Talk:Devra Davis

message: I want to add a link to an interview I conducted with Devra Davis about her book THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE WAR ON CANCER for my radio show, Writer's Voice, at the end of which she told me I was "certainly the most informed interviewer she had had". That's because I spent 25 years as an occupational and environmental health educator, so I knew the issues well. I had added a link to the interview which someone took down, evidently because I had not known that I should ask permission on the talk page first. 
Well, I'm asking permission now--I'll wait 5 days, as per the advice of a Wikipedia editor who informed me of this process, and if there's no objection, I will re-post the link. The interview goes into much more depth than most other interviews of Davis on the topic and I think it adds to the knowledge and resources on this author.
Here is the link, if you want to listen to it:
http://www.writersvoice.net/2008/01/podcast-57-how-everyday-products-make-us-sick/
And here is one to a web-only excerpt from the interview: http://www.writersvoice.net/2008/01/web-extra-devra-davis-on-aspartame-and-ritalin/
--Francesca Rheannon (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: User Vicky fobel added in good faith an external link to an organization MobileWise of which she is a trustee, a conflict of interest. However, the information that User Vicky fobel added, that Ms. Davis is an advisor to the organization MobileWise, appears to be accurate and is relevant to this article, so I have added it in-line in the section "Other professional activities - Envionment" with the external link as a reference instead. --papageno (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for correction and for keeping it friendly. I will review the discussion on Mobile phone radiation and health. Sorry, didn't know about it before --Vicky fobel (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link - conflict of interest - adjudged relevant and added in-line 

message: I have removed (again) two good faith edits by User BrianMcKenna193 (talk):
*the Washington post citation does not seem to support the text that it follows: it doesn't say that Ms. Davis founded the EWG in 2007 with Mr. Schreiber, that it carries out research on policy relevant environmental health matters including on the long-term health impacts of microwave radiation, that it carries out policy-changing and public educational activities in Jackson, Wyoming and San Francisco, and that is conducts major basic and epidemiologic research on cellphone health impacts (to paraphrase the text it purports to support). A proper citation is required, hence the  is required.
*the text in the External links section about the EHT link is confusing: is the EHT a website or a group? is it supported by Ms. Davis' foundation? which of the two is the 501(c) non-profit? If these questions can be clarified, they should be included in the body text, describing the EHT.
--papageno (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, EHT is a private lobbying company of which Davies is the founder and owner. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by User BrianMcKenna193 

message: I removed a bunch of items where the only reference was data on Devra Davis own personal website. Using ones own website shouldn't be considered a valid citation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.23.199 (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal 

message: Dear Editors, I have removed some sections of this article which were either unsourced, or sourced entirely to self-published material (e.g. subject's own CV or an "about" page on the subject's own website. I feel that the article as it currently stands does not truthfully represent what reliable secondary sources have said about this subject. While it may be true that she served a number of research, teaching and government advisor roles - she is best known for her work with EHT, and organization which is best known for it's anti 5G advocacy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your comments when you reply, it makes it easier for us to know who we are responding to. An article can certainly cover a subject's early life provided that we have reliable secondary sources that describe what she did. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slimming down this article 

message: A bunch of sourced content was recently deleted from this article without any real justification. I've been asked to open a talk page section before this is once again restored. , would you care to explain why the section does not properly summarize the information in the sources from 'The Conversation', 'Bailiwick Express', 'Science Based Medicine', and 'ARS Technica', all of which strike me as reliable sources? - MrOllie (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the text as well-sourced after looking at the page history and the edits concerned, before coming here. -Roxy  . wooF 12:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit late to this party, but I wanted to thank MrOllie and Roxy  . for handling what seems like obvious promotional editing. The fact is that Davies is best known for her work with EHTrust, which is overwhelmingly concerned with promoting fringe information about 5G and related topics. To say otherwise would be to whitewash the reputation of this academic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent deletions 

message: I found this transcript, of a 2020 documentary about misinformation being spread about 5G. There is an extensive section on Davies' claims with a more mainstream rebuttal of her ideas and methodology. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcript of BBC documentary, The 5G Con includes coverage of Devra Davies 

message: I note that a citation to  has recently been added to the article. I think we should be wary of linking to these kinds of documents. It's not really a secondary source if it's primary purpose is to report uncritically on what a fringe figure may have said. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think we should remove this non-[[WP:MEDRS]] source 

message: Greetings all, I have been working on the edits of Dr Davis. I just wanted to run by a few links before editing them. During my research I came across the Nobel Peace Prize 2007, which was given to Al Gore and IPCC. Upon further research I came to find that Dr. Davis was one of the lead authors of the report and team that won the Nobel. I have also found out that in 2012 IPCC has clarified that the Nobel Peace Prize was given to IPCC as an organization and not to any one particular individual. This made me think, whether or not it could be said, "Davis worked as one of the lead authors and team lead for IPCC, on the report that won the Nobel Peace Prize." I am mentioning the links below and awaiting your guidance. 
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=319 (This link is of the report and at the end of the page, her name is mentioned under the heading of "Lead Authors".) 
https://web.archive.org/web/20150525014000/http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf (This link is the public statement from IPCC.) 
There are two more links I would like to know about their reliability
https://www.nationalbook.org/people/devra-davis/ (This link mentions her two books, among which one was "a finalist for the National Book Award in 2002".)
https://www.blogtalkradio.com/phatmanradio/2016/04/12/disconnect--truth-about-cell-phone-radiation-with-dr-devra-davis (In this link, it is mentioned that she was awarded "Women’s Leadership Exchange Compass Award" and " Lisa Zhang Environmental Award from the United Nations in July 2008.", along with mention of being an author of two books.)
It is my opinion, that if above two links are reliable there can be an Achievement section, that mentions of awards and being an author. If someone could guide me in this regard, I will be very grateful. Thanks in advance. ClimateShield (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may be missing the point of Wikipedia. If you were composing a biography of Dr Davis, you might use these sources for your own original research. As a Wikipedia editor we are forbidden from doing original research. A Wikipedia article should be an organized collection of reliable secondary sources. Let's pick on just one of these as an example: Is the "Lisa Zhang Environmental Award" a notable achievement? I've personally never heard of it, but how do we determine if it is a notable achievement? Has it been written about in any reliable publications? Has it been the subject of significant coverage? I'm sure you are aware that political organizations often cook up awards that have no real significance and only exist to try to influence media. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   I understand your points and I will keep that in mind. However, there is the quarry of this link (https://www.nationalbook.org/people/devra-davis/). National Book Award is one of the renowned awards of US, and the information is also from a reliable source. So, specific to this, should it be added in her Wiki biography?ClimateShield (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The National Book Awards page is a primary source. We rely on reliable secondary sources to tell us which facts are notable enough to include in Wikipedia. If you can find a reliable secondary source that mentions this detail, you can add the primary source link to corroborate that fact, however the existence of the fact alone is not sufficient for it to be included in Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a misleading view of WP:RS and WP:PSTS. Are you implying the National Book Awards is unreliable for their own content, or that major nomination is not noteworthy? Primary sources can be used sparingly for statements of facts so long as they are not used to infer unsupported claims. Luckily, I've found mention of it in a scholarly source, and have added it. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Usage 

message: Hello dear Editors,
Hope you all are doing fine!
I personally think there is a lot of information that we could add using notable and credible sources. Previously, a few editors removed the self-published articles' link that were cited. However, I found some third-party sources that I think we could use. They seem credible. 
The information I'd like to add is first her book that appeared to be the finalist of National book awards back in 2002. Secondly, she, along with her team, was awarded with Nobel Peace Award back in 2007 while working with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), where Devra was one of the lead authors on their assessment of climate mitigation policies. Moreover, I also heard about her campaign that she conducted about the Tobacco. But I don't think we must add it since there is no media coverage of such research. 
I'm attaching the links so you people can judge the credibility of these links. 
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/there-are-still-opportunities-un-expert-calls-for-australia-to-lead-in-renewables-20200106-p53p8w.html
http://trentu.ca/newsevents/newsDetail_old.php?newsID=946
http://www.writershouse.com/award-winners
Expecting your opinions on this. Alex Cloe (talk)
:Writers house is her agent, and Trent university was hosting a talk she did. Neither are independent sources - in fact they are both self published, so not really usable for a biographical article. She was not awarded the Nobel, the IPCC was. A quote from the IPCC on this: 'it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate  or Nobel  Prize winner.' Also, it was not 'her team', she was one of several lead authors. I don't have the report she worked on in front of me, but I do have the 6th, and there were somewhere around 90 of them. - MrOllie (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as we'd like to expand sections, we are limited by the reliable secondary sources we can find. Please feel free to check with us here if you find an interesting, credible new secondary source. I'm fairly sure that whatever you post in this talk page will be noticed by a number of interested editors. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

text: The Mudita link is a blog hosted on a web store - we can't use self published blogs as sources. Your bionity.com link is a copy of an old version of this Wikipedia article. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability to get an idea of what sorts of sources are found to be reliable and usable on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less content | Could be improvised and expand 

message: and others, I disagree that  and  are defining characteristics of this person, or even accurate, and have removed them per WP:BLP pending consensus. Conspiracy theorist is a contentious, loaded term, and often subjective: even if it is an opinion held by some, the high bar for categories which could cast the subject in a bad light per WP:BLPCAT has not been met. I have not read deeply on Devra Davis or the  Environmental Health Trust, but while some may consider her 'alarmist', I haven't found her to be commonly nor consistently defined as a conspiracy theorist per WP:COPDEF and WP:DEFINING. The only place this article mentions conspiracies is in reference to Sacha Stone, which seems like guilt-by-association at best, and of dubious relevance. In order for the categories to be placed, the article needs to first demonstrate they are defining traits, without cherry-picking or giving undue coverage to give the appearance of defining. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for bringing the discussion to Talk, . Devra Davis promotes the unproven theory that mobile phones, WiFi and a number of other every-day technologies are a significant causes of cancer, and other diseases. The fact that she claims this is widely reported. Are you disputing that she makes these claims, or are you saying that the sources are insufficient to show that these claims amount to a "conspiracy theory"? --Salimfadhley. My concern with this article is that we need to avoid whitewashing this subject. She may have had a previous career in science, but her achievements prior to EHTrust would never have met our notability guidelines. Her notability, or should I say notoriety comes entirely for her work promoting misinformation about radio systems. (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Davis is not a conspiracy theorist, I agree with  that this is a loaded term and should be avoided unless multiple third-party RS's call her one, which they do not. It is not whitewashing, and it doesn't matter that she wouldn't have been notable before she started pursuing environmental health. She may in future make statements that make it fair for us to call her a conspiracy theorist, as did Naomi Wolf. However, until you have the sources to state it inline, you shouldn't be stating it in categories. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 21:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you think of a better phrase to describe her? She's not a mainstream epidemiologist. Her views on cancer have been rejected by leading cancer research organisations. Perhaps conspiracy theorist is unwarranted right now, but the majority of sources that have covered her are critical of the fact that she promotes fringe theories, and in doing so has provided fodder for people like Sacha Stone who definitely are conspiracy theorists. Is there a category for such a person? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can bring enough sources critical of her promotion of fringe theories together, you could simply state that, and await more sources calling her directly a conspiracy theorist. That's what BLP requires. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 21:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Categories are for  It is absolutely not about trying to come up with "best phrase to describe her" ourselves, that would be OR. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

text: There's A review of her book which says "Devotees of conspiracy theories and aficionados of gossip and innuendo will be drawn towards this book like wasps to a juicy piece of meat." and talks about how she believes that the tobacco industry was a scapegoat to distract from other industrial sources of carcinogens. - MrOllie (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This source also confirms the subject's tendency to cherry-pick evidence. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

text:   I am saying sources are insufficient to show that these claims amount to a "conspiracy theory". We cannot call her a conspiracy theorist unless she is widely and commonly called such. We cannot use what we think are conspiracy theories to infer that that's what she is, let alone that is defining for categorization purposes. There is a difference between making unsupported claims, having minority views, advocating for caution in the absence of conclusive data, and perpetuating conspiracy theories (String theorists also promote an unproven theory with no experimental evidence, but we don't call them conspiracists). Science is not a binary, consisting solely of consensus view on one side and and pseudoscientists, cranks, quacks, and conspiracists on the other. From the page history I see you have been a large player in emphasizing her wireless research and downplaying other aspects. Watch out for recentism. Her early books and research would have arguably made her wiki-notable prior to EHT (established in 2007). But even if the article solely focused on her Wifi-5g activities, the conspiracy label is far from demonstrated. Wireless device radiation and health explains the evidence for safety is mixed and inconclusive. Davis seems to have been an active player in this process, frequently interviewed or featured to comment on studies, and is often presented simply as an expert who may have counter views, but not labeled an activist or conspiracist: e.g.. The EHT seems to be similar to the Environmental Working Group, which also calls for more research and urges caution, and shares views on cellphones with the American Academy of Pediatrics per Vox. It is true that professional Skeptic Lorne Trottier, in a scathing review, explicitly calls Davis' third book "a tract that conspiracy theorists will love" and argues she promotes conspiracies, but this does not mean his is the dominant view, nor that it is a defining trait of the subject. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to re-add those tags. Thank you for explaining your position. I do think the emphasis of the article is now wrong. This subject is better known for her work with EHTrust than anything she did prior to that era. Prior to EHTrust she was never a public figure, in the way that she is today. I don't think there's enough reliable secondary sources to show that her work prior to EHTrust would have made her notable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theory categories 

message: Currently, we're using an Ars Technica source for the statement:
:"Davis and the Environmental Health Trust have been accused of using low quality sources."
The source doesn't actually mention Davis, and the only sentences in which it mentions the Environmental Health Trust are:
:"Fortunately, this one has been placed online by an organization that consistently promotes the idea that cell phones create health risks. The Environmental Health Trust's involvement shouldn't be seen as a positive or a negative; they've promoted very low-quality material in the past, but the organization would undoubtedly promote higher quality studies if those agreed with its stance." 
I think it is ok` to draw the conclusion that a comment about the EHT probably relates also to Davis, given that she is founder and President, but given that the source doesn't mention EHT again, I don't see that we can make any further claims from that source. Accordingly, I've removed the additional text of "... and of selecting those that support their conclusions despite the lack of a conclusive link between exposure and cancer", because while that may be the case, it isn't mentioned in the Ars Technica article. I have no hassles with putting it back in if another RS makes covers additional claims. - Bilby (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Health Trust