Talk:Jay Bhattacharya

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jay Bhattacharya article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: West Bengal Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal.

Stanford University Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Stanford University on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Stanford UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Stanford UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Stanford UniversityStanford University
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Asian Americans Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Focused protection is not "Fringe"

Prior to 2020, the notion that protective measures can be selectively applied to elderly and higher-risk individuals was not fringe. In fact, it was (and is) a commonplace notion:

https://www.care.com/c/senior-health-cold-and-flu-season/

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncontrol/healthcaresettings.htm

The word fringe should be deleted along with the low-quality, non-scholarly opinions which are offered as justification. Jcandy (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How strange! Did anything happen in 2020 that might have provided new information and led the world to reevaluate their assumptions? MrOllie (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some tragic things happened in 2020, primarily propaganda and pseudoscience, that caused a deviation from classic pandemic protocols that should have been followed. Now, in 2023, these unscientific/untested deviations from well-established pandemic guidelines are being highly criticized. Thus "actually fringe" notion was the assertion that a respiratory virus would disappear if we made up some strange and performative new protocols like maintaining 6 feet of distance. Jcandy (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to hold that view personally, but Wikipedia cannot reflect it since the encyclopedia follows the scientific mainstream, right or wrong. MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent mainstream events now clarify that "6 feet of distance" was performative pseudoscience. Obviously there never was any scientific basis for the rule. 75.83.25.58 (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is that unsourced insight of yours relevant to improving the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a paper calling for focused protection. Fringe?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01530-6/fulltext — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcandy (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, a letter that doesn't mention focused protection. So Nope. The idea that COVID-19 could be left to rip through the population while vulnerable people were somehow to be excluded from the wave of infection is just dishonest hopium. If anything, calling it fringe is a bit kind considering what the sources say. Bon courage (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incredulity is not an argument. And the letter mentions "to protect older people" which is exactly what is meant by focused protection. The idea that you can preferentially protect vulnerable cohorts is not new, not fringe and not refuted by appeals to incredulity. Hospital systems put in place measures of this type every year. We are seeing returns to focused protection as hospitals again institute mask orders. In fact, I think we can trace back the politically-loaded notion of "fringe" to a now-discredited attempt to smear GBD authors.

The word "fringe" needs to be removed. Jcandy (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting that we should try to raise vaccination rates among older people (which are lower than hoped for non-medical, social reasons) is not remotely the same as what the Great Barrington Declaration was advocating. We cannot accept WP:OR here. If you want to show that the GBD is not fringe, you will need sourcing that is directly on point and as authoritative as the sources that say it is. (that would be something like the WHO saying 'The Great Barrington Declaration was not fringe'). To my knowledge such sourcing does not exist - in fact the WHO still says the opposite. Again, Wikipedia will follow the scientific mainstream. If you think the mainstream is wrong, this website is not the place to try to change it. MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a WP:SBM article from this year[1] that goes into more depth about this. But this is a page about one the "disgraced trio of scientists" touting this stuff, not the GBD itself. So to satisfy NPOV all we need to do is briefly note that the bollocks is bollocks before focusing on the more biographical aspects of Jay. What we have is fine (though I do like this[2] source's use of "fatuous" which may be a better word than fringe?) Bon courage (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excellent paper that shows age-targeted mitigations are mathematically optimal:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0236237

WHO pandemic guidance (not a fringe position) also warned against non-targeted restrictions, particularly school closure for more than a short period. Scandinavia's extremely low pandemic ASMR showed that this particular type of focused protection (open schools) was optimal. In Europe children were not masked. The real-life examples that refute the "fringe" claim are numerous and persuasive. Jcandy (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More slowly, so you may finally get it: That. Would. Be. Something. Like. The. WHO. Saying. 'The. Great. Barrington. Declaration. Was. Not. Fringe.

Understand now?

Please read WP:OR and WP:RS. We cannot replace sourced statements by your own conclusions. It's the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. GBD was fringe (or daft, stupid, eugenic, whatever) idea as all authoritative sources say. Wikipedia doesn't indulge crap but calls it out concentrates on relaying actual knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced statements on the editorial statment describing "focused protection" as "fringe" are opinions of individual scientists, not general scientific conclusions. There were multiple other scientists who held different opinions on the effectiveness of focused protection or similar actions. For evidence, see this article from Nov 2020 describing a debate on the topic sponsored by Johns Hopkins University: [3]. Additional evidence would be Sweden's approach, which was essentially focused protection: [4]. Given the clear varied opinions among scientists at the time, those arguing to leave the word "fringe" should provide more than simply opinions from individual scientists. Otherwise the word should be removed as it is an editorial rather than factual statement. Srdone (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very interesting that we apparently have to pull in economists and business school people in order to find support for the essentially fictitious* idea, and this is supposed to be evidence that this is not fringe in the relevant scientific fields. Seems somewhat reminiscent of certain arguments in favour of letting climate change do whatever actually.

* since as has been repeatedly pointed out by many sources, including the authors themselves, that it lacks A comprehensive and detailed list of measures. Or was it a comprehensive strategy for—a detailed tactical strategy? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmer medal

The 'American Academy of Sciences and Letters' is an organization that what set up a year or so ago to give out that award. It is not a notable award and ought not to be covered here. MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“victim complex“ citation does not have reliable source

This sentence lacks a reliable source. If you want to add it back, find one other than WhoWhatWhy… Helpingtoclarify (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say that it isn't reliable? We need more than just your bare assertion. MrOllie (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not listed on Wikipedia list of reliable sources which is authoritative. If this “victim complex” conclusion is supported by consensus you surely can find a reliable source here. This is bullying behavior. I’ve deleted. You should not add back until have found reliable sources to back up. This is standard. You appear to experienced for this behavior. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no authoritative or exhaustive 'list of reliable sources'. If you have seen something that makes you think so, I encourage you to read it again because you have evidentally misunderstood. Accusing others of 'bullying' is just a personal attack and will do nothing to help your argument, see WP:NPA. MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This will soon be a high profile government official and that is relevant in this biography. You are citing something from citizen journalism that lacks support from another source. The ask is simple. Do the work to find another source or stop changing it. Just changing it back with no reason is not appropriate behavior. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting things based on a 'Wikipedia list of reliable sources' that does not exist is not appropriate behavior. And there is a rather important difference between 'citizen journalism' as you just wrote, and 'citizen supported journalism' as the source you are deleting is. MrOllie (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a consensus view on “victim complex” there is surely another source. But I don’t see it… Helpingtoclarify (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't provided any reasoning for why the existing source is a problem. MrOllie (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe read this and then peruse this WhoWhatWhy site. Not hard to find examples of bias, conspiracy theory (it suggests the 2024 election was rigged), etc. Not reliable.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources Helpingtoclarify (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that relevant here? To quote from the link you just posted, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Maybe get an experience moderator involved? Helpingtoclarify (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every policy you have referred to or link you have posted has not said what you seemed to think it would say. If you would rather hear that from someone else as well, feel free to ask for input at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Helpingtoclarify Wikipedia does not have moderators. We do have notice boards to discuss sources, etc. Doug Weller talk 10:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A poor showing here MrOllie. This is a contentious BLP. WhoWhatWhy has little precedent and the recent RSN discussion [5] is skeptical at best. You should know better than to re-add this. SmolBrane (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SmolBrane, I was just trying to elicit some kind of policy based explanation for why this wasn't a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards. Perhaps you're not familiar with WP:BLPRESTORE? When we re-add content, we are engaging in a 'bare assertion'--Re-adding to a BLP puts the burden on you w/r/t reliability. Glad I could be of help! SmolBrane (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]