Talk:Vinay Prasad

Place or birth

Report on twitter that vinnay says his place of birth has been defaced.

https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1303082134911897601?s=19 Polc1410 (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism?

SpecterMD has now twice tried to insert content citing material saying Vinay Prasad's opinions on vaccine mandates are not antisemitic. This would be fine, except the source is one also containing an argument that they are. Our current content "doesn't go there" and discusses Prasad's musings about vaccines and the Third Reich without going into a consideration of antisemitism. I think if Wikipedia is going to start going into this topic it needs to be fair, and probably better sources are probably needed that opinions pieces and a reported tweet. I also note SpecterMD has been asked (by me) about a potential COI with Prasad, but has not yet responded; this needs to be cleared-up as a priority. Alexbrn (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Has there been any development here since you first inserted this tag on 11/'21? If not, I think the tag is probably safe to take down as I cannot find any specific aspect of COI here. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The WP:SPA added promotional content and disappeared after being challenged. Smells bad. Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, but when did they last edit? Is this still an ongoing concern is all that I am asking. We don't need to label a smell after it has dissipated. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 17:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Quite a lot of undue puffery was added and is still here. Really this article need needs some serious filleting. Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Looked through the edit history now. It seems you reverted most of the most puffed up puffery, and that this SPA hasn't edited again since November 17, 2022. I'd suggest we rm the tag then for now, and could always bring it back if they return... ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 17:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

That being said Alexbrn, do I have your consent to rm the tag, and we can re-insert it then if the problematic puffery persists? ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 14:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Epidemiologist, biostatistician, or both?

As Dr. Prasad is a highly controversial minority voice in the debate around the COVID pandemic, it might be worth reviewing the way this article frames his qualifications as an epidemiologist.

The opening paragraph correctly identifies him as an associate professor (in the Department) of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the UCSF Medical School. (E&B is one of the school’s 28 departments, not two separate ones.) However, of 337 papers cited on his website, only two appeared in the Journal of clinical epidemiology, and even they are themed around biostats and study methodology, which seems to be his primary area of interest (apart from Twitter). [1]

Leading with this spare wording could give a reader the impression that he is an expert in epidemiology, specifically, and thus a peer in the academic debate around COVID policy, an impression that needs to be documented if true or downplayed here if not. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle, that he is highly qualified to comment on COVID matters as a biostatistician and a dogged investigator of reversals in clinical recommendations, but not as expert in epidemiology as the top guns at that top medical school, making him more of a “near outsider”. Barbicels (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edit due to "Original Research" claim

I recently added the following at the very bottom of the "Views and reception" section of this article:

In an interview from March 21, 2022 with libertarian-leaning Reason magazine's Zach Weissmueller, Prasad discussed his views regarding various potential harms of masking on children, especially those for which COVID-19 might play a lesser risk than those with pre-existing conditions or the elderly. Prasad mentions what he sees as "learning loss" as well as his perceived social harms of mask mandates as examples of why he believes that policy makers should be more judicious in deciding when and where not to use masking as a pandemic mitigation tool. In the interview, Prasad was most adamantly opposed to mandates of any kind as it relates to masking, and was also vehemently opposed to mandatory COVID-19 lockdowns.

As you can see. I cited the above from from a reliable source and simply took from the interview of Zach Weissmueller and presented Prasad's views as presented in the interview. Nothing about the above constitutes "original research" as Alexbrn claims. Nothing about the above states that Prasad is right or wrong, and is written in a wiki-speak neutral tone-of-voice. Furthermore, I attribute the source as "libertarian-leaning" since it is coming from Reason magazine which is known as such. I will make any reasonable edits to the above in order to re-insert the above text. Or anyone else may feel free to do the same. This being reverted because of the WP:OR reasoning has yet to have justification explained, but if there is another reason, I am all ears. In the interest of avoiding an edit-war, I am taking this to the talk page as Alexbrn suggested I do before re-inserting the above text, as is, or revised per anyone's suggestions. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 13:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

References

So where does it say in the source "Prasad was most adamantly opposed to mandates of any kind"? This looks like novel editorial commentary. Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It was a video. Did you watch it? The link is here, and he makes claims almost verbatim along those lines. https://reason.com/video/2022/03/21/how-politics-corrupted-science-dr-vinay-prasad-on-covid/ ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 14:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

But from the text as well (not my words), Prasad, who spoke with Reason about the failure of lockdowns, overzealous mask and vaccine mandates, and unscientific school closures and restrictions on children, says that "groupthink" overtook the medical establishment early in the pandemic and is something physicians, public health officials, and scientists must resist if they're ever to regain the public's trust. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 14:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

So it's your commentary on a primary source. That is not allowed on the English Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Let us review what WP:OR actually says, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. and then, what is clearly NOT considered "original research, Despite the need for reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research. Pay special attention to that last part, but I quoted in full so as not to truncate or take anything out of context, "Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research." In fact, not only is my contribution not OR, but I wrote in the manner that is required as an aspect of any constructive contribution to the encyclopedia—otherwise we risk plagiarism. I added nothing, no synthesis, or POV. If you believe otherwise, then please tell me what the source I cited is saying in your own words, and maybe we can include it in your preferred language. Otherwise I believe I am justified in re-adding the segment as originally written from a NPOV. If you do not like the source or the content, that is another matter, because it is part of the approved list of RS'es on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

it's not directly supported by the source. You are providing your own, secondary, layer. Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source, not a secondary one. This is both undue and OR. Alexbrn (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Th78blue, I agree that the quoted text does not support your analysis, and Alexbrn's suspicion that this is OR is warranted. I am not able to watch a whole 50+ minute video, if that's where the claim is verified. Could you provide a timestamp? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not a primary source, it is clearly a secondary source and @Th78blue isn't adding commentary, they are writing their own words and the summary of the source as stated by the interviewer and interviewee. This is exactly as you are supposed to do when citing a source. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Prasad's words are primary. This appears to be a comment on Prasad's words that the interviewer does not make. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing Firefangledfeathers. I just spent a huge chunk of time re-watching the entire interview again, and did my best to take copious notes, as well timestamp all relevant parts relating to Prasad's views on mandates and anything else relevant to my original small contribution at the bottom of the 'Views and reception' section of this article:

• 8:29–11:34, talks about Prasad's early views of masking as it being reasonable, but then wait...
• 11:48–16:14, Says "...there is no evidence that masking actually stops the spread of the disease...", at 15:14, "...masking of kids outdoors is another absurdity...", 15:25, "...we didn't do any good studies...", 16:14, "...a lamentable part of the pandemic, and representative of a number of ways in which children were failed by our policies..."
• 16:26 the interview tackles lockdowns. At 18:47, says "once you're vaccinated, and a population is largely vaccinated you have some very tough questions such as one, 'What is it doing?', 19:15, "some people believe that you could extinguish the virus forever if you were to sustain this [lockdowns] and many nations tried, but it appears at this point that every single nation that tried that has failed. Hong Kong has failed, South Korea has failed, even these Island nations have failed, eradication was never possible."
• 23:18, "Mandates is a very complicated policy, if you mandate something, this is what I see. We had a trajectory of vaccination that is going up over time, and then they deployed all these mandates to be vaccinated etc. and they say that after we deployed the mandates an additional 5 million people got vaccinated, but thats not all due to the mandate, it was going up over time and it would keep going up over time because there are some people who are finally coming around to doing it. The question is what is the incremental bump from getting the mandate vs. no mandate."
• 24:20, "downside is there is a fraction of people that we have pushed out of the workforce, they feel marginalized, their health matters as well, how they vote in future elections."
• 24:57, "What do I think about mandates is...people who look at the glass and they say well it is slightly higher rate of vaccination than it otherwise would be, 'so it worked', that's not the right way to think about it. What about all the negative externality?
• 25:09, "I'll give you one negative externality, some states are seeing a backlash against routine MMR childhood vaccinations, so in an effort to get a 24 year old IT worker in a company vaccinated, if you lose a bunch of kids from getting an MMR vaccine you might have done a net disservice."
• 25:38, "I'm skeptical of them [mandates]. I think America is not the kind of country that responds to strong arm tactics like that. If they should be used they should be used only when we have an overwhelming certainty that there is a net benefit. I don't think we had that.
• 25:53, "Then we went ahead and mandated boosters, and a lot of colleges mandated boosters and I think that was a grievous error."
• 26:35, "vaccinations to keep and stay in public school, I think it's a terrible idea."
• 26:39, "I think [vaccine mandates are a] terrible idea, just for one reason, kids have been deprived of education for over a year, they're facing catastrophic losses in terms of education, which will lead to life outcomes like living longer. And if you put more barriers to getting these kids in school, you're going to further marginalize kids and push them out of school. The kids you're pushing out of school are ironically the kids that many of us profess to be champions for: minority children, interracial minorities, socio-economic minorities. Because there is a huge vaccination gap by race and socio-economic status.
• 27:27, "If you implement a vaccine mandate in California for all 5–11-year-olds to go to public school, you will enact a structurally racist policy. Because you will be pushing out a disproportionate amount of black and hispanic kids to Zoom school. Which is not the same education, and the loss of that education is orders of magnitude bigger than the benefit of vaccination for that age group."
• 30:09, "Even though it is true the risk to kids are rather low, the potential benefits to kids are also rather low as well. Thats why nations like Sweden have decided for the time being they are not going to vaccinate kids between the ages of 5–11. I guess what I would say is that when you use the brute force of government in policy to enact mandates you really need a very high bar, that the benefits of what you're doing are not outweighed by the harms. You can't just look at the thing you care about—the vaccine rate—you need to look at all of society. I truly think if you applied that policy across America [mandates], it would be catastrophic. If anything, the more people even hear about it, the less likely they might be to vaccinate kids of that age group. The idea that it [being vaccinated] will protect other people is incorrect as well. If an older person wants to be protected they can go out and get the vaccine, they do not need a 5-year-old to do it for them."
• 35:18, "The only way for public health to have credibility is to be almost 100% correct in their proclamations and to use mandates only when they really know for sure, and I think they have abused that power."
• 46:11, "We talked a lot about COVID policy, if I were to say what I think summarizes COVID policy, two things that were the core errors: 1. We did too much to young people, we harmed them. 2. We did too little for old people that are vulnerable, that was one core error, and the then the other one is we used coercive power too much, too much mandates and lockdowns. This coercive state power, and we didn't use resources and empower people to make choices and protect them and give them some options, but trust that they will make the right choices. We used power and coercion and restriction, the brute force of government, and we focused on the young people. And those aren't the people that face the risks. This virus, we know from early on, the risk for 88-year-old, its not 100 times more than an 8-year-old, it's 8,700 times more. That is a great failure, and that is how this history will judge this pandemic."
• 48:50, "The CDC's masking guidance is flawed in a number of ways, but one way is that right now we know that if you want to protect yourself, you can wear an N95 mask, you don't need me to wear a cloth mask. I'm not sure it will even marginally improve your wearing of an N95 mask [for me to wear a cloth mask]. I think we need to have those kinds of policy shifts. We need to make it less about what someone else is doing, and more about what you want to do for yourself based on your own set of risk tolerance etc.
• 49:20, "I actually do worry that there will be another upsurge in restrictions etc. Thats the tool. It won't be deployed equally, places like San Francisco, you know they're going to be the first to pull the trigger on it. A place like San Francisco you know, business closures is still not off the table. I think they've had a huge exodus, people have left the city, they do it one more time, they're gonna get a lot more people leaving, but those are the places that are gonna do it." ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 19:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You've analysed and synthesized this primary material into a pithy summary. Maybe even accurately. That may be fine elsewhere, but not on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Th78Blue. My first thought is that we can't say Prasad is "most adamantly opposed to mandates of any kind as it relates to masking" as the quoted material suggests that he is more adamantly opposed to vaccine mandates. On the rest I've got some thinking to do. In the meantime, I encourage you to read or re-read WP:Interviews. It's an essay, not PAG, but many editors agree, myself included. Get back to you soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with re-wording that to more accurately reflect what you think the above is saying, though I think it makes it pretty clear that he is opposed to the mandate component of a lot of these measures, and not just relating to vaccines. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 12:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Just read the WP:Interviews essay. I agree, that is a great essay! It supports inclusion of my added segment (possibly with slight revisions) though I would argue, and here is why:

1. "To the extent that interviews can be useful sources in Wikipedia articles, however, what matters is the content of the interview rather than the existence of it per se: when using interviews as sourcing, use them to support content about the things said in the interview, not just to recursively verify their own existence as interviews." — In other words, using interviews for support of content is just fine.

2. "Note as well that in the 2020s, the increasingly important and complicated issue of native advertising must be taken into account. " — Nothing about this interview was sponsored or advertorial. This was a genuine interview made like any other for purely journalistic purposes.

3. "Generally speaking, it is okay to sparingly use interviews to source some facts, so long as the article is also using a good mixture of other types of reliable sources" — We have a "good mixture of other types of reliable sources", this was just one more of many, and was placed at the very bottom of a "Views and reception" section. I find it highly intriguing that my segment was reverted and questioned as much as it was to be honest. Edited for wording, surely understandable, but outright reverted?

Furthermore, lets go over the four "Who, what, where" from the essay:

1. The interviewer: Is this a recognized journalist? – Yes, Zach Weissmueller has been working as a journalist for Reason (magazine) for many years.

2. The interviewee: Is this person an expert, a celebrity, a man on the street? — We all know Vinay Prasad from this article, this one is a given. No issues here.

3. The subject: Is the main subject of the interview the interviewee's own life or activities (e.g., a film critic interviews a dancer about their upcoming performance) or something else (e.g., a radio host interviews a physician about the advantages of flu shots)? — This interview was not interviewing Prasad about his favorite hobbies or something else, but his own area of expertise and personal opinions as it relates to the matter, and nothing more. Very succinct and to the point all things considered.

4. The publication: Is this a reliable source such as a broadsheet newspaper, respected magazine, reliable broadcaster or news outlet that specializes in interviews, like Fresh Air with Terry Gross or The Andrew Marr Show? Is it a personal blog? Was it published by the subject or the interviewer? Is it real editorial content genuinely created by that source, or is it a sponsored advertising link that the subject purchased in order to self-publish their own press release? — The source, Reason (magazine) has been vetted in past RfC's and is considered, "There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight." In other words, as long as the comment was "attributed and evaluated for due weight" then we should be in the clear. I not only stated my comment came from Reason, but that they are "libertarian-leaning" with proper attribution. The content was "real editorial content genuinely created by that source (Reason), and is not sponsored or advertising in any way or self-published.

Lastly, the essay indicates as it relates to the primary/secondary concern, this is clarified in the essay as, "Primary sources are generally acceptable for supporting uncontroversial claims by interviewees about themselves, and they may be authoritative (e.g., for what the interviewee said during the interview)." The key to that statement being, "for what the interviewee said during the interview", in other words, if someone disagrees with my summation for what Prasad said during the interview, then please take the timestamps and text from my detailed review, and please make an improved edit, otherwise, I will do my best and submit a new edit and we can go from there. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 13:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

All that being said, that he criticizes mask mandates seem notable, one easily finds good sources supporting that. Shouldn't we simply add a simple statement to what's already there at the bottom? Something like "Prasad criticized mask mandates recommended by public health authorities to limit the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.(ref ref ref) He was an early member of the Urgency of Normal, a group that in 2022 campaigned against mask mandates and quarantines in schools." And move the penultimate paragraph to the bottom. Robincantin (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

No objection to using secondary sources to cover Prasad's various positions. My concern, especially for fringe subjects, is once we start admitting editorial from primaries the door is open to a flood of POV. So, best to stick the the WP:PAGs on that. Alexbrn (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not if given proper attribution. That is precisely how the WP:PAG would guide us to act in this case, which is what I felt that I had done. I am open to someone taking a stab at changing my original edit though and re-submitting. I don't see any POV being inserted here, it is simply stating what Prasad believes, based on the secondary source, however if it appears like I submitted any editorializing of the above, again, please re-word and lets continue from there. Or I can try it again if that is preferred and then we go from there per WP:BRD? ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 12:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You would attribute it to yourself? "According to Wikipedia editor Th78blue, Prasad's interview content shows that he ..." You seem to missing something important here: this encyclopedia is a summary of what source have written about Prasad, it is not for carrying new material about Prasad. Alexbrn (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I just re-read WP:Interviews and posted my comment about the read above. I address this point and others that we have been considering in this conversation. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 13:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. And even if I were, there would then be the WP:DUE problem: why include views that secondary sources have ignored? Since many of Prasads's pronouncements are WP:FRINGE, then we are also obliged to omit them without good sensible context, per WP:GEVAL. Bottom line: I object to any airing of Prasad's views (except for unobjectionable mundane things) without high-quality secondary sourcing for them. Alexbrn (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Th78blue, thanks again for the timestamps and quotes. Having had time to review them, I'm still seeing content in your proposed language that is not supported. I'd prefer not to focus on that, however, as the proposed paragraph's over-reliance on Prasad's interview statements—which are a primary source—is the bigger problem. If you're looking to expand on Prasad's views on COVID-19 public health measures, there's more in the secondary sources that we haven't yet summarized. His opposition to mask and vaccine mandates for children, for example, could be supported by an already used The Cancer Letter source. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 21:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reading, it took me hours and hours to compile. Which specific parts of my proposed language is not supported, and what would you change? Lets start there perhaps. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 12:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:, I softened and reworked the language. Maybe watch the video this weekend if you have time as well. I'd suggest the same for anyone else on this thread if they can watch it this weekend and then we can move forward with any further edits that anyone might wish to make to my contribution. For everyone's convenience, here is the direct link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm55BnJi3zQ

Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 18:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I didn't remove it all, but I did heavily trim. As I said above, I'd prefer not to get into the specifics as the primary issue is the bigger deal. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you watched the video? As the essay on WP:Interviews makes clear, "Primary sources are generally acceptable for supporting uncontroversial claims by interviewees about themselves, and they may be authoritative (e.g., for what the interviewee said during the interview)." There is no legitimate argument to be made that we cannot include such material from a RS interview "because the primary is the bigger deal", that simply runs counter to the very essay you had me read on WP:Interviews, which I read thoroughly, and bulleted out points on every section of the essay. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a legitimate argument. You've blown right past it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Please respond to my points. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 16:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

No thanks, not when you don't respond to others. I think it's time for you to drop the WP:STICK. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Which points have I not addressed? ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 17:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

See my comment about about NPOV. But more generally you have said nobody else can have a legitimate argument, which is not a good faith approach. Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

What I actually said was, "There is no legitimate argument to be made that we cannot include such material from a RS interview "because the primary is the bigger deal", that simply runs counter to the very essay you had me read on WP:Interviews, which I read thoroughly, and bulleted out points on every section of the essay. Thank you." Thank you, but please read my comment more carefully next time. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought my argument was legitimate, and I'm sorry to see us in disagreement. I reiterate, for the benefit of others who might see more legitimacy, that I'd prefer the article to summarize what reliable, secondary sources say about the subject. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Th78blue:’s edit added nothing at risk of NPOV here @Alexbrn:. I think you @Firefangledfeathers: overstepped with that last edit and should self-revert. We should edit the edit, per WP:PRESERVE, and not just remove it (or nearly all of it). The material in question to be added, based on the shared essay at WP:Interviews conclusively indicates for the content to be permitted so long as we do so in a manner presenting views where it clearly mentions the potentially included interview content is opinion of the individual about themselves.Pulpfiction621 (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pulpfiction621. At least for now, I continue to oppose the version Th78blue proposed and don't intend to self-revert. Your comment goes a ways toward meeting the WP:ONUS needed to include the content, but I don't think we're at consensus yet, assuming Alexbrn continues to oppose. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn and Firefangledfeathers that interpretation of the interview should be minimized or omitted. I would cite WP:PSTS ("All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors") and WP:INDY. If facts included in Reason's written summary are noteworthy, they may be more usable than the video, because the written summary is more a secondary source, and also more easily verifiable. Llll5032 (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point Llll5032 that I have not yet seen another editor introduce. I'll spend some time looking at the written piece then and see if I can revisit with material taken directly from there and not in my words. I think I understand the counterpoint better now too. Glad you jumped in. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 22:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Then there'd be the problem of WP:DUE. Why should Wikipedia be mentioning things that reputable secondary sources have ignored? Alexbrn (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Please take to the talk page before just ceaselessly reverting my contributions Alexbrn. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 12:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

In fact you'll find the WP:ONUS is on you. Stop trying to push fringe fluff into Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I would remind you of Wikipedia:Civility please. I have been polite. Meanwhile you bring up "sticks" and now call my contributions "fluff" and "fringe." I do not appreciate your tone, nor your conduct in the slightest. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 12:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Instead of calling the tone police, you'd do better to WP:FOC and address my question: "Why should Wikipedia be mentioning things that reputable secondary sources have ignored?". This is the nub of the WP:DUE issue. WP:ARSEHOLES applies. Alexbrn (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Alexbrn:, the WP:DUE policy is in no way being violated here. @Th78blue:, you have used a reliable source WP:RS that is not trying to push "fringe" "fluff". @Th78blue: is not ignoring a reputable secondary source either (Reason). @Llll5032: said above that, "because the written summary is more a secondary source, and also more easily verifiable." Pulpfiction621 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't favor blockquotes for routine statements, like the one you re-added, because they can "distract attention from other information" (WP:OVERQUOTING). A shorter inline statement or paraphrase is more DUE, if he said something noteworthy. Llll5032 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pulpfiction621: you're wrong, and you are encouraging bad edits. While part of the source may be secondary (and I'd have no objection to good use of those), Prasad's interview material is primary and without secondary commentary has no WP:WEIGHT. WP:FRINGE material must be omitted from Wikipedia without contextualizing mainstream analysis. That is policy and it is not negotiable. Alexbrn (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I see what both Llll5032 and Alexbrn are saying now, and thank you Pulpfiction621 for seeming to understand also where I am coming from too. It is most appreciated.

Anyway, what I think would still make sense to add, and not as a block quote, but as a quoted segment from the Reason article is the following then, Prasad, who spoke with Reason about the failure of lockdowns, overzealous mask and vaccine mandates, and unscientific school closures and restrictions on children, says that "groupthink" overtook the medical establishment early in the pandemic and is something physicians, public health officials, and scientists must resist if they're ever to regain the public's trust. These are clearly then Reason's words, not Prasad's. Would that work within the confines of what you've outlined Alexbrn? At the very bottom of the "Views and reception" piece? Anyone else have thoughts then on what I mentioned above here as a non-controversial suggested inclusion? Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 14:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

That's better, but it would need to be clear things like "unscientific school closures" are Prasad's characterization, and because this is WP:FRINGE stuff we'd need a source saying why most of what Prasad says is wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

New source

David Gorski on Science-Based Medicine: [2] Dr. Prasad is, at best, a useful idiot for antivax propagandists or, at worst, now officially antivaccine himself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Valedictorian

See this diff [3]. reference didn't cite anything about him being valedictorian. Also looks like someone else was valedictorian that year? See [4]. It can be re-added if there is a valid reference -- Samir 23:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)