Talk:Andrew Wakefield: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:05, 12 July 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrew Wakefield article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 90 days

A news item involving Andrew Wakefield was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 January 2011.

Wikipedia

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Alternative medicine B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Alternative Views B‑class 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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia B‑class

	Biography portal 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

England B‑class Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine B‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism B‑class 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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Autism Unassessed Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture 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.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Andrew Wakefield.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Is the article with its negative material biased? (No.)

A1: No. The article with its negative material is not biased. While the article must include both positive and negative views according to the policies of Wikipedia, the balance must accurately reflect the balance in those sources according to their reliability. There are two relevant policies: biographies of living people and neutral point of view. According to these two policies, both of which are non-negotiable, we must reflect the subject as it is seen by reliable independent sources, but we must do so accurately and in a neutral way.

Q2: Should material critical of Wakefield be in the lead? (Yes.)

A2: Yes. Wakefield is at the heart of one of the most discussed scientific frauds in recent times. This is not Wikipedia's judgment, it is the consensus view of reliable independent sources, we reflect those.

Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV? (Yes.)

A3: Yes. Including negative material is part of achieving a neutral article. A neutral point of view does not necessarily equate to a sympathetic point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view – both positive and negative – in rough proportion to their prominence.

Q4: Does Wikipedia consider the MMR-autism link a fringe theory? (Yes)

A4: Yes. The MMR-autism link is described as refuted in all significant independent sources. It is a fringe view.

Q5: Should studies that show a link between autism and MMR (or vaccines more generally) go into the article? (Only if they meet WP:MEDRS.)

A5: Only if they meet WP:MEDRS. We do not include low quality sources that contradict much higher quality sources. At present there are no studies meeting our sourcing guidelines for medical topics which credibly support the MMR-autism link, and there is an enormous body of research showing that there is no temporal link or association.

Q6: Should another article called "Criticism of Andrew Wakefield" be created? (No.)

A6: No. Another article called "Criticism of Andrew Wakefield" should not be created. This is called a "POV fork" and is discouraged.

Q7: Should evidence of a link between the gut and / or its microbiome and autism be included in the article? (No.)

A7: No. This would be a novel synthesis from primary sources, which is forbidden. Wakefield's work did not address this, and even if there were a proven causal link between the gut or its microbiome and autism, this would be irrelevant to Wakefield's published research and its subsequent refutation and retraction.

Q8: Should all references to material critical of Wakefield be put in a single section in the article? (No.)

A8: No. Sources critical of Wakefield should be integrated normally in the course of presenting the topic and its reception, not shunted into a single criticism section. Such segregation is generally frowned upon as poor writing style on Wikipedia.

Q9: Should the article characterize Wakefield's work as fraudulent? (Yes.)

A9: Yes. Wakefield's research has been retracted due to undeclared conflicts of interest and has been criticised in the literature for ethical and methodological issues. It is credibly identified as research fraud, and there is no significant informed dissent from this judgment in the published literature.

Q10: Should the article include favourable commentary from "vaccine skeptical" sources? (No.)

A10: No. The article may only contain material from reliable independent sources, and medical claims must be drawn only from sources that meet our subject-specific sourcing requirements. Sources within the anti-vaccination movement rarely meet our general sourcing reliability guidelines and almost never meet our medical sourcing guidelines. We do not accept agenda-driven claims from poor quality sources to "balance" more reliable sources, however much we might like or dislike the conclusions of either.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Andrew Wakefield be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Andrew Wakefield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a huge cover up

...by the medical establishment to protect themselves from litigation.

Meanwhile, many children worldwide are being damaged by vaccines every day.

This posting will sink without trace but at least somebody will have read a hint of the truth about Wakefield. Wythy (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 12:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
+== This article is a huge cover up ==
+...by the medical establishment to protect themselves from litigation.
+Meanwhile, many children worldwide are being damaged by vaccines every day.
+This posting will sink without trace but at least somebody will have read a hint of the truth about Wakefield. [[User:Wythy|Wythy]] ([[User talk:Wythy|talk]]) 19:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)