Talk:Eric Feigl-Ding
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eric Feigl-Ding article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. The entire article relates to the following contentious topics:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
| 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 multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 October 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Section currently titled "A case study of social web early alert"
This section, which already has an unencyclopedic, non-wiki complaint title for a BLP, has at least five statements that require attribution but that have none, and has at least one sweeping medical claim that does not have a MEDRS-compliant citation.
I propose that this section be dealt with by (A) deleting it; (B) moving it here to the talkpage until it is cleaned up and fixed; or (C) attributing everything that needs it and removing all medical/epidemiological claims not cited to a MEDRS source.
If the section is kept in any form, it needs a heading that works for a Wikipedia BLP (and that does not instead sound like the title to someone's term paper). Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, and I have chosen option A; here is a diff containing the text: . This article historically had an issue with sockpuppetry and evidently COI editing, with that text having been part of that favored by the sockpuppets, with the problem accounts only somewhat recently getting blocked because their socking got caught. There are more issues outlined above in the previous section(s). Crossroads -talk- 00:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely this should not be included here, it is blatantly WP:UNDUE and filled with PRIMARY supposition. Unencyclopedic. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Redundancy
The "POV section" tag is now over four years old
The "POV section" tag is now over four years old. Can it be removed now? I realize this article may get spates of POV editing from POV-pushers, but I think the way to handle that is more careful monitoring and possibly EC-protection, rather than a tag that has spent more than four years on the article.
Please remove the tag if you agree, while fixing whatever POV problems there are or that have redeveloped. Softlavender (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
This article is repetitive, which results in bias against the subject
The repetition consists of too many broad references to criticism of Eric Feigl-Ding. This article appears to have been edited by individuals with viewpoints strongly opposed to Feigl-Ding's during the pandemic era. That bias leaves the article repeating the same claims again and again. I suggest the article be edited to reduce or eliminate the repetition and that all references to both praise and criticism of his statements during the pandemic era be collected in one section. Further this entry neglects to include his academic articles in favor of citing, instead, social media such on the outlet formerly known as Twitter. For example, one list of Feigl-Ding's scholarly contributions is here: https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Eric-Feigl-Ding-2235730100 but those citations are not reflected in this Wikipedia bio. This might lead reader to believe that he tweets a lot but does not publish in scholarly venues. 1skywriter (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)