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.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2023-05-18. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

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

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles COVID-19 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

A note to any admin or experienced editor who may review this Draft. The initial author of the draft is a single-purpose account who appears to be focused on an agenda to criticize a global scientific initiative. In this early draft, sources are already being used to support claims that are not mentioned in the sources. For example, footnote 4 cites a document that makes no mention of "starting his own strategic consulting firm". In my estimation, this is the work of someone with a dull axe to grind. - AppleBsTime (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear AppleBsTime,

Thank you for taking the time to review the draft and provide your feedback. I appreciate the vigilance in ensuring that the content on Wikipedia remains accurate, neutral, and well-sourced. In response to your concerns, please find a point-by-point address below:

1. Dubious Wikipedia:Single-purpose account: I understand your concern about potential single-purpose account (SPA) status of my account. Rest assured, I am an experienced Wikipedia editor with nearly 20 years of experience. I am using a legitimate Wikipedia:VALIDALT account due to need for privacy. GISAID is known to retaliate against people who do not praise it. I would encourage you to evaluate the content of the article objectively, independent of your pro-GISAID views, focussing on the content and its accuracy.
2. Agenda to criticize a global scientific initiative: In light of your feedback, I have reevaluated the tone and focus of the article to ensure there is no doubt it adheres to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.
3. Misuse of sources: I apologize for any inaccuracies in the use of sources. Specifically, regarding footnote 4, I have corrected the citation and removed any claim that is not supported by the source. Please review again and let me know if there is anything else you would like me to address.
4. Dull axe to grind: Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith and don't make such accusations without good evidence to back it up.

I invite you and other editors to contribute to the article, ensuring that it meets Wikipedia's high standards. Your expertise and constructive criticism is invaluable in maintaining the quality and reliability of the information on the platform.

Best regards,

AncientWalrus AncientWalrus (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this diff on April 1st, @Onel5969 added a ((notability)) tag during Page patrol.

I would like to document on the talk page why I think the page satisfies notability criteria.

According to WP:BASIC it is sufficient to show:

• significant coverage
• in multiple published secondary sources
• that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject.

Bogner, and his role in founding GISAID is covered in significant detail in multiple reliable, intellectually independent secondary sources. In particular the first devotes many paragraphs to Bogner. Both sources are of high reputation and reliability (Wallstreet Journal and Science):

• Zamiska, Nicholas (2006-08-31). "A Nonscientist Pushes Sharing Bird-Flu Data". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2023-04-01.
• Enserink, Martin (2007-02-16). "New Swiss Influenza Database to Test Promises of Access". Science. 315 (5814): 923–923. doi:10.1126/science.315.5814.923a. ISSN 0036-8075.
• Enserink, Martin (2006-08-25). "Pushed by an Outsider, Scientists Call for Global Plan to Share Flu Data". Science. 313 (5790): 1026–1026. doi:10.1126/science.313.5790.1026. ISSN 0036-8075.

There is continued coverage of Bogner's role as President of GISAID, more than 10 years after the initial foundation event in 2006.

The following recent articles all mention Bogner:

• Wadman, Meredith (2021-03-12). "Coronavirus sequence trove sparks frustration". Science. 371 (6534): 1086–1087. Bibcode:2021Sci...371.1086W. doi:10.1126/science.371.6534.1086. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 33707243. S2CID 232209221.
• "A critical genetic database is under fire". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2023-04-06.

Bogner is quoted in these reliable sources (just a selection):

• https://www.ft.com/content/bdb5e0ff-65fc-4dd7-a7bc-7fe2510476de
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/chinas-covid-outbreak-driven-by-existing-strains-global-consortium-finds/articleshow/96494882.cms
• https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/how-a-team-at-astar-played-a-big-role-in-the-global-fight-against-the-covid-19

Lastly, Bogner is President of an organization that receives significant high profile media coverage. This should additionally be considered for the determination of notability:

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/health/gisaid-says-review-is-not-complete-lifting-access-restrictions-to-the-authors-not-indicative-of-conclusion-of-investigation/article66656817.ece
• https://www.science.org/content/article/dispute-simmers-over-who-first-shared-sars-cov-2-s-genome
• https://www.ft.com/content/f0733683-cb6d-4578-915a-aa60d7ba4c1d
• COVID-origins report sparks debate over major genome hub GISAID (nature.com)

AncientWalrus (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just voicing disagreement with a good portion of the justifications seen above. I will say more later, but shortly here now, it's worth noting that "mentions" or (worse) "passing mentions" are rarely sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, there is WP:1E to consider. Bogner is almost exclusively mentioned in sources that happen to be focusing on GISAID -- the sources are not biographical features about Bogner. Consider Walter Goad -- his Wikipedia biography is illustrative of sources like an obituary, a book featuring an entire chapter about him with details about his childhood and early career, and even the Walter Goad Papers, a collection of the man's "correspondence, reports, and legal documents of both a professional and personal nature." That's why Goad has a Wikipedia biography, and for the same standard, why Peter Bogner does not merit one. - AppleBsTime (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:1E is not applicable here as it concerns people who are notable for 1 event. Being president and founder of an organization that has been in the news since 2006 is more than 1 event. AncientWalrus (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It feels like you are confusing Bogner for GISAID. Being the founder and president of an organization is one event, even if the organization persists for 100 years. Again, I'll repeat, there are barely any reliable sources with extensive coverage about Peter Bogner the person and his life, personality, role models, family, residence(s), education, etc. I won't say your argument grasps at straws, but it's beginning to feel a little desperate. - AppleBsTime (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A biography can be notable even if the subject is only notable for their role in a single organization. That has little to do with WP:1E. The question is whether the coverage contains mere passing mentions or quotes of Bogner as a spokeperson, or if they contain significant coverage about Bogner. MarioGom (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This reporting seems to be reliable and well-referenced, and suggest the need for a few more notable events and biographical subheadings, both to GISAID and to Mr. Bogner. Unless AppleBsTime feels the need to goalkeep either page any further.

The casual observer might start to suspect AppleBsTime may have undeclared conflicts of interest in these postings.

https://www.science.org/content/article/invented-persona-behind-key-pandemic-database 24.50.226.108 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of notability tag

With the recent very extensive Science news piece almost exlusively about Peter Bogner, there should no longer be any doubt about his notability. There has been significant coverage in reliable sources (Wall Street Journal, Science) over two decades. AncientWalrus (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article was proposed for deletion. There was unanimous support to keep it, the proposer then withdrew the nomination and it was a speedy keep decision (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Bogner). I think that means we can archive this notability discussion as a result. AncientWalrus (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Smartse removed the sentence He has been a frequent participant at the World Economic Forum. in this recent edit due to can't find any refs to support "He has been a frequent participant at the World Economic Forum.") which is fine, but I remember reading about this in reliable sources. I will go and try to find it and post my results here. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was quick, found something here:

Bogner's role is a bit of an enigma even to those who have worked closely with him. [...] Well-connected and a frequent participant at the annual celebrity-studded World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Bogner says he used his “talent to make people talk to each other” to broker the letter.
— https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.313.5790.1026

Now, that article was written in 2006, when it was reasonable for reporters to take Bogner's word. Now, with recent revelations of his criminal convictions and history of lying, I'm not sure if a reporter writing that he said that he was a frequent visitor is enough of a reliable source. Any thoughts @Smartse? AncientWalrus (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the source. It is of course a reliable source, but that doesn't mean we have to include it. It does sound a bit promotional and given that the WEF link is part of the altered GISAID origin story that the 2023 Enserink article unearthed [1] I'd say it would be better to omit it rather than risk including something promotional or inaccurate. SmartSE (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, best to treat these uncorroborated claims as doubtful and exclude for potential sefl-promotion. I just wanted to make clear that we are not including it for the right reasons. When I added that sentence at article creation I did so in light of that source. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/gisaid-peter-bogner-covid-pandemic-database/ SmartSE (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Smartse: Interesting. I suppose the question is, how do we weigh criticism of the conclusions drawn by one reputable source by another, equally reputable source? BD2412 T 15:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • @BD2412: Yes it's a tricky one. The main thought I had though was that it helps determine the weight to give parts of the Science article i.e. what are the main claims it makes. We can also use the Telegraph article to note that Bogner refutes the claims made in the Science article. The fact that they were also unable to track down Steven Meyers is also worth including. SmartSE (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This Telegraph piece isn't equally reliable as Science. The Telegraph spoke to half a dozen people, Science spoke to ~10x more. There are other reasons why this Telegraph article isn't very reliable, I can explain when I have more time. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That's not how things work on Wikipedia, though. The Telegraph is a general news source, and is generally considered one of the more reliable sources available for articles on people and events, as opposed to technical aspects of topics. We would weigh Science over The Telegraph for questions of how viruses work or what is the mass of the Oort Cloud. For news reporting, such as an investigation of personal conduct, The Telegraph will have more investigative experience and credibility than Science. BD2412 T 20:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Science's investigative reporting is completely separate to it's scientific publishing though and I'd consider it far more reliable than The Telegraph who are well known for publishing utter junk e.g. [2]. In this specific case though, I think The Telegraph is reliable, and with only two sources all we can do is weight them approximately equally. SmartSE (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @Smartse: Three things in particular in the Telegraph article caught my eye. The first was the rather common-sense acknowledgment that there are commercial forces and other power players in the field for whom the existence of GISAID is an obstacle to potentially lucrative privatization, or at least to other extensions of control over the field. The second is the equally sensible observation that GISAID, by the very nature of its position, will inevitably find itself at the center of disputes between groups of scientists, which will be pitched to leave one side disappointed, and inclined to blame GISAID itself for the outcome. Both of these issues are perhaps better discussed in the GISAID article. The third point, focusing on Bogner, is his history with the SEC matter, where the Telegraph has clearly dug deeper and found that ultimately there was no "there" there. BD2412 T 20:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Note: There is also this Vanity Fair article, which I added to the article, and which covers much of the same ground as the Telegraph article. The Vanity Fair article does not reference the Telegraph article, and appears to be independent of it. BD2412 T 23:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]