Talk:Bret Weinstein

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

COVID Stance

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

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

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

There is no information in "Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic" that would lead one to think Ivermectin is a correct therapeutic for Covid-19. There is no reference to "medical journals and pharmacological research" to that effect.--Petzl (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe there is bias in these statements.

"Weinstein has made erroneous claims that ivermectin…"

"Weinstein has falsely claimed that the…"

"erroneous" and "falsely" are unnecessary. State the fact that he made his claims. A follow up statement with provided evidence could counter his claim. Mr.smithreadsstuff (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not what editors (erroneously) "believe". Bon courage (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you confirm my understanding of wiki policy? If there is a RS (let's call them media-A) that denounces a certain view held by a person (let's call them joe), it may appear on their wiki page. However, if those views are actually corroborated in the future by reliable sources without specifically mentioning Joe, wiki policy prohibits editors from removing those, now disputed, claims from media-A because of WP:SYNTH? Don't you see a problem here? Media outlets will not undo their damage for fear of damaging their own reputation, but Wikipedia is supposed to stand for the truth regardless of reputation of the individual/media entity Shavman99 (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that is rather abstract. Please give a specific example. WP:FRINGESUBJECTS need to be contextualized by non-fringe framing; accepted knowledge needs no such contextual framing. Bon courage (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to RS that has denounced his recommendation of ivermectin. Recently his views have been corroborated by other RS.

"In summary, ivermectin could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement and adverse events in patients with COVID-19, without increasing other risks. Despite no conclusive evidence or guidelines recommending ivermectin as a therapeutic drug for COVID-19, clinicians could use it with caution in the absence of better alternatives, and self-medication of ivermectin is not recommended for patients with COVID-19." Source Shavman99 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

so my question remains. Wiki policy is such that we cannot remove the text that accuses this man of spreading lies when his statements are now being confirmed? If this is the case, may I suggest adding a statement that includes this new information? Shavman99 (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as it would have to say exactly what HE said was not a lie, because it maybe that whilst some of what he said might be true, was everything? That is the basis of wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Those terms detract from the NPOV of the article and should be removed. Unfortunately, this kind of thing has become commonplace on Wikipedia. Fnordware (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV explicitly does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. When a claim was false, it is not a NPOV problem to say so. MrOllie (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Quite. It would be a NPOV problem not to say so. Bon courage (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Gay lifestyle

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

  −

  AIDS was caused by a gay lifestyle, rather than the HIV virus

  +

  AIDS was caused by [[poppers]], rather than the HIV virus

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

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

Seems fair. 17:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Bon courage (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

References

A should be added for "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about ..."

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

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

Ref. [1] "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons RealLRLee (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The statement in the lede is covered in more detail in the article body, where multiple citations are provided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

See WP:LEADREF. If you think adding refs to the WP:LEAD is an improvement in this particular case, that's not unreasonable, but assuming they're in the article already, not necessary either. Controversial articles tend to have refs in the lead more often. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

As "Controversial articles tend to have refs in the lead more often" and the article in question is clearly controversial and, per MOS:CITELEAD, "there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads" then the citations in the lead are clearly needed.

The target article is locked. How should I go about persuading someone with the appropriate authorization to add the needed citations?  RealLRLee (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The commenters at BLP/N believe that this discussion should be occuring there. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Unsourced defamatory claim about Bret Weinstein

Would the commenters, above, please join the discussion there? RealLRLee (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

this should read 'has faced controversy' since he has both been criticized and applauded by different groups who hold different beliefs. I find it incredibly misleading to only mention criticism when there are many people who applaud his views on these issues Shavman99 (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Can we some of this support from RS? Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

He has received support from the brownstone institute. Which as I understand may not be a reliable source. Regardless, 'has faced controversy' is still true. Shavman99 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

And so is "has been criticized ", so why does it need changing? Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that both "has faced controversy" and "has been criticized" are true, but the former offers a more balanced representation of the mixed reactions to his views. Shavman99 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:FALSEBALANCE we reflect what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah "controversy" makes it sound like two sides, when in reality it's Weinstein's nonsense on one side, and sanity on the other. So, no. Bon courage (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the use of the word 'controversial' in this RS... Is it really so hard for you to accept changing one word? Source Shavman99 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience and explanation. I stand corrected Shavman99 (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

but as a compromise, my proposed edit is the following: "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines, and for spreading misinformation about HIV/AIDS. However, he has also garnered support from academic free-speech organizations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and public intellectual platforms, which highlight his contributions to discussions on free speech, institutional integrity, and open scientific inquiry." Shavman99 (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry what? The lede summarizes the body. That crazies laud crazy view is not of encyclopedic worth, particularly as a WP:LEDEBOMB. Weinstein's views have no support in reputable reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Weinstein has views that have been supported by RS. I believe my proposed edit strikes a fair balance by acknowledging both the criticism and the support Weinstein has received from reputable organizations like FIRE (FIRE source) and platforms like ASU’s Civic Discourse Project (ASU source). His contributions to discussions on free speech have been recognized, even if his views on other topics are controversial. I also find your rhetoric here unnecessary and not in line with respectful community discourse. Let’s keep this civil and constructive... I agree the lede should summarize the body. So I will follow with further proposed edits to the body. For now, I am simply opening a discussion to soften the bias on this page. Shavman99 (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"Weinstein has views that have been supported by RS" ← citation needed! Bon courage (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If it ain't in the body it ain't going in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, and I don't know why I need to repeat myself, "I agree the lede should summarize the body. So I will follow with further proposed edits to the body. For now, I am simply opening a discussion to soften the bias on this page." Shavman99 (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

here you go. Sorry I'm on mobile atm and the links haven't been appearing.

The Human Rights Watch has documented how free speech was curtailed globally during the pandemic, which aligns with some of Weinstein's concerns

Arizona State University’s Civic Discourse Project has featured him in discussions about free speech and intellectual diversity

He has received support from organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) for his advocacy of academic freedom and free speech at Evergreen State College Shavman99 (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

None of this shows Weinstein's views have received support in RS. Bon courage (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

And read WP:SYNTH. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph is a hit piece

Encyclopedists need to limit the use of charged or controversial language in their entries. To claim that an individual is part of the "intellectual dark web" (IDW) is a blatant character assassination that has no place in an encyclopedic entry. It is a purely subjective and abstract claim that is, at best, the opinion of the authors referenced in the citations. This shouldn't need to be pointed out, but the IDW and its membership isn't objectively real in any sense. Furthermore, terms such as "false statements" and "misinformation" should be used sparingly, if ever, when topical details are readily available and in no short supply. These terms are lazy and offer negative value to the entry because they presuppose that certain authoritative ideas are exempt from scrutiny or criticism. This undermines the values of critical thinking and skepticism of confident narratives which attempt to explain reality, especially those which have broad-reaching influence. Lastly, the paragraph simply lacks proportion; this is not a faithful representation of the human being described in the article. Folks, as encyclopedists, we are charged with etching the finer details of a person's life when creating personal profiles. We are NOT here to create caricatures of other humans or to reinforce media-generated avatars. If we can't faithfully capture objective reality in our entries, a blank space should be left instead. Nathaniel A. Peterson (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the cited sources, as you seem to acknowledge above. We don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE here. MrOllie (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You're ignoring my criticisms. You can use sources to prop up any claim, regardless of how asinine; it doesn't make the claim legitimate. Citations must be used in conjunction with unbiased critical thinking. Additionally, the statement in the paragraph which includes the term "misinformation" doesn't even have a citation.

I didn't suggest portraying a false balance. I pointed out that dismissing Bret's views as "false" and "misinformation" is biased, lazy, and frankly, an abuse of editorial power. These terms have absolute definitions and should be avoided, as Wikipedia is not a ministry of truth (right?). Better to say would be, for example, "his views regarding COVID-19 treatment contradict mainstream medical consensus", which is an unbiased statement and doesn't imply any false balance. See what I mean? Nathaniel A. Peterson (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

What nonsense. The lede summarizes the body just fine. Wikipedia isn't going to pretend that Weinstein's bollocks about (e.g.) ivermectin is anything another than what it is, and as multiple reputable sources affirm. What you are proposing is classic POV-pushing. Bon courage (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. The intro makes claims of false statements and misinformation (which are bold and absolute terms that are almost never appropriate to use in any academic or scientific discourse) and to top it all off, there aren't even citations for those non-specific claims...yet I'm proposing "classic POV-pushing" by objecting to this? What a disgrace. Nathaniel A. Peterson (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, so present one claim we make in the lede that is not supported in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)