Talk:Devi Sridhar

Survey

• Strong include, but we must not go further than what the most reliable WP:RS say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Please read the article before adding an opinion. This RfC misrepresents the problem. 1) The article already contains substantial discussion of controversies. This proposal is to COATRACK into the article multiple inflammatory statements about DS made by political opponents of the Scottish National Party. 2) No RS has been provided to support GPinkerton's belief that DS's "impartiality" in giving health advice forbids her to criticize Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. I have seen no RS to support the claim that being invited to join an expert advisory board requires the experts to submit to civil service requirements that the Scottish government's paid employees are expected to follow. 3) Wikipedia should avoid being recruited to increase the racist and sexist abuse already being aimed at Devi Sridhar. I believe that a balanced treatment of controversies does NOT require publishing verbatim the inflammatory statements made about Devi Sridhar by political opponents of the current Scottish government. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @HouseOfChange:You haven't actually read the sources have you? They do say she is an impartial adviser. Besides that, you have yourself adduced the civil service code, which Sridhar must follow. The purpose of this article is not to present the Scottish Government as immune to criticism and it is not the purpose of this article to present Sridhar's career without including the controversy she has caused by her manner of pursuing it. As I have said, you do not WP:OWN this page, and neither does the SNP. Your POV that political debate in Scotland is "inflammatory" is irrelevant and it is not this project's job to push it for you; rather it is the job of Wikipedia to present the controversies as reported in reliable sources. You also appear be opposing the inclusion of even Sturgeon's comments, so even your own justification that no critic of the government be included is itself incoherent. GPinkerton (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • There is also no basis for the accusation of racist and sexist abuse. Nothing of that kind is proposed and it is shameful to suggest otherwise, HouseOfChange. GPinkerton (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    Please give the URL of at least one source that says being an impartial adviser to Scotland on COVID means that DS should refrain from criticizing the disastrous mishandling of COVID by Boris Johnson. Please give the URL of at least one source that describes membership on Scotland's COVID advisory board as a position governed by civil service codes. (According to Sridhar, "I’m an independent academic & have no funding from Scottish govt."^[5]) And please stop the ad hominem attacks. I did not "suggest" you are engaged in racist and sexist attacks, nor would any reasonable person infer that from what I said. Cool down and stick to the subject, which is your proposed expansion of the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    @HouseOfChange: "Impartial adviser". The subject here is less expansion, more WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You are trying insert your POV where it does not belong. GPinkerton (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "impartial adviser" in a newspaper article, or in the mouths of DS's critics, is not proof that DS has a civil service position with the Scottish government. Recall that Devi Sridhar said she is not an employee of the Scottish government^[5] and (according to Glasgow's The Herald newspaper) "The Scottish Government said Ms Sridhar was independent and did not speak on its behalf."^[6] HouseOfChange (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: No that's not right. The article, not the critics, says: "The impartial Scottish Government adviser hit back at the criticism, addressing her American followers on Twitter." It is proof, if proof were required, that she is an impartial government adviser. The fact that the government has distanced itself from her comments does not contradict this - quite the contrary. Wikipedia follows the sources, not extraordinary assumptions that contradict the reported facts. GPinkerton (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose— Unless you have a balanced biography as a reliable source you will end up parroting the current political discourse. It will almost impossible to take a NPOV and would inevitably be biased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly the case right now. The article reads like partisan puffery. GPinkerton (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• 'Include Without it, the article is a horse without feet . GPinkerton (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The opening statement implies that the article did not include any criticism, which it did. It seems instead that GPinkerton is asking for more criticism to be included, which as I mentioned in the section above would unbalance the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Include, per Horse Eye's Back - Idealigic (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as much is undue weight, though the 'stream' reference could be improved. Oppose until there is a specific proposal. Whether any or all of it is WP:UNDUE requires specific discussion. Some of the sources don't match the RfC question. Summoned by bot. The NYT source doesn't include anything about political criticism of Sridhar. Nor does the Haugh piece. The Matchett, Cochrane material is already included in the article. The Harris column seems a non-notable spat over a tweet. Several of the others are back-and-forths of a similar nature -- in the news fo a day or two. It seems like including many of these as events in their own right would be undue weight. If there's a proposal for what to include in the article, we could evaluate whether the sources support it, whether the weight is right. Until then... Chris vLS (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chrisvls: Specific proposal is in the section above this. GPinkerton (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Sorry about that! Now I see the three paragraphs proposed in the above section. The schools reopening discussion and the 'anti-Scottish' paragraphs would give a small-scale back-and-forth over a tweet undue weight. The NYT op-ed "streams" is already covered in the article. It could be expanded, but the proposed edit still seems like a lot for the scale of the event. Is there a good source to support an edit that states that Sridhar's work on COVID involved these kind of interactions? Chris vLS (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

What the article currently says

In August, Sridhar used a New York Times op-ed to urge "strict border measures" for European countries, to contain the coronavirus.^[2] Noting the different coronavirus rates in Scotland and in Northern Ireland versus in England and in Wales^[3] she expressed concern that Scotland and Northern Ireland both "face a stream of incoming infections from England and Wales."^[2] The "stream of incoming infections" comment has been criticised by Scottish unionists and others, with Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, accusing Sridhar of "feeding a divisive nationalist narrative without scientific evidence to back it up."^[4][5] Nicola Sturgeon said that Sridhar's comments were "not political" and a "perfectly legitimate public health point".^[6] The Scottish Government said Sridhar "was independent" and "did not speak on its behalf."^[5]

Additions proposed by GPinkerton

• 1 The "stream of incoming infections" comment has been criticised by Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats and others, who accused Sridhar of "feeding a divisive nationalist narrative without scientific evidence to back it up" and pointing out that outbreaks in the Orkney Islands, in Glasgow and Lanarkshire, and in Aberdeen could not be attributed to arrivals from England.^[4][5]
• 2 Nicola Sturgeon said that Sridhar's comments were "not political" and a "perfectly legitimate public health point".^[6]

More background on Scottish politics and COVID

Several RS state that the differing treatment of COVID-19 in Scotland versus overall-UK has been divisive.^[7][8] Unionists and Scottish conservatives fear COVID policy is being used by pro-independence partisans "to drive a wedge between Scotland and England."^[1]

Praising Scottish successes and criticizing Boris Johnson's COVID policy, as DS frequently does on Twitter and in many op-eds, can therefore be seen in one of two ways. Perhaps DS is giving her professional opinion concerning two different health policies--or perhaps DS is helping to drive a wedge between Scotland and England, promoting the cause of Scottish independence.

Concerning COVID, pro-union opinion says that Scotland's "many Covid failures replicate the blunderings of Westminster, but her [SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon's] reassuring language has boosted her standing. She has deployed Scotland’s devolved powers over health to eye-catching effect."^[9] Similarly, according to this op-ed, the SNP made much of small temporary COVID differences between Scotland and England, with the result that "nationalists in hazmat suits shout at vehicles with English number plates."^[10] HouseOfChange (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

It looks as though my points are finally sinking in. The ambiguity and potentially pro-SNP government statements of Sridhar have drawn criticism from across the political spectrum (it's wrong to characterize it as having much to do with independence; the ruling party is the only one for which this is a primary issue) and across the parliament and the subsequent backlash is plenty worth including on this page, just as one would include it on the page of any political figure. Without reading minds, we don't know what Sridhar was thinking or why, and it doesn't matter. She wrote a controversial column, controversy ensued. The controversy should be treated fully and properly and should not try and take sides, which HouseOfChange appears to have done in comments further up in this discussion. The jabs at Johnson and Trump are not the point; the issue with cross border traffic in Great Britain is. GPinkerton (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This section is intended particularly to discuss the "stream of infections" op-ed, so let's do that. I also just added to the article part of what you suggested: the part of Rennie's comment that is not counterfactual is in the article now. I will also add the other comment by NS you suggested. One problem with GPinkerton's earlier proposal was that it cobbled together such diverse issues. So let's find consensus on the talk page, one topic at a time. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The current and proposed text are both factually accurate, and verifiable. It does summarise the incident, I suppose the main issue is how much detail should be covered. One thing that occurs to me is that the op-ed was a reflection on the role of tourism and travel in community transmission of the virus and how countries are addressing it. As part of that, Sridhar mentioned that Scotland and Northern Ireland "face a stream of incoming infections from England and Wales."

She also said The only way to stop constant increases in the coronavirus is to eliminate community transmission and to use robust test, trace and isolate policies to continue catching imported cases and clusters as they emerge. .... Stopping community transmission requires mandatory, enforced quarantine for incoming travelers and testing before release.

I think it would therefore we worth altering the start of this bit to reflect the main point of the op-ed. That's not to say the "stream of infections" comment isn't significant. What you mean to convey and what message people hear can be two very different things, but both important. I'm reluctant to say that the answer is to include even more detail due to reasons of balance. Various politicians did indeed chime in one way or another, but what is the real-world significance of the whole episode? By contrast, I'm thinking of Marcus Rashford's campaign to get school meals extended over the school holidays. That led to not only a debate in Parliament, but a grassroots campaign in which individuals and organisations have mobilised to have an impact on society. Do we have evidence that the op-ed has had a significant impact? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: debate in parliament, debate in parliament, debate in parliament, debate in parliament, reference to the op-ed in another opinion piece by the same author. Mention of the last link, referred to in a different op-ed in The Times that reviewed the saga (proving it was not forgotten), was removed by HouseOfChange, in this edit. And yes, reports at the time were of a flag-waving hard-core gathered at the border, as mentioned in the sources. Comparison with a England footballer's campaign for vouchers for parents children, in England, is neither here, nor there, as they say. GPinkerton (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Much obliged, GPinkerton, that was helpful. I'm still unclear on whether it's had a discernible impact on how the pandemic is being handled but safe to say it's generated a lot of discussion. If we're including it in the article, the start of the statement should be adjusted. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: The op-ed has been widely discussed. Do any RS support the link you imply between DS and "flag-waving hard-core gathered at the border"? Your 4 "debate in parliament" links above should be dated as follows: 17 June, 23 June, 12 August, and 30 July. All include mentions of "Devi Sridhar," but none discuss Sridhar's 14 August op-ed. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: Concerning the op-ed: I added its title "We Will Pay for Our Summer Vacations With Winter Lockdowns" as a step toward meeting your concern. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This is missing the point. Sridhar used her op-ed to claim "neither nation [Scotland and Northern Ireland] has control over its borders because they are parts of the United Kingdom". This is much more demonstrably false than is Davidson's comment, and it is this is going unchallenged, and her subsequent apology is going unrelated, even though an article with a headline mentioning this is cited. GPinkerton (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: Yes, this one and possibly others, I haven't checked. GPinkerton (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I had taken it for granted the links would relate to the op-ed, I see from the dates I was mistaken. In which case, I'm not sure GPinkerton's point holds water as much water as I thought it did.

Thanks for adding the title of the op-ed. I think that helps to some extent, though may need some finessing. It's getting late, so I'll think on it tomorrow. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: I don't understand what you think is "demonstrably false," but if you cite some RS that agrees with you, I could learn. Is it also "demonstrably false" when Boris Johnson says "there’s no such thing as a border between England and Scotland"? Opinion pieces such as McWhirter's are typically not good RS for a BLP, and certainly not for linking a NYT op-ed to "masked nationalists in hazmat suits" when no causal connection is shown. Furthermore, the quote from McWhirter that you added to the bio (and which I removed) makes two distinctly false claims: that DS has changed her mind about COVID 1) by giving up on Scotland-only elimination and 2) by "now" saying we must learn to live with COVID (this latter is something she has been saying since April at least. I found no support in RS for either claim by McWhirter, which is why I removed the quote, and other sources give a less-POV picture of Scottish COVID strategy in September. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The RS you didn't find is Sridhar's own piece in The Guardian, here. And yes, demonstrably false because it would have to be shown that Northern Ireland or Scotland controlled their own borders before the formation of the UK. There is also, as has been mooted throughout the summer, the power already devolved to Holyrood to make people quarantine, which is all that's required. Johnson is correct insofar as there is no Scottish Border Force, but that's irrelevant. Sridhar is reliably reported to have changed her mind, so it's not "demonstrably false" to claim she might do on other topics. GPinkerton (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

DS's September op-ed supports neither claim by McWhirter. GPinkerton's charitable stretch to "truthify" Boris Johnson's hyperbole seems an apt counterpart to the stretch that "falsifies" DS by saying that she should have considered pre-UK border conditions (before 1922?). Anyway, this talk page is about improvements to the article. Please share some WP:RS that illuminate responses to the August 14 op-ed, which is our topic in this section. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You can see that the changes I propose are amply justified by the sources. There are plenty of RS cited multiple times already, only you have decided to overlook them. The falsification or otherwise of Sridhar's comments are irrelevant and you must acknowledge that our coverage should follow the sources, not what you had adjudged to be true or false. GPinkerton (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have done a great deal of work to find RS and to create proper format to cite them, in the bio and on its talk page. My civil request was for others to suggest RS I had missed related to the "stream of infections" op-ed. Richard Nevell can you please check the latest revised description of the op-ed to see if it meets your concern. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The idea that it would have to be shown that Northern Ireland or Scotland controlled their own borders before the formation of the UK is completely spurious and I'm not sure makes sense in any case. However, moving forward to something more positive, I think this change explaining the purpose of the op-ed works well. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)