Talk:Trace Amounts

Not impartial in tone

Words like "anti-vaccine" and "anti-vaccination" violate WP:NPOV, specifying that articles must be impartial in tone. Realskeptic (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine is simply a descriptor of a position that opposes vaccination. There is nothing inherently problematic about the word. jps (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Which this documentary does not, and any use of such is a lie. Realskeptic (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This documentary promotes false claims that vaccines cause harm. jps (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, that does not address my point at all re WP:NPOV. Realskeptic (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Being wrong about something and being against it are two different things.Realskeptic (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Anti-vaccine" and "anti-vaccination" are an accurate description of this film and its proponents. Neither WP:NPOV nor a general notion of impartiality compel us to describe anti-vaccination activists or their media output using those advocates' preferred soft-pedal adjectives. (Indeed, impartiality requires us to describe this film and these advocates in accordance with the consensus of scientific and biomedical experts.) I have removed your {POV} tag from the article, because you have misunderstood how NPOV works. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I know how WP:NPOV works. There were never any soft-pedal adjectives. The wording used before accurately described what this documentary is. The wording used now is that which is used by critics, but it shouldn't be used in the Wikipedia entry for aforementioned reasons. There is no consensus of scientists that says otherwise; scientists come to consensus on scientific issues, not on what positions a documentary film advocates or does not advocate for. Glad you've at least responded, finally. Realskeptic (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The "positions a documentary film advocates" (explicitly or implicitly) are very much subject to evaluation and criticism by scientists and physicians where those positions impinge on biomedical and public health topics. The real hang-up here, though, is that you don't like Wikipedia's use of "anti-vaccination" to accurately describe anti-vaccination films, positions, or advocates—and I can't help you with that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

They can criticize them all they want but that does not make them right to say this documentary opposes one thing when it actually opposes something else; if anything, it would suggest they have an agenda beyond simply being scientists of some sort. The truth is I have no problem with anything anti-vaccination being correctly labeled as such, but you and others clearly have a problem with WP:AGF and WP:NPOV. In this instance, it looks like a film is being intentionally misrepresented in order to malign it. Clearly, that would constitute an unresolved dispute. Realskeptic (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus must be specified, not misrepresented as unchallenged

Words like "scientific consensus" are vague and overly broad, the source must be specified. Additionally, the integrity of the consensus is challenged. Realskeptic (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The scientific consensus isn't overturned – or sensibly challenged, for the purposes of WP:WEIGHT – by a single boutique, fringe film. (There also exist, for example, fringe films which claim that the WTC towers were brought down by explosives secretly planted by a U.S. government agency—this does not mean that the consensus, for the purposes of writing a Wikipedia article, is not that the jet collisions and subsequent fire collapsed the WTC towers.)

To avoid further confusion on this point, I've piped the link under scientific consensus to point to Thiomersal controversy#Scientific consensus (rather than just scientific consensus). The new, more specific link provides extensive sourcing to support the assertion. I don't think it would be helpful or necessary to copy and paste all of the dozen-plus relevant supporting references from that article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

As WP:WEIGHT means representing competing views "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject," portrayals of IOM's position as undisputed scientific consensus and Trace Amounts as "fringe" would clearly go against that policy. Since IOM's only response to evidence that its report was anything but scientific includes a false accusation of Kennedy "fabricating quotations", such portrayals are an annihilation of WP:WEIGHT. Realskeptic (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comment above simply restates your misleading and demonstrably-false assertion that the consensus on thiomersal-containing vaccines is based solely on the IOM's position. You know that this statement is false because I specifically addressed the point in my comment to which you were replying, which linked to Thiomersal controversy#Scientific consensus and the multiple sources provided there. You need to stop misrepresenting an overall scientific consensus as an IOM opinion; more generally, you need to stop engaging in WP:IDHT behavior or you will be topic-banned or blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I am hearing you very well. The section you link to does not support your claim. It states: The scientific consensus on the subject is reflected in a follow up report that was subsequently published in 2004 by the Institute of Medicine, which took into account new data that had been published since the 2001 report.

The IOM report does not reflect consensus, it reflects the opinions of a small group of participants whose decisions were made in a series of private meetings. That is not how consensus is achieved: Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review.

Additionally, the references that follow do not count as "further evidence" of a consensus. At best they seem to just describe endorsements or adoptions of the IOM's position from groups that did not sponsor the report, judging mostly by the titles since about half the links don't even work. At worst, they do not even link to position statements on causality, cite the CDC which sponsored the report, or redundantly cite the IOM report. The report's conclusion and integrity garnered substantial criticism from scientists, Congress and other reliable sources, but those are not even represented in that section as they should be per WP:WEIGHT. In short, the section you linked to completely misrepresents consensus on this topic.

I would have no problem discussing my concerns with you, provided you adhere to WP:AGF and cease any threat to disrupt my work via blocks or bans which constitutes harassment. Any faction that engages in this type of behavior is not a consensus of editors. Realskeptic (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)