Talk:Michael Yeadon
Latest comment: 22 days ago by Hob Gadling in topic COVID-19 misinformation
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Yeadon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
| 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}
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to COVID-19. |
 | The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Vaccines
edit- Thread retitled from
Why Wikipedia make statements about COVID vaccines that are clearly critical of whatever and whoever doesn't agree to the status quo and what the system consider acceptable?
.
I'd like to open up on critical thinking about certain ways to write articles and in this case information. I studied philosophy and one of my teacher help me to understand how to read and to spot the message underline.What's going on also with Wikipedia?? 51.37.169.21 (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Disinformation is not "critical thinking". Wikipedia is basd on reliable sources and not on your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, your opinion of critical thinking isn't. Disinformation, in your opinion, is obviously what you disagree with. But without varying opinions of fact, you have no critical thinking. What Dr. Yeadon has revealed, about the Covid vaccine, has mostly been verified to be fact. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is opinion. 2600:100B:B136:82F4:64D9:4CB5:E968:229E (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Mainstream medicine disagrees, and Wikipedia follows mainstream medical opinion, not the opinion of anonymous folks on a talk page. MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Verified to be fact
[citation needed] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)- Uh ha. So you follow medical opinion….not medical fact! Now it makes sense. Stop being biased in your opinions and edits 66.31.93.249 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's the opposite. We do not follow your medical opinion, we follow what reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Uh ha. So you follow medical opinion….not medical fact! Now it makes sense. Stop being biased in your opinions and edits 66.31.93.249 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, your opinion of critical thinking isn't. Disinformation, in your opinion, is obviously what you disagree with. But without varying opinions of fact, you have no critical thinking. What Dr. Yeadon has revealed, about the Covid vaccine, has mostly been verified to be fact. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is opinion. 2600:100B:B136:82F4:64D9:4CB5:E968:229E (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2025
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Michael Yeadon’s early condemnation of covid and covid vaccines has proven to be largely correct in hindsight. 66.31.93.249 (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2025 (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. Charliehdb (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Largely correct in hindsight
[citation needed] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
COVID-19 misinformation
editIn the "2. Corona-Symposium im Deutschen Bundestag", held by the far-right German AfD in November 2023, he was an invited speaker. The AfD's own Video-docu about this congress, Yeadon's speech was deleted. See German public TV, https://www.ardmediathek.de/, input in "Suche" (=search): "Rache für Corona – wie weit gehen radikale Impfgegner?", Minutes 32-34, especially 34:13: "Die Ausführungen von Herrn Yeadon teilt die Fraktion nicht und hat sich daher entschlossen, den Vortrag nicht über die Medienkanäle der Fraktion zu verbreiten" The German TV journalists from SWR conclude that his opinion speech was even too hard for the far-right AfD. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- So, the goal was exclusively to propagate the AfD's views. Not surprising, given what type of party they are. (For US readers: The German version of the Republicans.)
- But why is that relevant for the Yeadon article? Someone invited him and then censored him, so what? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- I am not sure whether the the US Republicans at whole do propagate pseudoscience (at least parts of the Trump government do). The goal of the "2. Corona-Symposium im Deutschen Bundestag" was to propagate pseudoscience, this becomes clear in the SWR docu (one needs to understand german, but written german suffices, they have good subtitles/"Sprache und Barrierefreiheit → Untertitel"). --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I am not sure whether the the US Republicans at whole do propagate pseudoscience
Almost all of them are climate change deniers, covidiocy is mainstream among them, and creationism is a Republican majority opinion.- I am still not sure this is relevant enough for the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
- I am not sure whether the the US Republicans at whole do propagate pseudoscience (at least parts of the Trump government do). The goal of the "2. Corona-Symposium im Deutschen Bundestag" was to propagate pseudoscience, this becomes clear in the SWR docu (one needs to understand german, but written german suffices, they have good subtitles/"Sprache und Barrierefreiheit → Untertitel"). --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)