Talk:Vaxxed

Vaxxed II a 2019 sequel to Vaxxed

https://www.newsweek.com/vaxxed-2-tickets-anti-vaccine-documentary-sequel-secret-blocked-1468899

Now there are reports that Vaxxed II has been released in some states in the USA as of November 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:F53B:4867:CD01:39EF (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt11137248/

Here is a preliminary review to Vaxxed II as of November 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:AC9D:980C:EED9:72F (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Same shit, different bucket. Guy (help!) 18:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/16/vaccines-measles-mumps-polio-hepatitis-b

And here is more on Vaxxed II being mentioned as one of two groups spreading ads on Facebook over vaccines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:7048:73A3:1E:8344 (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Vaxxed is not a pseudoscience documentary because it does not purport to be a scientific work. It is also questionable to label it 'propaganda'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please remove the pseudoscience label from the Vaxxed documentary description. It is not correct to call it pseudoscience as it does not purport to be science. You might disagree with the conclusions or not rate the quality of the journalism but it is incorrect to call it pseudoscience.

Furthermore, it is not clear why it is labelled 'propaganda'. There is no formally accepted definition of propaganda that I'm aware of that distinguishes between regular documentaries with a purpose (for example 'Seaspiracy', which obviously contains calls to action) and this documentary. So either all documentaries which seek to encourage action should also be labelled propaganda or none of them should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DovicKnoble (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Those terms are used by reliable sources. You are a random person on the internet. Weighing... Reliable sources win, you lose. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• For future reference, the argument "X cannot possibly be fakeY because X doesn't claim to be Y," is an extremely popular argument among those who defend pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and fringe politics, which is extremely easy to see through and stands absolutely no chance of convincing anyone who has even the slightest clue what they're talking about.

It's also completely spurious, because the vast majority of actual scientific work doesn't claim to be science. It's understood that when a paper is published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed journal of science, that it is science. It is further understood that when a popular work that discusses science by using the claims and arguments of science and quoting scientists, it is also science.

By that same token, any paper published in a well-known journal of pseudoscience is pseudoscience, and any popular that discusses pseudoscience by using the claims and arguments of the pseudoscience and quoting pseudoscientists, it is also pseudoscience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

DovicKnoble, it's a propaganda film that promotes pseudoscience. And... that's it, really. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow random people on the internet. The problem is this is clearly not a work of science as it has not sought to arrive at any conclusions using the scientific method nor has it sought to publish them in a scientific (or pseudoscientific) paper, as you mention. Science is the attempt at falsification of hypotheses using observable, quantifiable data. This film is not science. It is clearly a documentary. Documentaries are not and never have been considered science, they are in the category of journalism, which is not science. Of course, documentaries may refer to science but this is not the same as being science. I also still do not understand by what token you have decided that this film can be considered 'propaganda'. Are you using Jacques Ellul's definition of propaganda? Or Edward Bernays'? Please enlighten me. 81.102.44.111 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)DovicKnoble

This was already explained to you above, but once more: that is how reliable sources describe it. End of story. Jeppiz (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The 'reliable sources' that refer to the documentary as 'propaganda' do not explain why they consider Vaxxed to be propaganda, it appears to be used as a slur

The first reference (Eric Kohn) does not mention propaganda. It accuses Vaxxed of being intentionally dishonest.. The link to the second source that describes it as propaganda is broken. The Forbes reference describes it as propaganda but does not explain what it means by 'propaganda'. It appears to be used as a slur to discredit the film. The same goes for the ScienceBlogs reference, it doesn't explain why it considers the film to be propaganda and just uses the word as a pejorative.

I think it's important to use the word propaganda appropriately and consistently. You could consider Vaxxed to be propaganda but I would like to know what criteria you deem it to be propaganda and then to apply it to other documentaries, where appropriate.

It is not sufficient to simply point to 'reliable sources' where an apparently subjective judgement is being made. At least, the sources should explain what they mean by 'propaganda' but I doubt, in this case, they would even know themselves. Therefore, it is not encyclopedic to describe this film as propaganda and it should be flagged as such, explained or changed.