Talk:W. Ian Lipkin

Photograph available

Freely licensed photo available here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

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)

Maintenance Tags

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)

Lots of extraneous material

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)

I've gone through and removed most of the material about SARS-CoV-2, and significantly shortened the section on gain-of-function research. Much of this material was extremely poorly sourced (for example, to timestamps in live interviews where Lipkin was speaking extemporaneously). Much of the material has little to nothing to do with Lipkin (e.g., general criticisms of gain-of-function experiments that don't even mention Lipkin). Some of the material was a clear BLP violation (e.g., accusing him and other scientist of "conspiring" to misinform the public about masks). 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).

The overarching problem with much of this material is that it appears to have been put into the article in order to

1. Promote the SARS-CoV-2 lab leak conspiracy theory.
2. Attack Lipkin as somehow responsible for the pandemic, or for worsening it.

Anyways, I've shortened all this SARS-CoV-2- and gain-of-function-related material down, while still hitting the major points. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of Columbia podcast

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”), details his meetings in January with Chinese ministers and the premier, Li Kechiang, and explains why he praises transparency from China's central government. 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

A podcast is not an acceptable source. It's a spontaneous conversation and may not be entirely accurate. Any claims have to be backed up by reliable secondary sources - in general, textual media.

There's another issue, however. This article should not be dominated by SARS-CoV-2. Ian Lipkin has had a nearly 40-year career in virology (so far), and SARS-CoV-2 is only a tiny part of his overall career. A comment about facemasks made in a podcast is not important enough to merit inclusion in this article. Given the length of this article, there should only be a few sentences, in total, about SARS-CoV-2. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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?

An extemporaneous discussion is a very poor source, even if the two people talking are professors. People can misspeak, misremember things, etc. Written sources, especially in publications that do fact-checking (or which are peer-reviewed) are generally better sources of information. But beyond that, SARS-CoV-2 does not merit more than a few sentences in this article. An opinion about whether to recommend face mask usage, voiced in a podcast interview, for example, is not notable enough to be included here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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?

Before the Bang (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Before the Bang

Please stop re-inserting the same material over and over again. What you're trying to insert is undue, because it devotes far too much space to SARS-CoV-2, which is a small part of Lipkin's overall biography. Writing multiple paragraphs about a few comments he made in a podcast discussion is not appropriate. You appear to be trying to harangue Lipkin over comments of his that you don't like. Please read WP:BLP, which deals with how biographies of living people should be written on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of SARS-CoV-2 Section

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.” With Fox he said, “I never turn down Fox - it’s an opportunity to preach in the wilderness.”

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

Please re-read what I wrote above (in the sections "Use of Columbia podcast" and "Lots of extraneous material"), because I've already addressed the questions you're asking here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Deletion of 'Advice on face masks' sub-section

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.”

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

Accusation of misquotes

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.”

Which part of that is a misquote? Before the Bang (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Before the Bang

Here's the content I removed:

On the Feb 10 he told NBC that SARS-nCoV-2 is "not nearly as challenging for us as influenza."

The CNBC article this quote is referenced to is titled, "Ian Lipkin, scientists worry that coronavirus could become worse than the flu" - the exact opposite of how the sentence I removed characterizes Lipkin. Here's the relevant section from the CNBC article:

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.

Presenting the phrase "not nearly as challenging for us as influenza" in isolation completely reverses the meaning of what Lipkin was saying. He cautioned that comparing the relative number of deaths (between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza) as of early February was not the only way to compare the two viruses, because no one knew (again, as of early February) how the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak would develop. Whoever added this content to this article phrased it so as to try to convince the reader that Lipkin was downplaying the seriousness of SARS-CoV-2 by saying influenza is more challenging, when he was actually cautioning that comparing deaths so far didn't give the full picture.

This is one of the things I find objectionable about the large mass of SARS-CoV-2 material that was recently added to this article. It appears to have been added in order to attack Lipkin. Some of the material completely misrepresents his statements (as I've just showed above), some of it is bizarrely accusative (claiming he "conspired" to mislead the public), some of it has little to do with Lipkin and is simply material added in to argue against his views (much of the gain-of-function material). But most of all, this huge amount of material about SARS-CoV-2 was completely undue. SARS-CoV-2 should only get a few sentences of coverage in this biography. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Restored/edited original referenced material

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

BLP/N

There is a discussion at WP:BLPN about this article: [1]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Restoration of Referenced SARS-Cov-2 Material

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)

You previously tried to edit-war this very same material into the article: [2][3][4][5]. You reverted multiple times after a number of different editors removed this material. Adding this same material back in is not acceptable, and in my view, constitutes edit-warring. The additional material you added in ([6]) does not appear to even mention Ian Lipkin, and I have removed it as well. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Before the Bang:, not matter how much "shortening" of the material you wish to add you do, it is clear that you do not have consensus for adding this material. You have not broken the WP:3RR but you are still engaging in an WP:EW: 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)

Views on gain-of-function research

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)