Talk:Andrew Wakefield

Vaxxed, Propaganda.

Describing Vaxxed as Propaganda is a statement of opinion rather than fact. The term propaganda only colours the readers opinion, rather giving them the information to reach there own conclusions. Quoting the criticism the film received on opening is enough to make readers aware that doubts have been cast over the documentaries credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.22.9 (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The description seems to be both factually accurate and well-supported by the half-dozen or so footnotes provided. We aren't even paraphrasing; 'propaganda' (or a close variation) is the literal wording used in most of them: "Propaganda reel", Toronto Star; "loaded with anti-vax propaganda" (with the word "documentary" enclosed in scare quotes), Slate; "tone-deaf agitprop", IndieWire; "propaganda film", Respectful Insolence.

It would be irresponsible of us to mislead our readers – and misrepresent the sources we use – by watering down our description of the film's nature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Vaxxed is the very definition of propaganda, and it would be irresponsible to characterize a film full of assertions that have been repeatedly disproven as anything else. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It's referenced. So, it is a non issue, no matter what the anti vax crowd says. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

What constitutes propaganda is not a matter of opinion, even the people who create and distribute propaganda are aware that they are disseminating propaganda, including the creators of the propaganda in question. Just bring up the current dictionary description of contemporary word usage and you find that the video is propaganda. The whole point of the video was to propagandize, after all. Damotclese (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Tornado chaser (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: Based on the Merriam-Webster definition anything that promotes an agenda (political activism, advertising ect) could be considered propaganda, google has a similar definition, but lists propaganda as a derogatory term, which seems consist with its everyday usage, calling into question the neutrality of calling a movie propaganda.

Why is Vaxxed called propaganda but not other agenda driven productions, should all political campaigning be called propaganda? If propaganda just means something intended to promote an agenda, then isn't the phrase "anti-vaccine propaganda" redundant? "Anti-vaccine" is a neutral and accurate description of this movie, making it clear that it promotes an anti-vaxx agenda, while propaganda seems more of a derogatory term that doesn't inform the reader of anything.

So my question is: what about Vaxxed warrants the label "propaganda" ? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources. See the discussion directly above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I imagine that the authors, editors, and publishers of the multiple pieces cited are well aware of the definitions and usage of English words, and selected their words with those definitions in mind. We are following their word choices. (Not all advocacy is propaganda; merely espousing a particular viewpoint or being "agenda driven" in insufficient to warrant the use of the term. Propaganda tends to involve playing fast and loose with the truth, at best, and often drifts into misrepresentation and outright fabrication. Certainly there will be some gray areas in drawing is-it-or-isn't-it boundary; again, that's why Wikipedia follows the sources.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: I see, the term "propaganda" is used to mean the movie is dishonest, not just to color the readers opinion, but I am still concerned with the idea that sources alone justify calling Vaxxed "propaganda" this is not an issue of sourcing but one of neutrality. Bias sources may meet WP:RS but this does not create an exemption to NPOV. This should probably be atrabutted by saying "has been called propaganda by....." rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice.Tornado chaser (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean "not negative". NPOV we means that we follow reliable sources, and follow the weight that they give. It does not mean "fair and balanced". Sources that are considered reliable in WP describe Vaxxed as propaganda, and they describe the notion for which it advocates as dangerous pseudoscience, and they describe the propagator as a discredited medical fraud. None of this is ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, “neutral point of view” does not necessarily mean “your point of view”. I really don't see any basis for your concern; all of the descriptors in the article are sourced -- that is, attributed. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Put still another way: “neutral point of view” does not mean sitting on every fence between any two positions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I never said Vaxxed didn't promote pseudoscience or that Wakefield wasn't a fraud, and of course NPOV doesn't mean my point of view. Your right that NPOV doesn't mean sitting on the fence when dealing with issues of fact, but It does mean not taking sides on matters of opinion. The issue here is weather it is an opinion or fact that Vaxxed is propaganda, many sources call Vaxxed "propaganda" so it is well sourced, but a popular opinion shared by multiple sources is still an opinion, you could probably find many sources that call certain politicians racist but it would still be an opinion and therefor wouldn't be appropriate to state in Wikipedia's voice by saying "this politician is a racist" but you could say something like "this politician has been called a racist by....." My concern is that people are using sourcing alone to justify calling Vaxxed "propaganda", but sourcing cannot turn an opinion into a fact. I am suggesting the article state "Vaxxed has been called propaganda by..." WP:NPOV supports this, see the section on bias sources. If anyone can say why it is fact not opinion that Vaxxed is propaganda i will accept the consensus and move on. But so far all I have seen is people saying it is sourced so it's not an opinion, RS can still have opinions but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should report there opinions as fact. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

A statement that is racist is racist; something that is propaganda is propaganda. See WP:SPADE. You are not getting any traction here, nor presenting any policy-and-guideline based arguments. I will not respond further until you do. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

it seems a consensus has arisen that it is fact not opinion to call Vaxxed propaganda, so I will not debate this point further. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2017

I think the article on Andrew Wakefield needs reviewing as he has now been exonerated, cf www.autisminvestigated.com/the-lancet-dr-andrew-wakefield/ 31 Dec 2016 - Happy New Year: The Lancet Acknowledges Dr. Andrew Wakefield Is Exonerated. ... While The Lancet ombudsman Dr. Malcolm Molyneux refused to reverse the retraction of exonerated gastroenterologist Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s landmark paper on post-vaccination autism, Dr. Molyneux did ... 80.44.248.64 (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

See [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The autisminvestigated blog post asserts that

"While The Lancet ombudsman Dr. Malcolm Molyneux refused to reverse the retraction of exonerated gastroenterologist Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s landmark paper on post-vaccination autism, Dr. Molyneux did acknowledge that the UK General Medical Council’s findings of misconduct against Dr. Wakefield had been overturned...."

This assertion is not supported by the email that the blog quotes, nor by objective reality—Wakefield has never been exonerated in any sense, Molyneux's email never described Wakefield as such, and the GMC's findings against Wakefield were never overturned. The blog is an inaccurate and unreliable source. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Prof. John Walker-Smith wins appeal against UK'sGeneral Medical Council regulatory board 28 June 2017

'In a stunning reversal, world renowned pediatric gastroenterologist Prof. John Walker-Smith won his appeal against the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council regulatory board that had ruled against both him and Andrew Wakefield for their roles in the 1998 Lancet MMR paper, which raised questions about a link to autism. The complete victory means that Walker-Smith has been returned to the status of a fully licensed physician in the UK, although he had already retired in 2001 — six years before the GMC trial even began. 'Justice John Mitting ruled on the appeal by Walker-Smith, saying that the GMC “panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it.” He said that its conclusions were based on “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion.”' Bougatsa42 (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)