Talk:Sayer Ji

Page creation

Don't hesitate to improve the page! There are of course hundreds of news media articles naming him as one of the "Disinformation dozen". I chose to reference only the original research report and one news article. Robincantin (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Revert 1032511256

@Robincantin: you reverted the above version, asking for sources to the contrary. There were two statements of Ji's that I mentioned:

• his belief that cell lines require constant supply of aborted fetal matter, and
• his belief that the vaccines are some sort of transhumanist agenda.

It's hard to find something to contradict the latter, as it's difficult to prove a negative.

With regard to the former, this is so trivially false that nobody really bothers to even explicitly say so. This chapter from Alberts, Johnson and Lewis, pretty much one of the most commonly used cell biology textbooks, explains culture in some detail. By way of negation, if what cell lines need is just media, then they don't need additional cellular matter. I will try to find a more overt 'no' somewhere.

Thanks for making this article! Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ari T. Benchaim:, I'm not sure it's useful to go through Ji's article on his website and find references showing what he says isn't true. That doesn't show the statement is notable, and that would still reference greenmedinfo, which is definitely not a credible source. My approach for these types has been to watch mentions in the media and other publications. Robincantin (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This being said, thank you for bringing this to the Talk page. If others disagree with my take on this, they'll let us know. Don't forget to sign your posts ;) Robincantin (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robincantin: Fair point! Happy to take your guidance on this. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC) (officially the worst at signing posts)

Major BLP Cleanup Underway. Serious WP Policy Violations

This article contains multiple, egregious violations of core Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons. The current version includes editorial language, pejorative labeling, non-notable personal details, and unsourced or poorly sourced claims, all of which violate WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:LEAD

I’m currently cleaning up the article to bring it into full compliance with Wikipedia’s content policies. All removals and rewrites are being done according to established editorial standards for neutrality, verifiability, and encyclopedic relevance.Dakotacoda (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you're potentially whitewashing, such as removing relevant information from a peer-reviewed analysis of vaccine-skeptical content. ScienceFlyer (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

You deleted who he was married to and called it "non-notable." Surely that's relevant for a biography? I seriously question your edits and claims about this article. I suggest you better articulate the reasons for your edits. ScienceFlyer (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I reverted all your edits, which are concerning and remove well-sourced information from reliable sources. Additionally, you kept a photo that is due to be deleted for unclear reasons. So I would suggest reaching agreement for changes. Thank you. 05:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC) ScienceFlyer (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Your assertion that edits were "unconstructive" is eyebrow-raising considering that the edits were made to remove clear WP violations of "unconstructive", anti-encyclopedic material. Every edit was made, clearly articulating WP policies in full-alignment with the strict and high-bar-standard for WP:BLP. Moreover, regarding the image, the image has a 30-day probation period in order for the editor to acquire the appropriate permissions from copyright holders as per wikimedia commons. Please ensure you understand WP policy and guidelines before doing wholesale reverts such as you did, especially with a BLP.Dakotacoda (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

As editors, it is our responsibility to ensure that Wikipedia’s content policies, especially those governing Biographies of Living Persons, are strictly followed. When there is any question about neutral point of view, verifiability, or the reliability of sources (which must meet the highest standard in all of Wikipedia for BLPs), the guideline is to (1) remove the content and (2) discuss on the Talk page, rather than leave potentially defamatory or policy-violating material in place.

To continue reverting without citing relevant Wikipedia policies, as I have done consistently, is akin to edit warring and may be grounds for formal reporting per WP:EW. In contentious articles, especially BLPs, restoring disputed content without addressing valid concerns raised on ***policy grounds*** violates the collaborative spirit and enforcement standards of this project.Dakotacoda (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

You wrote in this edit summary that - This return to the former iteration of the article violates WP:BLP and WP:VANDALISM - there is nothing in that "return to the former iteration of the article" that violates BLP, and VANDALISM has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. So you need to be more careful about your choice of words and policies you are quoting. I also seriously question your recent edits, because Ji has spent years pushing scientifically disproven views about vaccines and other conventional medical treatments, and Ji is a well-known conspiracy theorist, and it has been widely documented that he is a member of the ‘Disinformation Dozen’; a group of twelve influencers estimated to be responsible for 65 percent of anti-vaccine content during the COVID-19 pandemic. And there is no BLPVIO to exclude that information from the lead of this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Sources

Isaidnoway, I've taken a break from this page for a while, and now that I've had some time to reflect, I would like to pick up the conversation in this Talk Page in the civil manner I should have initially done so at the start. My apologies for not engaging in this way to begin with. The Wikipedia community does and important service, and I hope to reengage in a much more open and civil manner pertaining to this BLP. I hope you can accept my apology and request for a restart on this dialogue. KInd regardsDakotacoda (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Request for BLP Compliance: Lead Section and CCDH Allegations

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

As the subject of this article, I acknowledge that I have a conflict of interest (WP:COI). In line with Wikipedia’s best practices, I will not edit the article directly. Instead, I am requesting changes here on the Talk page for uninvolved editors to review. My sole aim is to ensure that the article complies with Wikipedia’s content policies, especially WP:BLP, which takes precedence over COI considerations.

Current Issue

The lead currently states that Sayer Ji “was identified in 2020 as one of the largest promoters of COVID-19 misinformation on social media” (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayer_Ji).

• This phrasing presents the claim in Wikipedia’s own editorial voice, rather than as attributed opinion.
• It relies on the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s 2021 Disinformation Dozen report, which is contested and has been publicly disputed by Meta (Facebook).

Policy Concerns

• WP:BLP requires that contentious or potentially defamatory statements be attributed and neutrally presented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
• WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:LABEL prohibit the use of pejorative or loaded language in Wikipedia’s voice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attribute_unavoidable_bias
• WP:NPOV / WP:UNDUE require that significant counter-positions be mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Precedent on Wikipedia

• The Center for Countering Digital Hate article itself includes Meta’s rebuttal:

  “Meta… countered that posts from the twelve named profiles were responsible for only about 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook.” Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Countering_Digital_Hate#Vaccine_disinformation

• On the Talk: Center for Countering Digital Hate page, editors explicitly discussed this dispute and agreed that attribution and neutral framing were required:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Center_for_Countering_Digital_Hate

Proposed Neutral Wording

“The Center for Countering Digital Hate alleged in its 2021 ‘Disinformation Dozen’ report that Ji was among twelve individuals responsible for much of the vaccine misinformation online. However, Meta publicly disputed the report’s methodology, stating the group accounted for only about 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook.”

Why This Matters

This revised text:

• Preserves coverage of the CCDH report (meeting WP:DUE).
• Adds Meta’s rebuttal already documented on the CCDH page (ensuring consistency across articles).
• Attributes all claims to their sources rather than asserting them in Wikipedia’s voice (meeting WP:BLP and WP:ATTRIBUTE).

Request

That the lead be updated to reflect this neutral, attributed wording, in line with how the CCDH article already treats the same report.

Thank you to editors for considering this request. Sayerji (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I have tweaked the lead to comply with BLP and added content to the body. The lead is not the place for dealing with the oranges vs. apples nature of the conflict between the CCDH and Meta. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Valjean, for taking the time to review and make adjustments. I appreciate your efforts to align the article with Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP).

However, I’d like to clarify that my proposed change is not about debating the “oranges vs. apples” nature of the CCDH vs. Meta dispute — it’s about ensuring the lead section itself adheres to BLP and Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policies.

At present, the lead still presents the CCDH allegation in Wikipedia’s own editorial voice, which gives it the appearance of fact rather than a contested claim. Because the statement is both contentious and potentially damaging to reputation, WP:BLP requires strict attribution and neutrality in all sections — including the lead.

Relevant policies:

• BLP: “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately.”
• ATTRIBUTEPOV: “Avoid stating opinions as facts… and attribute opinions to their sources.”
• NPOV/UNDUE: “Articles must not give undue weight to any one perspective.”

Key precedent:

The Center for Countering Digital Hate article already incorporates Meta’s rebuttal — explicitly noting that Meta disputed the report’s methodology and found that posts from the named accounts represented only 0.05% of all vaccine content views. Excluding that counterpoint here introduces inconsistency across related pages and leaves the statement in violation of BLP parity.

Requested next step:

To maintain policy consistency and avoid implied editorial endorsement of the CCDH’s disputed claim, I respectfully request that the lead be updated to the following neutral, attributed version:

“The Center for Countering Digital Hate alleged in its 2021 ‘Disinformation Dozen’ report that Ji was among twelve individuals responsible for much of the vaccine misinformation online. However, Meta publicly disputed the report’s methodology, stating the group accounted for only about 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook.”

This phrasing does not diminish the notability of the CCDH report — it simply ensures accurate attribution and neutral tone in compliance with BLP and NPOV standards.

Thank you again to all editors for your consideration and for maintaining high standards of policy compliance.

— Sayerji (talk) Sayerji (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

"However" is a word we need to be careful with. In this instance, it may be seen to imply that the CCDH position is incorrect, and that the Meta statement is the correct version, but both are correct. The one does not replace or correct the other. They are just two completely different ways of analyzing it, and since the Meta version doesn't address YOU, but only the role of the "dozen", I chose to only include what was relevant to you. Meta's statistic is of little relevance to you and so has little weight in this article. It has much more weight at the CCDH article. We don't even know how much YOUR views are shared, just that you are part of the dozen.

Never the less, I have added this:

Meta, formerly Facebook, rejoined that posts from the twelve named profiles were responsible for only about 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook.

I hope that serves the purpose. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

References

Request for BLP and NPOV Compliance: Lead Name and Evaluative Language

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

As the subject of this article, I acknowledge that I have a conflict of interest (WP:COI). I am not editing the article directly. Instead, I am requesting these changes for uninvolved editors to review. My intent is solely to ensure that the article complies with Wikipedia’s core content policies—particularly WP:BLP, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:LABEL, and WP:NPOV.

1. Correction of Lead Name per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:BLPSTYLE

Current text:

“Douglas Sayer Ji (born October 10, 1972) is the founder of…”

Issue:

The subject’s current and legally recognized name (since 2017) is Sayer Ji. This is also the name used in all published works, professional profiles, and reliable media sources. The use of “Douglas” in the lead therefore violates:

• WP:COMMONNAME – The article title and lead should use the name most commonly used in reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMONNAME
• WP:BLPSTYLE – “When a subject has changed their name, the new name should generally be used throughout the article unless there is a strong reason not to.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography

Proposed correction:

Sayer Ji (born October 10, 1972, formerly known as Douglas Ji) is the founder of GreenMedInfo, a website…

This reflects the name in verifiable current use, while neutrally acknowledging the prior name, in accordance with BLP and Manual of Style standards.

2. Removal or Re-attribution of “Pseudoscientific Publications” per WP:BLP, WP:LABEL, and WP:NPOV

Current text:

“…founder of alternative medicine portal GreenMedInfo, a website known for promoting various pseudoscientific publications.”

Issues:

1. Factual inaccuracy: GreenMedInfo does not “publish” research; it aggregates and indexes citations from the U.S. National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database (over 100,000 studies from thousands of journals).
2. Unverified evaluative language: The phrase “pseudoscientific publications” originates from a single opinion essay by McGill University’s Office for Science and Society—not from multiple independent, high-quality sources.
3. Policy violations:
   • WP:LABEL – Avoid pejorative descriptors such as “pseudoscientific” in Wikipedia’s voice; if used, they must be clearly attributed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Avoid_weasel_words

1. • WP:BLP – Contentious material that could harm a living person’s reputation must be written conservatively and attributed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

1. • WP:NPOV / WP:V – Statements must reflect verifiable facts and avoid editorial judgment.

Proposed neutral, policy-compliant alternative:

“Sayer Ji (born October 10, 1972, formerly known as Douglas Ji) is the founder of GreenMedInfo, a website that aggregates and indexes research citations from the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database on topics related to natural and integrative health. The site has been described by critics, including the McGill Office for Science and Society, as promoting pseudoscientific interpretations of medical research.”

Rationale:

• Correctly describes GreenMedInfo’s actual function as an indexer/aggregator.
• Attributes the “pseudoscience” characterization to its source, avoiding Wikipedia’s endorsement.
• Aligns with BLP, LABEL, and NPOV standards by replacing unsourced editorial judgment with verifiable, attributed description.

Requested action:

That editors update the lead to reflect these two corrections—

1. Use of the current and legal name “Sayer Ji,” and
2. Replacement of the inaccurate, non-neutral phrase “pseudoscientific publications” with the neutral, attributed version above— to bring the article into full compliance with WP:BLP, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:NPOV.

Thank you for your consideration and for maintaining Wikipedia’s high editorial and ethical standards. Sayerji (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment (I have not looked at all the issues raised in this request) but wish to note that contrary to what you say above, the article does not suggest that Greenmedia info "publish" anything. Also worth noting is that your promotion of "pseudoscientific publications" is very well supported by references already in the article.

I also note the name of the article acknowledges your current legal name. - Walter Ego 18:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Walter Ego: Thank you for the note. I appreciate your time reviewing this.

To clarify, my request isn’t about whether GreenMedInfo publishes material, but about the use of evaluative phrasing (“pseudoscientific publications”) in Wikipedia’s own editorial voice. Per [WP:BLP], [WP:LABEL], and [WP:NPOV], descriptors of that kind should be attributed to their sources rather than asserted. The current sentence presents the characterization without attribution, which is why I’ve proposed the neutral wording that cites the McGill Office for Science and Society directly.

I fully recognize that critical coverage exists and have no objection to including it—only that it be presented with clear attribution to meet BLP and NPOV standards.

Thank you again for considering this refinement. Sayerji (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Sayerji, Walter Ego, and other fellow editors,

This is a good discussion, and I'd like to chime in that per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:LABEL, specific terms like “pseudoscientific” should only be used when supported by reliable, independent sources representing a larger consensus and not just a single opinion source. Without this, “pseudoscientific” risks functioning as a weasel word.

If the description relies mainly on one source (e.g., McGill OSS), a more neutral and policy-compliant alternative could be:

“…founder of GreenMedInfo, a website known for promoting views outside the scientific mainstream.”

This phrasing preserves critical context, avoids editorial judgment, and aligns better with BLP and LABEL requirements. I propose we adopt this change.Kerdooskistalk 23:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit to the article for which there is no consensus that I can see. The current text is very well supported by the body, as required by policy.- Walter Ego 17:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Good. Roxy is right. We do not allow whitewashing in the name of NPOV or BLP. We follow what RS say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I have now added a "Pseudoscience sanctions" template to the top of this page. Further actions that can be perceived as pro-pseudoscience can result in blocks or topic bans, so be careful. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I support Kerdoškis’s assessment. The current lead phrasing presents a strongly negative evaluative label in Wikipedia’s own voice. WP:NPOV, WP:LABEL, and WP:BLP are unambiguous: contested value judgments about a living person—especially pejorative ones—must be clearly attributed to the sources that advance them, not stated as undisputed fact.

A neutral formulation would therefore attribute the criticism rather than assert it editorially. One possible wording:

“known for founding and operating GreenMedInfo, an online database that aggregates peer-reviewed scientific studies on natural health topics; the site and its content have drawn significant criticism from mainstream medical sources.”

Placing the avoidance of perceived “whitewashing” above these core attribution requirements amounts to selective policy enforcement. That is particularly problematic in a BLP where the subject has faced coordinated deplatforming and public labeling as a source of misinformation, and where he and allied advocacy groups have repeatedly invoked First Amendment concerns over the suppression of non-mainstream health perspectives.

For a concrete recent example of how the same body of sources can be handled with proper attribution and markedly less editorialized tone, see the new Grokipedia entry (https://grokipedia.com/wiki/Sayer_Ji). It conveys the existence and substance of mainstream criticism without presenting contested labels in wiki-voice.

I believe moving to an attributed formulation (along the lines above or similar) would bring the article into clear compliance with policy. I welcome other editors’ input on acceptable wording. LVX1313 (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia editors – as stated at the outset of this topic, my name is Sayer Ji, the subject of this article. I am completely aware that I have a conflict of interest (COI) regarding this page, so I will not edit the article directly. Per Wikipedia’s COI guidelines, I think it essential that I continue to disclose my COI and propose changes here for review instead of editing myself. First, let me thank all the contributors who have worked on this article. I recognize that some of the wording (e.g. the use of “pseudoscientific” and the Disinformation Dozen report) has been contentious in past discussions. My goal is to suggest neutral, policy-compliant improvements for consensus consideration – not to remove well-sourced criticism. I appreciate the community’s vigilance in upholding Wikipedia’s standards, and I hope these proposals will further that aim.

Proposed changes: (with policy-based rationale and sources cited)

1. Use of Name (“Sayer Ji” vs. “Douglas Sayer Ji”): The article’s first sentence currently begins with my birth but no longer legal name “Douglas Sayer Ji”. I propose using the common name “Sayer Ji” instead, since it is my legal name (since 2016), which I have used as my primary name for over two decades, and that is how I am known in published reliable sources (and it is the article’s title). Wikipedia’s naming guidelines emphasize using the name most commonly used in English-language sourcesen. – “Wikipedia uses the common name for everything, even when there is an ‘official’ name." Using “Sayer Ji” in the lead (with full legal name in the info box or a parenthetical if needed) would follow the WP:COMMONNAME policy and BLP style conventions. This change is purely stylistic for correctness and consistency.
2. “Pseudoscientific publications” Label in Lead: The current lead describes GreenMedInfo as “a website known for promoting various pseudoscientific publications.” This is a rather strange phrase, given GreenMedInfo.com consists of a database of over 100,000 scientific studies all from peer-reviewed journals sourced directly from the National Library of Medicine. I respectfully request removing or rephrasing the term “pseudoscientific” in Wikipedia’s voice, in favor of attributed, neutral language. The word “pseudoscientific” is a contentious label (implying a value judgment) and Wikipedia’s guidelines advise against labeling living people or their work with value-laden terms in Wiki’s voice unless widely supported by reliable sources Instead, per WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV, such characterizations should be presented as attributed opinions. For example, the clause could be rewritten as: “GreenMedInfo, a website which some sources have described as promoting unproven or pseudoscientific health claims…,” with a reliable source cited for that description. This way, the information is still included but framed with attribution (per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) rather than stated as a Wikipedia-endorsed fact. The goal is a more neutral tone in line with BLP policy, which says biographies must be written conservatively and without biased wording. (If there are strong high-quality sources calling the site “pseudoscientific,” those can be cited with in-text attribution like “X Magazine has called the site pseudoscientific”, rather than Wikipedia asserting it in Wikipedia’s voice.)
3. CCDH “Disinformation Dozen” Allegation and Meta’s Rebuttal: The lead currently includes the 2021 claim from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) that I was “one of twelve individuals promoting most of the misinformation...about vaccines,” along with a sentence that “Meta…rejoined that posts from the twelve named profiles were responsible for only about 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook.”I fully agree that this allegation and the response belong in the article; however, I propose a minor phrasing tweak to ensure clear attribution and a neutral tone, consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Specifically, the text should make it unmistakable that this is CCDH’s allegation (not an undisputed fact) and that Facebook’s parent company Meta disputed it, without Wikipedia implying who is correct. For example, the passage could be edited to something like: “According to the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s 2021 ‘Disinformation Dozen’ report, Ji was alleged to be one of twelve individuals responsible for a majority of online vaccine misinformation. Meta (Facebook), however, disputed the report’s findings, stating that content from those individuals accounted for only ~0.05% of views of vaccine-related content on Facebook.” This revision would present both the claim and the rebuttal with proper attribution, letting readers know who said what and avoiding any Wikipedia endorsement of either viewpoint. This approach follows the neutral-point-of-view principle: represent all significant views fairly and without editorial bias. By attributing the allegation to CCDH and the counter-statistic to Meta, the article adheres to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:NPOV, acknowledging each as one perspective reported in reliable sources rather than asserting a single “truth.” It also satisfies WP:RS by reflecting what multiple reliable sources have published on this topic. In short, the fact of the accusation and the fact of the rebuttal would both be included, but in a balanced, source-attributed manner.

All of the above proposals are aimed at improving policy compliance with Wikipedia’s core content policies: Neutrality, Verifiability, and BLP. They do not remove any sourced information; they rephrase it to be neutral and factually attributed. This should ensure the biography remains accurate and reflective of all significant viewpoints, as required. Wikipedia content must be based on reliable, published sources, covering significant viewpoints with due weight. I believe the suggested edits honor that by preserving the cited information while framing it in an impartial, encyclopedic tone.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these requests. I’m open to further suggestions or edits and invite discussion to reach consensus on the best wording. I appreciate the community’s help in making sure the article is fair and in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Thank you again for your contributions and feedback on this matter.

— Sayer Ji (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC) Sayerji (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Sayer Ji, you added your comment above while I was editing, so my edits may not fully take into account what you have written immediately above, but I suspect you will be pleased by some of my changes. I have also fixed the common name issue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Valjean — thank you for your time, care, and good-faith engagement on this page, and for making changes that bring the lead into closer alignment with WP:BLP and WP:COMMONNAME.

I also want to acknowledge something broader: this outcome feels like a genuine vindication not only for me personally, but for Wikipedia as an institution. The BLP framework exists precisely because Wikipedia’s influence is immense, and because reputationally consequential statements about living people must be handled with exceptional discipline — attribution, neutrality, and evidentiary conservatism. When those standards are upheld, Wikipedia demonstrates the “noble” part of its mission: not to amplify the loudest narrative, but to reflect what reliable sources say without editorial overreach.

I’m especially grateful that you approached the disputed material in a way that preserves notable criticism while tightening phrasing so it is clearly attributed and policy-compliant, rather than presented in Wikipedia’s voice as though it were uncontested fact. That distinction is not semantics; it is the difference between an encyclopaedia and an advocacy document.

Thank you again for your willingness to improve the article constructively and for modelling the kind of editorial judgement that keeps Wikipedia credible — particularly in contentious-topic areas where it’s easy for process to get distorted by heat rather than policy.

— Sayer Ji ~2025-37857-63 (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Wikipedia has a set of policies and guidelines (PAG) that have been created over the years, and they are pretty good. I dare say they are the best available for a crowdsourced project. The behavioral guidelines are really good.

You and I may not agree on certain scientific or medical matters, but you deserve fair treatment and the proper application of our PAG. Editors often discuss how best to do that, as there are many exceptions and interpretations of the best approach. I'm glad you feel you have been treated fairly.

I also appreciate something very rarely seen here, and that is how you have been very civil and open about your COI, have appealed rather than attacked, and been very reasonable and patient during this process. Kudos to you for that! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Time anchoring and attribution issue

I’d suggest removing the sentence describing Sayer Ji as “consistently” sharing false or misleading vaccine information. As written, it uses present-tense language even though the most recent source is several years old. Moreover, it states the claim in Wikipedia’s own voice rather than being explicitly attributed in the article's prose, which raises a WP:BLP and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV concern. Also, per WP:BLP and WP:RECENTISM, negative claims about living people should be tightly attributed and time-anchored. This sentence doesn’t currently meet that standard.Dakotacoda (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I have reworked and moved that content. Obviously, RS have more due weight than Ji's denial, which needs sourcing. If anything should be removed, it's the denial, not the criticism, as we do not allow whitewashing here. The mainstream scientific POV has much more due weight than the unscientific POV. In the face of so much evidence to the contrary, such denialism never looks good. It comes across as lack of self-awareness, or worse, as dishonesty. We'll let readers speculate about that without telling them. The sources speak for themselves. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)