| 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
"Multiple issues" tags edit
Bodding, why did you add these tags to the top of the article? Llll5032 (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have a dog in the fight, but the negative 'sources' seem to be opinion pieces and not genuine balanced pieces that look at all sides. Note well, I did not delete anything, though I believe the grouping of these "comments" are WP:OR and are selective by the editor and meant to craft a biased narrative. This is not what Wikipedia is meant to be in a WP:BLP. Hence, my tagging this. Bodding (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest that the templates should be removed per WP:WTRMT #3, #7 and #8, because a specific problem to solve has not been adequately identified. Any individual unreliable sources should be identified with inline tags instead. Llll5032 (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- The maintenance template is deleted now. Llll5032 (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. The template is there for all editors who happen upon the page. I read the article, I researched the sources and based on WP:BLP, I added the template. I'm happy to post an RFC, but I think the best way forward is to allow the template to remain. There was never a need to remove it. Bodding (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Bodding, which of the sources cited in the article were opinion pieces? Llll5032 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- According to WP:RS WP:RSEDITORIAL, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author...." So editorials are WP:RS, if they include opinions, even subjective, of other medical professionals about Ladapo's qualifications and competence. They're also acceptable if they contain facts that have been confirmed elsewhere. It may be that the problem with Ladapo is that there is a lot of documented negative information about him, but not much documented positive information. If he said that he spent a week taking care of COVID-19 patients, but that wasn't confirmed by the hospital records, it doesn't sound good, but you can't leave it out. --Nbauman (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- WP:BLPBALANCE generally limits the use of opinions in BLP articles to those mentioned by secondary sources. But Bodding hasn't yet identified anything specific in this article that violates that policy. Llll5032 (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is an assassination article, pure and simple. It has nothing on his career except the person's stance on COVID-19. Battleathletes (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- WP:BLPBALANCE generally limits the use of opinions in BLP articles to those mentioned by secondary sources. But Bodding hasn't yet identified anything specific in this article that violates that policy. Llll5032 (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- According to WP:RS WP:RSEDITORIAL, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author...." So editorials are WP:RS, if they include opinions, even subjective, of other medical professionals about Ladapo's qualifications and competence. They're also acceptable if they contain facts that have been confirmed elsewhere. It may be that the problem with Ladapo is that there is a lot of documented negative information about him, but not much documented positive information. If he said that he spent a week taking care of COVID-19 patients, but that wasn't confirmed by the hospital records, it doesn't sound good, but you can't leave it out. --Nbauman (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Bodding, which of the sources cited in the article were opinion pieces? Llll5032 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. The template is there for all editors who happen upon the page. I read the article, I researched the sources and based on WP:BLP, I added the template. I'm happy to post an RFC, but I think the best way forward is to allow the template to remain. There was never a need to remove it. Bodding (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- The maintenance template is deleted now. Llll5032 (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Boston Globe article edit
Here's the Boston Globe article, which among other things gives the opinions of many people who knew or worked with Ladapo. The Miami Herald article is behind a paywall.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/09/23/metro/six-things-you-should-know-about-dr-joseph-ladapo-floridas-new-surgeon-general-his-controversial-views-vaccines-mandates/
Six things you should know about Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Florida’s new surgeon general, and his controversial views on vaccines and mandates
By Travis Andersen
Boston Globe
September 23, 2021
“I’m speechless,” tweeted Dr. Uché Blackstock, founder of Advancing Health Equity, in response to the Herald article. “I attended medical school with Dr. Joseph Ladapo and to say I’m shocked by his opposition to mask and vaccine mandates is an understatement. I could have never imagined this news.”
That sort of messaging has distressed many in public health, including Dr. Nida Qadir, an associate professor of medicine and associate director of the Medical Intensive Care Unit at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center. Ladapo taught previously at UCLA as well.
“He’s expressed a lot of strange views since the beginning of the pandemic,” Qadir tweeted. “I don’t know him personally, but it’s been especially shocking considering the state LA was in this past winter. Can’t say I’m not happy he’s leaving CA but sorry for the people of FL.”
Dr. Michael F. Ozaki, a retired pediatrician living in Southern California, was even more blunt in his assessment of Ladapo.
“He is a public health danger, and must be portrayed as such,” Ozaki tweeted Tuesday.
Dr. Nina L. Shapiro, an author and associate professor at David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, where Ladapo taught as well, tweeted that his views align ”more with #DeSantis than with @UCLAHealth.”
Immunity forever! edit
Science-Based Medicine: "Florida Surgeon General declares single positive COVID test proves immunity forever" [1] --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Ladapo site:*.* edit
- https://twitter.com/docmosho/status/1440869870397235201
- search: "Ladapo" site:nyu.edu
- search: "Ladapo" site:uclahealth.org ... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Bibliography section edit
A bibliography implies books. The so-called bibliography section appears to be a vanity project listing op-eds and medical articles Ladapo or co-wrote and one article citing him.
- Two op-eds for the Wall Street Journal, three op-eds (co-written with other writers) for the tabloid New York Daily News
- Two co-written articles in medical journals
- One article on medicine as art in Focus, a publication of Harvard's medical, dental, and public health schools
- One mention in a Health Day article citing Ladapo about the cancer risks from radiation received during CT scans for calcium deposits in the heart: ""Concern about radiation for any individual is minimal, and the cancer issue is 20 years down the line"
Hatted list Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
I'll delete thisnon-bibliography from the article. I copied the items into the hatted section above in case someone finds some use for any of them in as a citation. I currently don't see any need for it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Bias edit
This reads like something from a propaganda book. I come to Wiki for FACTS not bias! "Snow is cold" is factual, "Snow taken from a pine tree branch tastes like blue cotton-candy" is the product of an overworked imagination. When I want bias there are dozens of "news" places to read and hear skewed, non-factual, and generally made up articles - "The View" comes to mind. This article reads like the product of an overworked imagination. Cut out the silly bias. Whether or not the subject of the bio did or did not wear a mask somewhere is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.17.26 (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- I largely disagree with Dr. Ladapo's views on vaccine safety. Sadly, however, I have to agree with the writer that this article is more a political propaganda release than an encyclopedia article. Everybody knows that Wikipedia and the MSM sources it claims as "reliable" lean left, but this article on Ladapo makes a complete mockery of Wikipedia's claim of political neutrality. It reads more like an unhinged diatribe against Ladapo without even the slightest pretense of balance. It's sad to see Wikipedia casting aside it's claimed objectivity in order to align with its increasingly left-wing base. 67.34.217.85 (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Whether a treatment works and whether it is dangerous are not political questions, but scientific ones. Only the fact that Republicans nowadays tend to be anti-science loons makes them appear to be. Not portraying an anti-science loon as an anti-science loon just because he is a Republican and because it may look "political" does not make sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- This article is yet another example of outright propaganda within Wikipedia. And, you defend it by talking about how your political opponents are "anti-science loons." My, how far Wikipedia has fallen... I used to think this site was the future of information exchange. Edsanville (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Go get reliable sources that agree with the anti-science loons, then come back. Until then, you have nothing except empty rhetorics. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- This article is yet another example of outright propaganda within Wikipedia. And, you defend it by talking about how your political opponents are "anti-science loons." My, how far Wikipedia has fallen... I used to think this site was the future of information exchange. Edsanville (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Whether a treatment works and whether it is dangerous are not political questions, but scientific ones. Only the fact that Republicans nowadays tend to be anti-science loons makes them appear to be. Not portraying an anti-science loon as an anti-science loon just because he is a Republican and because it may look "political" does not make sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Calling Politico a “leftist” publication seems very opinionated. Allsides.com lists them as left leaning, similar to NPR. Also, Cureus Journal has a pretty unremarkable impact score of 1.2 and does not seem to be appropriate to cite here as a credible journal. There are innumerable studies from high impact journals that refute the Cureus Article cited. This seems pretty biased. Mw144133 (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia unfavorable to the truth on this article. edit
It would seem the fake news editors here are busy trying to spin the truth and the cited article itself by misrepresenting it in this BLP. I have tried a few times to correct this article from the fake news editors with this edit in () (In March 2022, Ladapo issued a recommendation "healthy kids not get COVID-19 vaccine, contradicting CDC" in Florida.) It just doesn't say what the pro vaccine editors want it to say... Hmm that would seem to be a violation of Wikipedia's rules and quite frankly intellectual dishonesty. Wiki is supposed to rely on creditable sources and taking and quoting the headline of the cited sources obviously cannot be allowed by the pro vaccine folks who wish to perpetrate fake news. And to that, I must ask why?
Editors here refuse to allow the word "healthy" to be included here and I must ask why? The cited source says "healthy children" and whenever those two words appear, it is immediately edited to delete the word "healthy" and carry water for the fake news editors.
Any one want to chime in and answer the question? 2600:1700:7610:41E0:D54A:165:F3E5:33C2 (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC).
Seems no one desires to engage in a conversation regarding the correct and substantial edits being reverted by bad faith actors in order to further the misinformation on this BLP (as well as many others). I always knew Wikipedia had many editors who use it for furtherance of a hidden agenda. However, as of late, my opinion has recently changed. I am now convinced Wikipedia is engaged in a concentrated and concerted effort at misinformation to advance the furtherance of a propaganda campaign. Without a doubt, the black hats have overtaken the white hats and the end result will be everyone loses. No need to ban me...I will let myself out and good riddance to the propaganda arm of the far left communists. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:C53D:FD71:33E4:A7DE (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing to discuss. There's no disagreement that the "healthy" thing belongs and that's the only concrete issue you've brought up in this thread. If you want to add the other nonsense you've been trying to add, you need to better explain what you want to add and why. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the chance to explain. the healthy children edit has finally been allowed by some and that is good. Especially since it is in the cited source. Now, what you call nonsense is also in the same source, if one would read to the end of the article. I have included it here... The Palm Beach Post article says:
"The announcement came after multiple health experts picked by DeSantis to participate in the roundtable downplayed the importance of the vaccine for children, with some saying the benefits of vaccination do not outweigh the risks. Dr. Robert Malone, who has risen to prominence for contradicting the scientific consensus on COVID-19, claimed that "the consensus of over 17,000 physicians and medical scientists are that the risk-benefit ratio for children does not justify vaccination.” Malone appeared to be referring to a declaration signed by medical professionals as part of the "Global COVID Summit" initiative."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The inclusion of Dr. Malone and his letter signed by 17,000 medical doctors is substantial and especially considering the letter stated the risk to benefit ratio for children does not justify mandatory vaccinations for all children. Especially the healthiest ones in that demographic. I have tried adding this a number of times and it has always been reverted and have been told it has no source or some other weak excuse that it lacks any real merit to be included in this article. Although the four doctors (that may have some axe to grind) and their research have been given undue weight to this article in the last paragraph. I realize Wikipedia doesn't want to tilt the scales and state things that may seem counter intuitive to people when it comes to an issue regarding public health. However, 17,000 trained and skilled medical doctors and/or scientists versus four doctors/researchers seems to be tipping the scales a bit too much...even for Wikipedia. Thank you for being willing to engage in the constructive conversation in this regard. Have a nice day.
That is not related to the content at hand nor his statement. RJS001 (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
To add edit
TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Heritage edit
Is Ladapo of Yoruba heritage, since his last name is typically Yoruba? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
BMJ Opinion edit
https://www.bmj.com/content/379/bmj.o3061 TrangaBellam (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2023 edit
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page has FALSE information. He is NOT spreading misinformation. He is a Harvard trained doctor who has read the studies and has a different opinion, however, it is NOT misinformation. (You really shouldn't let people publish "Opinions" in wikipedia. Nothing this doctor has said has been misinformation, he studied the science and his determination is different than the narrative, that is NOT misinformation AT ALL.) 73.53.173.73 (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)- "Now, draft versions of the analysis obtained by the Tampa Bay Times through Florida’s public records law show that recommendation was made despite the state also having data indicating that catching COVID-19 raised the risk of cardiac-related deaths by at least five times more than the vaccine."
- https://www.orlandosentinel.com/coronavirus/os-ne-coronavirus-vaccine-florida-data-removed-20230407-bnomcwehuvatbmbqweblvpiugm-story.html 136.37.58.8 (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Ladapo admits faking a study edit
[2] --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)