This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. COVID-19 Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about COVID-19. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about COVID-19 at the Reference desk.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. 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. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The Reddit subreddit r/HermanCainAward is a fertile site for names. Of course only a fraction of those listed there are suitable for this page, but given how many are listed, it should help. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 06:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect that sifting through the non-notable reddit threads would be something of a rabbit hole. BD2412 T 08:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you're right. I read the subreddit for a few minutes then gave up. Yikes! rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may find our wiki helpful. https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/wiki/hall-of-cain Hubrisandscandals (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • At this time we are avoiding listing actual names in the article, and merely reporting on the phenomenon. BD2412 T 19:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the following from the page for now because I do not find them to be noteworthy.

• Caleb Wallace, who "campaigned against mask mandates in Texas", died from COVID-19 in August 2021.^[1]
• Steve Shurden, 58, Oklahoma nurse. Prior to his death from COVID-19 in October 2021, he had written anti-vaccine poems that he had posted to his social media, and "had purchased a new touring RV, with the aim of traveling around and protesting 'healthcare genocide'".^[2]
• Hai Shoulian, a 57 year old Israeli who died in September 2021 of COVID-19, was "a vocal opponent of vaccines against the coronavirus" and "remained defiantly opposed to vaccines" while hospitalized for the virus.^[3]
• Mark Parhar, 48, described as a "COVID-19 denier and conspiracy theorist".^[4]
• Gary Matthews, 46-year-old artist.^[5]

Cheers! BD2412 T 04:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User:BD2412, I don't know that notability here needs to mean "has an article". Noteworthiness is enough, IMO, if rigorously verified. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, mention in a RS, not notability, is the requirement for inclusion here. I think the fact that RS have mentioned them BECAUSE of their anti-science, Darwin Award eligible, behaviors means their mention is not trivial and thus worthy of inclusion. That connection can be our own ad hoc inclusion criteria.
  • I'd suggest those names be restored as there doesn't seem to be any policy-based reason to leave them out. If there are too many, then keep those where that connection was most well-known, IOW activists with a platform. -- Valjean (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following list has been compiled for this article. I am moving it here to discuss whether we should have such a list, and if so what the criteria for inclusion in the list should be.

For the record, I do not think it should be limited to subjects with a Wikipedia article, but should include those who fall below general encyclopedic notability, but are still noteworthy in context for their political office, or degree of involvement in antivaccine activities. BD2412 T 01:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the list useful, and I agree with your criteria. But I surmise there will be a lot of WP:CRYBLP over this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I share Hob Gadling's POV. See my comment in the previous section. We shouldn't strive for an exhaustive list, but should include activists with a platform and those who were ALSO clearly notable for other reasons.
• Attempts by editors to minimize this phenomenon should be resisted. Reliable sources have already determined that the way and reason for these deaths is not trivial and is notable. We should honor that. Their deaths should not be in vain, but serve as a warning to others. If the Darwin Award was mentioned by a RS, that should be mentioned. Also prioritize younger (like under 50) victims. -- Valjean (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these two articles are important to mention in the wiki article:

• Hiltzik, Michael (January 10, 2022). "Column: Mocking anti-vaxxers' COVID deaths is ghoulish, yes — but may be necessary". Los Angeles Times.
• Richman, Jackson (January 10, 2022). "LA Times Under Fire For Column on Mocking Deaths of Anti-Vaxxers". Mediaite.

--Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Softlavender: I agree, these are useful and timely. Please feel free to improve the draft as you see fit. BD2412 T 14:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a comment from the LA Times piece, though more might be drawn from it. BD2412 T 15:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi BD2412, I'll let you handle all of it. I saw your post on Drmies' talkpage, and then happened to see the LA Times article and some responses to it mentioned on social media, so I thought I'd pass it along. Since you are familiar with your draft and what has been included so far, I'll let you handle what to add. (I don't really have the time right now to analyze the full scope and tone of your draft to decide where something fits in and how much to add. Thanks!) Softlavender (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Softlavender: I have used both sources, appropriately, I think. BD2412 T 01:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it may make sense to mention specific names in context of the larger topic, I don't think a list of names (even in paragraph form) is needed. Per BLP I would see this as a case of doing harm. Yes, the same facts exist in other articles but compiling them into a list here looks too much like the lists this article is reporting upon. Springee (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly say that, per the requirements of WP:BLP, we should remove any statements that are unsourced, or found only in self-published sources. I suppose we could substitute descriptions for actual names in some instances. Let me try that. BD2412 T 21:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: I have replaced all instances of personal names in the article with rather vague descriptions of the subjects indicating what they did or said, rather than what their names were. BD2412 T 21:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, thank you. I do appreciate the balance you are trying to draw here. I would still feel better without the section but perhaps this name free option is the best compromise. Springee (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a reasonable solution, but to be clear, this is merely a proposal on my part. If there is a consensus by others to include more identifying information, and information about more subjects addressed by the article topic, I will have no say in that. BD2412 T 01:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I think the names are actually the biggest part here. These people are no longer alive, in many if not all cases they sought publicity themselves in order to promote their views, and (I assume) they are all properly verified. I say the names should be in. Softlavender, I'm interested in your opinion too, if you've had the chance to look at it. BD2412, you can always start an RfC--you don't want just me and Springee contributing here, I'm sure. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article says what it says, and including the names or a list of names is neither a prerequisite to having an article on this topic, nor necessarily forbidden by policy. However, it is not a drama that I intend to invite, given that articles focused on lists of victims have been uniformly deleted in deletion discussions. If someone else wants to start an RfC on the question, I will probably steer clear of it and let the community decide. BD2412 T 01:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, I kind of don't want to wade into the issue here; it was sort of happenstance that I saw the thread on your usertalk and then the very same day saw an article or two about the subject being bandied about on social media. I think the matter (overall; not the encyclopedic documentation of media reporting) is too sad for me personally to comment on, and might involve some of my opinions about the entire 2-year pandemic haul, which opinions/experiences are personal and not particularly germane to this article or its content. If there is not enough input right now about the list, then I guess casting a wider net via RFC might indeed be in order (and no, I don't personally want to participate in that either). Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender--sorry to bring you in here, but thanks for your note. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I share the view expressed by User:Drmies. Also, there is no policy-based reason for leaving out the names. Just word things with care and sensitivity. There are situations where family members and friends have shared their opinions, and that can also be included. -- Valjean (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean:, I personally agree that there is no policy-based reason to leave these out, but I am also cognizant of the decisions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prominent COVID-19 sceptics who have died from COVID-19, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critics of COVID-19 safety measures that have died from COVID-19, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of COVID-19 deniers who died of COVID-19, all of which have ended in deletion of the articles in question because they primarily contained such lists. I would not be opposed to cataloguing notable instances, but I also would like to avoid getting drawn into the maelstrom that devoured those articles. BD2412 T 05:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there some way to prevent a consensus dictatorship, that is not based on PAG, making decisions here? We need to find a way to stop this kind of crap. It happens at articles, RfCs, and AfDs all the time! I'm sick of it. We often have little gangs of fringe editors fucking things up because they have a local consensus that doesn't have a single policy-based justification for their decision. "Consensus" must be based on cited PAG, but often it's just brute POV force. Ugh! -- Valjean (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine if we had an article on people in Hollywood who were sexually abused by people in the industry or public figures who were the victims of financial crimes. Both might, especially the former, might be articles we could conceivably write. Would such articles be made better by saying here is a list of people who otherwise didn't merit mention in the body of the article? It's one thing to mention some of the Metoo movement participants in context of how they shaped the narrative. It's quite another to find someone who might be embarrassed by their victim status and include them on a list simply because they are well known. A list of names (even in prose form) doesn't improve the understanding of the topic but it does raise BLP-recently deceased concerns. As such it absolutely has no place in the article. I don't think the AfD concern is valid since this article doesn't need the grave dancing list to exist. If this article were put up for AfD I would oppose for that reason. However, I can certainly see a RfC that finds that any mentions of specific individuals must be in context and lists/proses lists of qualified people would not be OK. Springee (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me a single anti-vaccine advocate from the above list who is embarrassed by their beliefs? Thanks. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has that been a BLP standard? When we remove content that violates BLP rules we don't wait for a complaint from the subject first. Springee (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're turning this on its head. Ownership behavior is not allowed by victims. They are governed by BLP and COI, and WP:PUBLICFIGURE dictates how we treat mention of such persons. If they object, then we double down and find even more RS. We don't give in and remove mention.

Also, these people are dead, so the question might be a bit sarcastic(?). -- Valjean (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does extend for two years beyond the death of the subject, I think in consideration of their survivors. BD2412 T 18:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unsourced or poorly sourced negative content isn't a good thing. For properly sourced negative content for public figures, we don't have to wait. We are not dealing with strongly negative allegations of a crime or other serious wrongdoing, so we don't have to wait two years. For the type of thing we're dealing with, I'm not sure two years applies at all, but we can wait a month or so, not that policy requires it. I may have missed it, but this is the first time I have ever heard two years mentioned in a BLP discussion, and I've been here since 2003. The wording at WP:BDP is worth reading. -- Valjean (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it says "two years at the outside", and I suppose I had internalized that as two years on the safe side. BD2412 T 00:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kleinpecan, a few did become embarrassed before they died, and for that reason should be mentioned in that context. Their warnings to those they previously considered allies are instructive content: "I have been dangerously wrong. Please do not do as I have done."

Springee is right about context, but then no one here is advocating a bare list without any context. We should include relevant context for each named mention. Censorship is not allowed, but sensitivity is a good thing when mentioning people by name. The more notable a person and their public stance, the greater the justification and necessity for mentioning them. -- Valjean (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the recent history of similar list articles that have been deleted, my impression is that this article should avoid being presented as a list, especially that its current state does show that enough context exists for an article about the phenomenon and its media coverage instead... This does not prevent the mention of prominent cases (some are definitely WP:DUE). —PaleoNeonate – 02:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph with the names conspicuously missing reads pretty awkwardly to me. I do agree that prose is preferable to a list, though. My vote would be to include names, but to have a high standard for inclusion: (a) only people with a public profile (no private individuals who voiced their anti-vaccine stance privately); (b) only notable people (as in WP:N, which would usually mean they have an article or would qualify for one), although they don't have to be notable for anti-vaccine advocacy; (c) must have a citation for their death from covid/covid-related complications; and (d) must have at least one citation which covers in nontrivial detail their anti-vaccine activism from before they died. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with most of this, but if names are named, I don't necessarily think mention should be limited to WP:N-notable people, as there will be some who fall below that standard who I would still think are noteworthy within the context of this topic. A good example, I think, would be Kelly Ernby, an Orange County, California, Deputy District Attorney who was previously an unsuccessful candidate for the state legislature, and whose antivaccine activism preceded the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses to her death from the disease at age 46 (one of the younger cases documented) sparked a substantial amount of debate over how sympathetically or unsympathetically antivaccine advocate deaths from COVID-19 should be treated. BD2412 T 20:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering both DUE and BLP (as applied to the recently deceased), I don't think we should include non-notable people. Looking at Ernby, it sure looks like she might meet WP:GNG. Wouldn't be notable for either the political run or coverage related to her death on their own, but there's no BLP2E. Also, as per WP:NOPAGE, it's entirely possible that someone is notable, but that the best place to cover that person is as part of a larger topic. That may also apply here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression this article was written very carefully to avoid naming names. I made a "test the water" edit adding a name via a wikilink, and the edit was embraced, so we could really go any direction with the names. If keeping the names low key is an issue for some reason, just wikilinking the names could be a good option. Example: a 64-year-old American televangelist. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that edit. It's exactly the sort of example I think needs to be removed. The source for inclusion doesn't talk about the phenomena of these lists or articles about the subject of the media talking about this topic. Instead it was an article about the person. If we just glue together a bunch of examples of articles about the people then this article has no reason to exist. I didn't revert the edit because I think it would be unproductive absent a clear agreement on what should/shouldn't be included in this article. Springee (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not absolutely opposed to "naming names", but at the end of the day, you have to ask what encyclopedic purpose it serves. Most of the people who would be named are obscure to most of the population of readers. If I say "one of the people who died was Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shabadoo Vandalay", that is much less meaningful to the average reader than if I say that one of the people who died was a radio host (which presumes an audience) who made specified arguments against vaccination, and then perhaps changed his mind when he got sick. There is the phenomenon, and then there are the victims, and the names of the victims do not change the phenomenon. BD2412 T 02:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a top template but after a concern by Valjean on my talk page it may indeed be better to just leave a note here.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critics of COVID-19 safety measures that have died from COVID-19
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of COVID-19 deniers who died of COVID-19
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prominent COVID-19 sceptics who have died from COVID-19

—PaleoNeonate – 02:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note Category:Anti-vaccination activist deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic, which is currently nominated for deletion. BD2412 T 02:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean, Drmies, DMacks, Hob Gadling, Rsjaffe, Dunutubble, Clarityfiend, Bluerasberry, Peterkingiron, Mvqr, Laurel Lodged, and Headphase: Just a head's up that there is now a WP:FRINGE discussion on whether this article should exist, with vague talk of an AfD. It is apparent that some editors weighing in on that discussion have not actually read the article, as they seem to think it contains a list and is "celebrating" the deaths. BD2412 T 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion should have been started here. -- Valjean (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Herman Cain Award

I split the award from the text at Controversial Reddit communities. See Talk:Herman Cain Award for details. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bogdanoff brothers were prominent antivaxxers that died of covid. They were very famous in France, perhaps it's worth mentioning here. Tercer (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that they were both unvaccinated, but that doesn't make someone an antivaccine advocate. That term is reserved for those who are active and vocal in asserting that other people should not be vaccinated, and generally includes casting aspersions on the vaccines as a basis for that. The subjects of this article are people who occupy positions of influence in media or politics, and who use those positions specifically to argue against vaccines and vaccination. BD2412 T 17:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We would need to have RS saying they were anti-vaxxers, who promoted Covid denialism..Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we have a source that discusses these deaths in context of how the media creates these sorts of articles about anti-COVID-vaxxers who died of COVID they shouldn't be included in this article. Including them in this article (or any person in this article) because they happen to be an anti-vaxxer who's death was identified as ironic would effectively turn this into yet another list of anti-vaxxers who died etc. It would turn this article specifically into what a number of us have feared it will become. Springee (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That, too. I have seen sources indicating that they were unvaccinated. What we would need is a source specifically tying advocacy against vaccination to death from the disease, and ideally places that in the context of the larger pattern of the phenomenon. BD2412 T 21:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it was just a suggestion. You can see them spreading vaccination misinformation here, so they were advocates, put perhaps not so prominent, and anyway that is just a radio interview, I couldn't find anything in writing about their advocacy. Tercer (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently removed so it reminded me of its likely purpose: WP:SIGNIFICANCE as the article was also likely to get deleted. Unlike list-style articles (see previous discussions), it had to focus on the mediatization. —PaleoNeonate – 04:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is not some "magic word" effect by which the removal of the phrase "widely reported" causes the evaporation of the half-dozen high-level reliable sources independently reporting on this phenomenon. BD2412 T 19:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was the removing editor. As far as I can tell, the general notability guideline does not require the sources to be the judge of whether a topic is notable. Notability is something that is determined by Wikipedia based on our internal definitions of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. MarshallKe (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19
• Olavo de Carvalho
• Bob Enyart
• Doug Ericksen
• Dick Farrel
• Hans Kristian Gaarder
• Bernd Grimmer
• Marcus Lamb
• Bartolomeo Pepe
• Frédéric Sinistra
• Robert David Steele
• Phil Valentine

How about we document those as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.246.22 (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what this page is about, if you wish to create such an article feel free to do so. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that there are some "Pro-vaccine advocates" who are pro-vaccine precisely because immunological disorders prevent them from receiving the vaccine. In other words, there are unvaccinated advocates of vaccination, who would be vaccinated if they could, but can not be. BD2412 T 18:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would promote an unfair false balance: heart disease is common, COVID or not, vaccines or not, and other than rare temporary inflamation incidents that have possibly been linked to some vaccine, something that is mentioned as part of its possible rare side effects, there is no conclusive evidence showing a serious correlation. This article is different because evidence does demonstrate a protective effect against severe disease. —PaleoNeonate – 00:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]