedia's policies. Alexbrn (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for the promotion of flawed generalizations about vaccines or depopulation conspiracy theories. If you check vaccine related articles medically reliable sources (WP:MEDRS) are expected for biomedical claims.  It's different when sources criticize such views and reflect the mainstream (WP:PARITY).  I see arguments that this article is biased because of specific editors or that WP has no business in selecting sources.  On the other hand, WP:RS is policy, so is WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:GEVAL, etc.  The bias of reality-based reliable sources must be reflected and cannot be weighted against Bhakdi's own opinions, unreliable sources making extraordinary claims must also be avoided.  WP:FIXBIAS and WP:CRYBLP may also be useful: the above presented no reliable sources that would contradict the conclusion of the others, but are necessary to balance legitimate criticism.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * And that is precisely what you seem to be focusing on. You take a notable, current issue - such as Corona - and then you write articles in light of those currently popular issues, to further a certain view on a topic, not to write an article informing your readers well on a certain person. The broader aim of communicating a certain view on a currently hot topic seems to be more important to you. It's the reverse of the process you should be following if you want to write articles about a person that are informative for a reader. Another example: when Trump is a current issue, every article seems to be written with light of what a person feels about Trump. When BLM is a current hot topic, a disproportionate number of articles might be written in light of what stance a person has on BLM. That results in really bad articles, because of course the currently hot topic is going to be the most talked about at any point in time. But that doesn't mean that it's the most defining topic for a person's life, and what is most defining for a person's life is what a reader arguably wants to get out of an encyclopedia article. The approach for highlighting certain information about a person seems more fitting for a blog on politics, not an encyclopedia. Your aim is very clearly to communicate a certain stance on Corona. And you are also arrogant enough that you think yourself an authoritative source to be able to judge the veracity of claims made by a person, instead of simply reporting what their views are. We do not need your editorializing of current events. Write an encyclopedia or be clear that you are writing a political blog.


 * Also, the same news source you have cited in support of painting Bhakdi, USA Today, as some sort of conspiracy theorist is now also reporting that in Australia blood clots from vaccines might have killed more people than Covid. That's precisely an issue Bhakdi has predicted, for which he has been painted as some sort of loon. But that should all be besides the point, because it shouldn't be the point of Wikipedia or any encyclopedia to take a certain stance on the dangers of any vaccine. The point of an encyclopedia should be to be neutral and report facts, not assess the veracity of claims for or against vaccines. A lot of the responses I am getting here very strongly suggest that, though.


 * Decide if you want to be an encyclopedia or a political blog. If you want to be an encyclopedia, keep your politics to yourself. 2001:638:708:30DA:F43A:3758:96F4:DC3 (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a respectable encyclopedia reflecting accepted knowledge as found in reliable sources, and likes in particular to make plain when fringe ideas are just that. The accepted knowledge for Bhakdi's various COVID pronouncements is that they are nonsense on toast. That is the reality here, and Wikipedia can't change reality. Alexbrn (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WE have decided, on the side of science.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You do realize that there is no apolitical science? Countless examples, books and papers prove that. Remember that the fact that smoking causes cancer and the fact of global warming were suppressed for decades. I agree with the other writers on this discussion page, that it is defamation to write something like this on a Wikipedia page. Professor Bhakti has wrote open letters to Merkel and the EMA asking questions. If he was wrong, they could have just answered with relevant data points. 2003:ED:670B:CE69:4094:5D24:634D:FB4E (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Suppression of the smoking-cancer connection and the fossil-fuel-global-warming connection (actually, more like propaganda against those connections) was done by people outside the science mainstream. Bhakdi is also outside the science mainstream. So, if there is any parallel between his case and those cases, it runs in the other direction: Deciding on the side of science means that the tobacco playbook loses, climate change denial loses, and Bhakdi loses.
 * But actually, you cannot win a discussion by pointing at other discussions and declaring that you are somehow like the winner of those. It's weird that there are people who need to have such an obvious fact explained to them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2021
95.102.49.0 (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Sucharit Bhakdi is called a conspiratory theorist by pro-vaxers, because of his free and open-minded approach to revealing facts about the covid virus and humans' immune system and the mutual interlinked connection between those two. He is also seen a threat to the pharma industry and their propaganda, unmasking the so called vaccines against the covid-19, pointing out to their inefficiency and harmfulness.
 * 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)