This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Freely licensed photo available here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.neuro.columbia.edu/members/profiles.php?id=55. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
In reviewing the two maintenance tags attached to this article: citation style and BLP sources, are they still relevant? The citation style tag was added in April 2011 and the BLP in May 2010. I believe the BLP tag can be taken down. However, I was unable to find what Wikipedia's citation style is to see if that has been remedied. Help?Kh2907 (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The "Fact-Finding Mission to China" is especially bad. Most of the information is sourced to a podcast, and there's tons of extraneous material that is WP:UNDUE in a biographic article. I've started shortening the section, but there's still a lot of work to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Thucydides411, Just read your reasons for deleting data from over 50 different references. Sorry for my delayed reply - due to other commitments I may not always be able to immediately respond. Can we discuss the points you mentioned, hopefully resolve them?
You wrote: “The "Fact-Finding Mission to China" is especially bad. Most of the information is sourced to a podcast.”
The podcast was one of over 20 references cited for that section, but yes, it is a key information resource. It includes Lipkin’s view that he would “absolutely not” advise US workers to wear facemasks (“because people don’t know how to use them”), [1] details his meetings in January with Chinese ministers and the premier, Li Kechiang, and explains why he praises transparency from China's central government.[2] Conducted by Professor Vincent R. Racaniello from Columbia, it’s an hour-long public broadcast of two experts discussing/describing the virus (Lipkin has it at the time) in a period when it was taking off in the US. Is that not valid information? Why? Before the Bang (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Before the Bang
The podcast is an interview between two Columbia professors. Are you saying you deleted it because no interview material is allowed on Wikipedia? The quotes from it are not "claims", they are Lipkin's own words. Which part is not accurate?
All interviews are live discussions when they are conducted. You're saying all pages on Wikipedia that include interview references should be deleted? Please give a quoted example where you think he misspoke.
Even if there was a rule banning interviews (which of course there isn't), you also wiped references from over 10 different published scientific papers, including ones from Lipkin. Why did you do that?[3][4][5][6][7]Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[8][9][10][11][12][13]
Before the Bang (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Before the Bang
Thucydides wrote: “I've gone through and removed most of the material about SARS-CoV-2.”
Why? It’s a notable topic on which Lipkin is an expert. You say it’s because “Much of this material was extremely poorly sourced (for example, to timestamps in live interviews).”
So are you arguing Lipkin is an "extremely poor source" for his own views? Or it’s "extremely poor" because he expressed them on Fox News and Dr Oz?
Lipkin did emphasise the importance of “sharing as much as I could” on these platforms saying: “That’s really where you need to push - you need to go onto Oz and talk to people who reach the entire country.”[14] With Fox he said, “I never turn down Fox - it’s an opportunity to preach in the wilderness.”[15]
This is Lipkin’s considered messaging, to “the entire country”. Why is that extraneous to an account of his advice on SARS-2? Before the Bang (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Before the Bang
No, you haven't. You're evading the question again Thucydides. Why's that? Let me rephrase them as simple 'yes' or 'nos'.
1. Is Lipkin an "extremely poor source" for his own views?
2. Is Lipkin's considered messaging to "the entire country" relevant to an account of his advice on SARS-CoV-2? Before the Bang (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Before the Bang
Having not received a response to these questions, the deleted referenced material has been partly restored. Before the Bang (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Before the Bang
Thucydides wrote: "Some of the material was a clear BLP violation (e.g., accusing him and other scientist of "conspiring" to misinform the public about masks)."
No, didn’t accuse anyone or use the word “conspiring”; you’ve made that up, Thucydides - then used it as your rationale for deleting over 60 different references. What's your motivation here?
Below are the quotes from Lipkin that you deleted:
“Back in 2003 there was a WHO investigation that showed that face masks whether surgical or N-95 had a dramatic impact on community transmission.” Lipkin described the study as small but “particularly compelling.”
He then said: “I thought a long time about trying to publish this... but it would have deprived - you know - people on the frontlines... So I didn’t proceed. So that’s something that unfortunately is going to go in the memoirs rather than the written record.”[16]
You've argued above that these quotes are not valid because Lipkin may have "misspoken, misremembered things". To clarify, did he misremember seeing the 2003 study? Or did he misremember not making it public?
Can we agree at least that Lipkin did say he knew masks “would have a dramatic impact on transmission” but didn’t proceed with informing the public in the US? Before the Bang (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Before the Bang
Thucydides wrote: "Some of the material seriously misquoted Lipkin (e.g., turning his statement that SARS-CoV-2 was more concerning than flu into the exact opposite)."
If you’re going to say there are misquotes - why not just give the quote? Wouldn’t that be an easy way to prove your point?
Here is the quote:
“One of the things I try to emphasize whenever I talk about this virus is - we will almost certainly have additional fatalities, this virus will continue to spread - but it’s not as dangerous as some people may suggest.
“So if for example, we look at this like seasonal flu - it’s gonna be much less than say 1% of people - that’s not to say that we won’t lose lives and it’s not important.”[17]
Which part of that is a misquote? Before the Bang (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Before the Bang
On the Feb 10 he told NBC that SARS-nCoV-2 is "not nearly as challenging for us as influenza."[18]
So far, more than 900 people who had the coronavirus have died.
The coronavirus is “not nearly as challenging for us as influenza” when seen strictly by the number of deaths, Lipkin said.
But that is not the only lens through which the outbreak should be viewed, he cautioned.
“We don’t know much about its transmissibility. We don’t necessarily have accurate diagnostic tests. And we don’t really know where the outbreak is going to go,” Lipkin said on CNBC’s “The Exchange.”
“The only thing we have at present, absent vaccines or drugs, is containment,” he added.
Why the wall-of-words, wrong ones, about a quote that wasn't even in the version that you just deleted? Is it supposed to be a diversion? From what? Address the questions so we can proceed in a logical manner.
1. Is Lipkin an "extremely poor source" for his own views?
2. Is Lipkin's messaging to "the whole country" relevant to a presentation of his advice on SARS-CoV-2?
3. Did Lipkin "misremember" that he saw a "particularly compelling" 2003 WHO study that found masks "had a dramatic impact on community transmission"?
4. Is Lipkin's quote on Dr. Oz a misquote?
Before the Bang (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Before the Bang
Thucydides, you didn't respond to the questions so the material was restored. If you have a problem with any of the referenced material then please take it to an open discussion and seek consensus. In the meantime, please stop arbitrarily vandalizing this page - it's unethical. Before the Bang (talk)
References
There is a discussion at WP:BLPN about this article: [1]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Now that the frightening period of censorship of anything contradicting the CCP's version of Covid origins has collapsed, am assuming it's once again ok to include referenced factual material on Wikipedia without it being vandalized and the author blocked. Welcome discussion and constructive edits, but not arbitrary blanking. Before the Bang (talk)
The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.Do not re-add this material without engaging in substantive discussion here. You need to engage in the WP:DR process, in which this discussion is the first step. Whether you think the removal of this material is "arbitrary blanking" or not and whether you "welcome" that removal or not is completely immaterial to this. You may not assume that you have consensus nor accuse others of censorship. These standards are part of the WP:CIVIL policy, which all editors are instructed to follow. I hope that helps explain expectations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Why is this given its own section? Are his views on GOF research legitimately such a prominent factor in his biography, or is this an artificial construct influenced by recent events (i.e. the COVID-19 pandemic)? In other words, is the prominence we give to these views in the article proportional to the prominence given in the sum of secondary literature about the subject (per WP:PROPORTION), or is it an element some Wikipedians *think* should given in-depth coverage? --Animalparty! (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)